Doriah Pacquette v The State
- Collection
- Court of Appeal
- Country
- Dominica
- Case number
- Judge
- Key terms
- Upstream post
- 45462
- AKN IRI
- /akn/ecsc/dm/coa/1992/judgment/doriah-pacquette-v-the-state/post-45462
-
45462-13.03.92-Dorian-Pacquette-v-State.pdf current 2026-06-21 03:24:12.90895+00 · 65,036 B
COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 1991 BETWEEN: DORIAH PACQUETTE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Floissac – President The Honourable Mr. Justice Byron J.A. The Honourable Mr:. Justice Redhead J.A.(Acting) Appearances: Mrs. Zena Oyer for the Appellant Mr. David Harris for the Respondent 1992: March 9th and 13th. JUDGMENT FLOISSAC, C.J. On the 28th May 1991, after a trial before Adams J. and a jury, the appellant was convicted of unlawful and carnal knowledge of a girl eight years old of under the age of 12 years contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendmer;t: Ordinance (Cap.33) and was He appealed sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years. against his sentence only. When the appeal came up for hearing on the 9th March 1992, Counsel for the appellant advised the Court that she had only recently been instructed ta appear for the appellant. She requested and was granted a short adjournment to study the record in order to form an opinion as to whether it disclosed an arguable statutory ground of appeal. This morning, counsel for the appellant requested a further adjournment to procure and study the notes of evidence in order to form the same opinion. The applicai:ion for the adjournment was refused beca·Jse it was in eEfect an application to embark on a fishing expedit.i.on which .is unlikely to be productive. However, Counsel sought to persuade the Court to reduce the sentence on the grounds that at the time of the commission of the offence the appellant was under 23 years of age, was gainfully employed, had a family dependent upon him and had no previous convictions. Regrettably, the victim was only 8 years old and was the niece of the appellant. These are powerful aggravating factors which militate against any clemency to the appellant and defy interference with the sentence. This appeal is therefore dismissed. (Sgd.) V.F.FLOISSAC CHIEF JUSTICE (Sgd.) D.BYRON JUSTICE OF APPEAL (Sgd.) A. REDHEAD < p style=”text-align: right;”>JUSTICE OF APPEAL (AG.)
| Run | Started | Status | Method | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18459 | 2026-06-21 18:05:48.723835+00 | ok | wordpress_content_fallback | 1 |
| 9121 | 2026-06-21 08:21:37.709436+00 | ok | wordpress_content_fallback | 3 |