Newsletter: le DPP pour une protection renforcée des témoins
Le Directeur des poursuites publiques (DPP), dans sa Newsletter de ce mois, se dit en faveur d’une protection renforcée des témoins après la récente découverte macabre d’ossements humains, présumés être la dépouille d’un témoin de la poursuite dans une récente affaire de drogue.
Content
Office of the
Director of
Public
Prosecutions
E-Newsletter
Issue 57
April 2016
‘To No One Will We Sell, To No One
Deny or Delay Right or Justice’
Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215
April 2016 - Issue 57
IN THIS ISSUE:
PAGE
Editorial
1
Pour une protection renforcée des témoins
2
Launching of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2014-2015
3
3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture and Advocacy Training 2016
4
The Maritime Crime and Justice Course (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
6
Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de justice
7
Summary of Supreme Court judgments
9
EDITORIAL TEAM
Miss Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel
Ms Zaynah Essop, State Counsel
Mrs Shaaheen Inshiraah Dawreeawoo, State Counsel
Mrs Pooja Autar-Callichurn , State Counsel
Mr Yashvind Kumar Rawoah, STM Intern (Legal Research)
Mr Ajmal Toofany, STM Intern (Legal)
Miss Jouana Genave, STM Intern (Sociology)
The views expressed in the articles are those of
the particular authors and should under no
account be considered as binding on the Office.
April 2016 - Issue 57
EDITORIAL
Dear Readers,
Welcome to the 57th issue of our newsletter. In light of the recent discovery of human
remains suspected to be those of a prosecution witness in a drug trafficking case, the
Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Satyajit Boolell, SC grapples with thought-provoking
issues, namely the need to set up a Witness Protection Scheme in Mauritius and the
possibility of making statements of absent witnesses admissible under our law, as it exists
in various Commonwealth countries.
“If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still while the rest of the
world goes on, and that will be bad for both.” Lord Denning (Parker v Parker[1954] All ER 22).
From this inspirational quote, one can take two important things: firstly, the value of doing things not done before and secondly,
the importance of not allowing rules, principles and values to stand still whilst the world moves on. In the same vein, the Office of
the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has, on 4th April 2016, launched the second edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law
Review (MCLR), a publication brimming with riveting legal articles by renowned jurists as well as case commentaries. The MCLR,
which is a non-profit making publication, is indeed a compendious epitome of research and opinions on pertinent legal topics,
which will no doubt shore up the toolkit of legal professionals.. On the same occasion, the ODPP also organised the 3rd Rajsoomer
Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture, delivered by Mrs Sarah Whitehouse, QC from 6 KBW College Hill, LONDON, on an intriguing
topic - ‘Secret Courts’.
Moreover, in this issue readers will have an insight of a three days’ advocacy training provided by Mrs Whitehouse to law officers
whereby mock cases as well as legal predicaments faced by the officers during their course of duties were propitiously discussed.
You will also have an overview of the workshops attended by our law officers recently, namely ‘The Maritime Crime and Justice
Course’ as well as the ‘1st Prosecutors’ Network Meeting’. This issue furthermore provides our readers with an interesting article
on “Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de justice” which addresses broadly the importance of responsible
journalism. Finally, in line with our usual endeavour to keep our readers updated on recent judgments delivered by the Supreme
Court, a synopsis of same is included. We wish our readers a pleasant reading.
Miss Anusha Rawoah,
State Counsel
Page 1
April 2016 - Issue 57
Pour une protection renforcée des témoins
La récente découverte macabre d’ossements humains, présumés être la dépouille d’un
témoin de la poursuite dans une récente affaire de drogue nous interpelle à questionner
la nécessité et l’efficacité de la protection des témoins en matière de poursuites pénales.
Les faits de l’espèce ont indubitablement un impact contraignant sur la volonté du
citoyen de se mettre en avant pour apporter son concours à la justice. L’intimidation des
témoins est passible de poursuites pénales en vertu de l’article 156 (2) du code pénal
mauricien qui prévoit une peine maximale de 5 ans et de Rs100,000. Cependant, cette
prévision législative est insuffisante pour garantir le bon fonctionnement du procès
pénal. Ainsi le statut de témoin doit faire l’objet d’une protection renforcée.
Le droit anglais accorde un régime juridique particulier permettant de protéger les témoins vulnérables et susceptibles
d’intimidation sous le ‘Youth Criminal Evidence Act 1999’. L’anonymisation du domicile ainsi que le témoignage sous-couvert
d’anonymat sont des dispositifs qui ont été consacrés dans bon nombre de juridictions y compris en France. Il serait loisible de
recommander une éventuelle étude sur la mise en place d’un « Witness Protection Scheme » qui permettrait à un témoin de
bénéficier de l’anonymat de son domicile ou de sa personne sous couvert de certaines conditions comme la compensation
financière ou la gravité de l’affaire. L’objet d’un tel dispositif est de protéger et d’accompagner le témoin, avant, pendant et
après le procès.
Autre élément saillant de la poursuite pénale a trait à la recevabilité du témoignage post-mortem. Le droit mauricien ne valide
pas une telle pratique et ainsi la mort d’un témoin peut constituer un mobile envisageable dans la commission d’une infraction.
Ceci revient à affirmer que la procédure pénale se doit de changer son mode opératoire si on veut garantir l’obtention d’une
condamnation dans l’éventualité de l’absence de comparution du dépositaire. La mise en place d’une telle disposition en droit
mauricien enlèvera tout intérêt de commettre une infraction à l’ égard du témoin car la preuve subsistera valablement.
Le droit anglais consacre à la section 116 du ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003’ la recevabilité du témoignage post-mortem ainsi que
d’autres témoignages formulés à l’écrit mais qui pour une raison ou une autre ne peuvent pas être donnés en cour. La récente
décision de R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14 illustre la recevabilité de la preuve des témoins absents dans certaines
circonstances. Cette entorse au ‘hearsay’ a été jugée comme s’alignant avec la section 6 de la Convention Européenne des Droits
de l’Homme qui prône le principe du droit à un procès équitable.
La mise en place d’un ‘witness protection scheme’ ainsi que la recevabilité des témoignages post-mortem sont des instruments
qui, en sus de contrer en amont les atteintes qui peuvent être portés à l’encontre des témoins, vont garantir la pleine efficacité
de la justice pénale. La valeur probante attachée au témoignage a un aspect primordial. Il faut agir et vite !
Satyajit Boolell, SC,
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Page 2
Launching of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review
2014-2015
April 2016 - Issue 57
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had the privilege to launch the second
edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2014-2015 this 4th of April 2016. The official
launch was made by Mrs Aruna Narain, Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court, also
member of the Editorial Board, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Satyajit Boolell
SC at the Rajsoomer Lallah Lecture Hall in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The launching ceremony was also marked by the annual lecture delivered by Mrs Sarah
Whitehouse, QC from 6 KBW College Hill, LONDON on ‘Secret Courts’.
Like the 1st edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review, the
second edition too is constituted of three parts. The first part of
the publication is devoted to articles by local and international
authors on legal updates and pertinent issues on the criminal
justice system. Topics such as “A charter for witness”, “Evaluating
the performance of a prosecuting agency and of individual
prosecutors”, “Interpretation and the Practice of Law”, “Magna
Carta”, “Proposition de réforme du code pénal mauricien: Droit
pénal général, infraction contre l’état et contravention” are to be
found.
The second part deals with commentaries on recent judgments delivered by the
Supreme Court of Mauritius and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. And
finally, the third part comprises of reviews of two recent books .
The Mauritius Criminal Law Review, which is a non-profit making publication, would
not have been fruitful without the hard work of the Editorial Board and the Editorial
subcommittee comprising of officers of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
and other contributors.
A copy of the
Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2015-2016
is available for sale at the office. All payments should be
made to the order of the Government of Mauritius.
Yashvind Kumar Rawoah,
STM Intern (Legal Research)
Page 3
April 2016 - Issue 57
3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture and
Advocacy Training 2016
Mrs Sarah Whitehouse QC, counsel from 6 KBW Chambers, London, delivered
the 3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture on 4th April 2016 and also
carried out the advocacy training from 5th to 7th April 2016 with law officers of
the ODPP.
During the annual memorial lecture, Mrs Whitehouse QC addressed the topic of
‘secret courts’, a subject which is of great interest in the United Kingdom. A
secret court is a legal mechanism which is known as closed material procedures
(CMP). Secret intelligence can be introduced by the government but will only be
seen by the judge and security-cleared "special advocates" . The special advocate
who represents the interest of an individual claimant cannot reveal precise
details of the evidence and may only provide a "gist" or loose summary.
Claimants may not, therefore, be aware of all the allegations made against them.
Critics say that this results in parties no longer being on an equal footing, tilting the advantage in the government's favour.
Closed hearings are not unprecedented. Cases in the family division of the high court relating to child custody and divorce
issues are regularly held in camera to protect privacy. CMPs are already used in employment tribunals, special immigration
appeals commission hearings and the investigatory powers tribunal, which handles complaints about the intelligence services.
The UK Justice and Security Act has recently extended them into the main civil courts, allowing the government to exploit
intelligence material to defend itself against claims for damages over alleged mistreatment such as rendition and torture. The
rationale for the change was to preserve the integrity of the UK's secret intelligence exchanges with the US and other allies. In
Australia, the head of the Federal Parliament's key security and intelligence committee has put controversial British-style secret
courts for terrorism cases on the political agenda, saying such an approach balances national security with judicial fairness.
However, the approach to secrets courts has been controversial. The special advocates themselves in Britain, in a jointsubmission to the government in 2012, said the closed courts "represent a departure from the foundational principle of natural
justice that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all the evidence relied upon before the court and to combat that
evidence by calling evidence of their own".
The lecture was followed by a 3-day advocacy training on appellate advocacy, trials and assize cases. Mrs Whitehouse QC
followed the Hampel method of training whilst assessing the various participants in the mock exercises. Mrs Whitehouse QC
emphasized that case preparation remains the most important part of the work of an advocate.
Sarah was appointed Queen’s Counsel and Senior Treasury Counsel in 2014. In 2011 Sarah was named Chambers and Partners
Crime Junior of the Year and in 2013 she was listed in the top 100 barristers in the United Kingdom. She is on the Attorney
Page 4
April 2016 - Issue 57
General’s list of special advocates. Sarah prosecutes and defends in a wide variety of cases, many of which are high profile. They
include murder, terrorism, corruption, sexual offences, fraud and cybercrime. She appears on a regular basis in the Court of
Appeal on behalf of both the appellants and the respondents as well as on behalf of the Attorney General. She is also
instructed to appear in the High Court in judicial reviews and appeals by way of case stated. Sarah also undertakes extensive
advisory work for public agencies, corporates and private individuals on a wide range of topics. As a former banker, she has an
excellent understanding of corporate and financial matters. She is frequently invited to speak at conferences and seminars on
topical legal issues. Sarah is a Grade A advocacy tutor and tutors on the annual international advocacy course at Keble College,
Oxford.
Zaynah Essop
State Counsel
Page 5
The Maritime Crime and Justice Course
(Colombo, Sri Lanka)
April 2016 - Issue 57
From the 15th to the 18th March 2016, Mr. Azam Neerooa, from the
Judiciary, Mrs. Audrey Sunglee, Ag SSC and myself participated in
the Maritime Crime and Justice Course in Colombo, Sri Lanka
organized by the UNODC. The course covered mostly Maritime Law
Enforcement and was highly interactive and touched upon topical
issues such as Maritime Security Enforcement, Mutual Legal
Assistance and International Cooperation.
From the 21st to the 23rd March, at the same venue, I participated in the 1st Prosecutors’ Network Meeting of
the Indian Ocean Forum for Maritime Crime (IOFMC) organised by the UNODC. The setting up of this
network was proposed last year during the Technical Meeting of the IOFMC on Heroin Trafficking in the
Maritime Domain in Seychelles held from March 30 to April 1, 2015. The objectives of last year’s meeting
were to develop regional cooperation among drug enforcement agencies and generate practical and
achievable recommendations to counter heroin trafficking in the Maritime domain. Thus to achieve this
aim, the establishment of an inter-regional network of prosecutors working to combat drug trafficking and
other transnational crimes under the umbrella of the IOFMC was proposed. In the course of this 1st
Prosecutor’s Network Meeting, recommendations were made with a view to strengthen and enhance
regional and national law enforcement cooperation and capacity, and also to enhance regional prosecutors
cooperation as well as victim and witness protection and also to secure an online platform.
Rehnu Gowry-Bhurrut,
Ag Principal State Counsel
Page 6
Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de
justice
April 2016 - Issue 57
Les accusés ont des droits ! Oui ce n'est un secret pour personne. Notre Constitution, en
son article 10, nous donne une liste de droits des accusés. L'article 10(1) stipule que "toute
personne accusée d'un délit (...) a droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable,
par une cour indépendante et impartiale."
Tout d'abord mettons les choses dans leurs contextes. La finalité souhaitée dans toute
procédure pénale est que les accusés se retrouvent devant une cour indépendante et
compétente et qu'ils soient jugés. Or, toutes les poursuites n'amènent pas forcément à une
condamnation. Il arrive parfois que les accusés ne puissent être poursuivis parce qu'ils ne
peuvent avoir un procès équitable.
Il y a 25 ans de l'affaire "Birmingham Six"
L'affaire R. v. McIlkenny, Hunter, Walker, Callaghan, Hill and Power (1991) 93 Crim. App. R. 287, plus connue sous le nom de
"Birmingham Six", est l'un des cas les plus célèbres du Royaume Uni. Le 14 mars 2016 a marqué les 25 ans de la décision de cour
d'appel de les innocenter en cassant le verdict de culpabilité de la cour de première instance. Ils avaient été trouvé coupable de
l'attaque à la bombe qui a fait 21 morts et 182 blessés le 21 novembre 1974 dans deux tavernes à Birmingham.
L'analogie entre le sujet traité dans cet article et cette affaire est un peu moins connue que la formidable histoire faisant la
lumière sur des éventuelles erreurs judiciaires. Il s'agit des officiers du West Midlands Police qui ont enquêté sur ce cas. " Les
officiers de police ont menti lors du procès et ont fabriqué une partie ou l'intégralité des témoignages recueillies." Cette
déclaration de la cour d'appel avait choqué plus d'uns, qui ne pouvaient concevoir, à l'époque, que la police pouvait
éventuellement mentir. Il faut rappeler que l'énigmatique Lord Denning pensait lui aussi qu'il était inconcevable que la police
puisse mentir.
Après une énorme campagne de stigmatisation par la presse anglaise, le procès contre le surintendant de police Reade ainsi que
deux autres officiers pour parjure et pour avoir comploté afin d'entraver le cours de la justice n'a pu avoir lieu. Le juge Garland,
dans l'affaire R. v Reade, unreported, CCC, devait statuer que certains articles et reportages étaient "tellement irresponsables et
préjudiciables" que cela "rendrait impossible l'administration de la justice". Il faut toutefois savoir que le procès était devant un
jury contrairement à Maurice où ce cas aurait été devant un magistrat.
Page 7
April 2016 - Issue 57
Dans R v Kray and Ors [(1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 412] par contre, la cour a déclaré " beaucoup de journaux ont commenté les preuves
avant le procès. Je n'aurais rien vu de mal en cela si le commentaire était équitable".
Trial by the press à Maurice
La motion de Pre-trial Publicity ou de Trial by the press à Maurice, n'est pas chose commune quoi que certains avocats l'ont
tentée sans grand succès. Un signe que la presse mauricienne est relativement responsable dans ses choix et que la liberté
d'expression a une estime particulière auprès de notre judiciaire. Dans l'affaire State v Bacha (1996), la motion d'abus de
procédure a été débattue et la cour a statué qu' "un article de presse peut être préjudiciable à un procès équitable seulement si les
jurés le lisent, y croient, s'en souviennent, et agissent de façon à montrer une préférence pour les preuves qu'ils reçoivent pendant
le procès malgré les instructions reçues". Les articles visés dans la motion dataient de 18 mois avant le procès.
Dans un article sur le rôle des médias (http://dpp.govmu.org/English/Documents/publication/media.pdf), le Directeur des
poursuites publiques Satyajit Boolell, SC explique que "la relation symbiotique entre le judiciaire et les médias reste un paradoxe."
"Un État de droit a besoin d'une presse libre et indépendante et d'un judiciaire indépendant. Il est de notre responsabilité en tant
que société de maintenir une presse libre et indépendante," expliquait le DPP. Et que les médias ont le devoir de prendre ses
responsabilités envers ses lecteurs de maintenir leur impartialité et leur indépendance.
Conclusion
Si la motion d'abus de procédure à cause des commentaires dans la presse n'a jamais été accordée à la défense à Maurice, il serait
toutefois judicieux pour les médias de rester prudent. Pour cela, il est important pour les journalistes de garder une éthique
exemplaire et de faire preuve de diligence en rapportant certains évènements car les membres du jury ne sont pas toujours
séquestrés.
Le Journalisme responsable et le juste équilibre entre la liberté d'expression, l'intérêt public et le respect de la réputation des
individus. Le maintien de cette norme est dans l'intérêt public et ceux dont la réputation est impliquée. Cela peut être considéré
par les journalistes comme le prix à payer pour le privilège qu'ils du privilège reçu. [citation de Lord Nicholls dans l'affaire
Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300, 309]
Ashley Victor
Page 8
SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS:
February 2016
THE STATE v SOOKUR [2016] SCJ 48
By Hon. J. Benjamin G, Marie Joseph, JudgeKey terms
Murder – Penal Servitude For Life
The Accused was found guilty of the offence of murder on the person
of one Jessica Winny Stacey Henrisson, in breach of Sections 216, 217
and 222 (1) of the Criminal Code by a jury by a majority verdict of 7 to
2.
Following the death of her father in October 2011, the deceased who
was then 17, was living under the roof of the accused and her mother.
In 2011, she inherited the estate of her late father which was worth
millions. In May 2012, the Accused, his daughter, his son and the
deceased returned from a trip to India, while the deceased’s mother
remained there for medical purposes. On 05.05.12, the Accused was
alone with the deceased and thereafter the deceased was discovered
on 12.05.12 in a ravine at Plaine Champagne in a state of
decomposition.
The Accused was thereafter arrested and he confessed that he killed
the deceased on 05.05.12 by smothering her to death and disposed of
her body with the help of his driver in the ravine. He also confessed in
those statements that he tried to cover up the crime by getting rid of
the personal belongings of the deceased in order to make believe that
she had ran away from home.
Afterwards, the Accused retracted his confessions and alleged that he
was subject to police brutality and that the crime was actually
committed by his driver, the latter’s on and the deceased uncle and
aunt, which version obviously the Jury did not retain.
At the hearing of the matter for the purpose of sentence, Counsel for
the Prosecution submitted that the accused deserved penal servitude
for life and that the maximum of 60 years should be imposed.
Counsel for the Prosecution referred to several salient features
namely, the fact that the deceased was smothered to death at a time
when she was unable to defend herself, that it was a cold blooded
murder and contended that the Accused after having killed the
deceased dumped her body like an animal and lastly that there
conduct of the accused towards the deceased was one which can only
be characterised by a complete breach of trust.
The Court held that the accused deprived the deceased of her life in a
most horrendous manner and in trying to explain his misdeed, the
April 2016 - Issue 57
Accused tried to come with several versions which did not hold
water. However, the evidence disclosed facts and circumstances
indicating the possible motive of the Accused as being that of
appropriation of the wealth which the deceased had inherited
rather than the alleged bad conduct. The Court therefore sentenced
the Accused to penal servitude for life.
UTEENE M R v THE STATE [2016 ]SCJ 51
By Hon. D.Chan Kan Cheong, Judge and Hon. O.B.Madhub, Judge
The Principles of Sentencing - Discount – Mitigation
This is an appeal against a sentence of 5 years penal servitude,
inflicted by the Intermediate Court on the appellant, upon a charge
of drug dealing, namely importation of 221.6 grams of cannabis
resin (hashish), in breach of section 30(1)(b)(ii) and 47(5)(a) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, on the ground that same is harsh and
excessive.
The Accused at the very early stage of the proceedings, pleaded
guilty to the charge and after the hearing, the learned Magistrate
sentenced the accused, to five years penal servitude as well as a fine
of Rs 100,000.
Counsel for the Appellant did not dispute the fact that the learned
Magistrate did take on board all the mitigating factors raised
during the course of the hearing, but she was of the view that each
mitigating factor should have been allocated a specific discount as
was done by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in the case of
Voong v The Queen [2000] WASCA 220 (August 2000) and not a
global discount as was done in the present case.
Counsel further did not dispute the fact that a custodial sentence
was warranted, but was of the view that a sentence of 2 to 3 years
imprisonment would have been more appropriate in the present
case.
The respondent on the other hand submitted that the Magistrate
did look into all the issues and inflicted the proper sentence, which
in Counsel’s submissions, was neither harsh nor excessive. He drew
a parallel with the cases of Raynal v The State [2009 SCJ 411] and
Suddason v The State [2011 SCJ 206], whereby he submitted that if
the methodology advocated by Counsel for the appellant is to be
adopted, then the appellant should have been met with a more
severe sentence.
Page 9
The Court thereafter held that irrespective of any minimum sentence
stated in the legislation, it will also look at the proportionality of the
sentence, and the need to individualise the sentence. Moreover the
sentence should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
In addition, the Court will take into account time spent in custody in
the final sentence to be imposed. It went on to concluded that the
learned Magistrate, in a well-reasoned judgment, has highlighted the
different matters he has taken into account before considering that
the accused deserved a custodial sentence. This included the early
plea of guilty, the seriousness and nature of the offence for which the
accused stood charged, the quantity, value and nature of drug
involved and the mitigating circumstances that played in his favour.
He then considered the proportionality aspect of the sentence, before
concluding that a term of 5 years’ penal servitude, which is also the
minimum sentence under the law, was the appropriate term. He
further ordered that the time spent by the accused in custody be
deducted from that sentence.
April 2016 - Issue 57
deleting the words “Part I” in the definition of “Classified Trade”
with reference to the Eighth Schedule of the Act, thus leaving only
Part II in existence.
As a result of that amendment the section of the law which creates
the offence, namely section 102 (3) of The Act only makes it an
offence to trade without licence in relation to classified trades
specified in Part II of the Eighth Schedule of The Act, and as the
trade in relation to which the appellant was convicted is to be found
under the previous Part I and not in Part II, no offence has therefore
been created by the legislator in relation to that activity (selling of
foodstuff (mobile)), for which the appellant stood charged in
accordance with the information preferred against him.
The Court in its examination of the sections of the law held that the
Prosecution had to prove that the said trade or activity falls under
Part II of the said schedule. One of the essential elements of the
The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly harsh and
offence was therefore not proved because “seller of foodstuff (mobile)
excessive and did not warrant their intervention. The appeal was
was not to be found anywhere in Part II but was in Part I.
dismissed.
In view of the above and the stand of the Respondent, the Court had
OLLITE A R v THE STATE OF MAURITIUS [2016] SCJ 63
no option but to quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant
By Hon. A.Hamuth, Judge and Hon. G. Jugessur-Manna, Judge
and consequently the information was dismissed against him.
Carrying Out A Classified Trade Without The Authorisation Of The
Permits And Business Monitoring Committee – Offence Not Known CAWDER M R v THE STATE [2016] SCJ 65
By Hon. N. Devat, Judge and Hon. D. Chan Kan Cheong, Judge
to Law
This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Magistrate of Competency Test – Fresh Trial
the Upper Plaines Wilhems District Court, convicting the appellant,
then accused, of the offence of carrying out a classified trade without
the authorisation of the Permits and Business Monitoring Committee
(of the Municipal Council of Curepipe), in breach of sections 2, 102
(3), (a), (b) and 140 of the Local Government Act 2003 (The Act), as
amended by the Business Facilitation Act 2006.
This is an appeal against a judgment of the learned Magistrate of
the District Court of Lower Plaines Wilhems finding the appellant
guilty as charged of involuntary wounds and blows by imprudence
in breach of section 239(2) of the Criminal Code coupled with
sections 133(1)(2) and 52 of the Road Traffic Act.
The Appellant was then charged with having on 19 November 2009,
carried out a “classified trade specified in Part II of the Eighth
Schedule, to wit: seller of foodstuff(mobile) without the authorization
of the permits and business monitoring committee acting under the
authority of the chief executive and on payment of the prescribed fee”
The case for the Prosecution was that the Appellant was driving a
van, overtook a stationary vehicle and went to knock against a young
boy. The latter was coming in the opposite direction on his bicycle
and had stopped on seeing the oncoming van. The learned
Magistrate relied on the evidence of the young boy (the
complainant) to convict the appellant.
The Respondent conceded that the Appellant has been convicted of
an offence which does not exist in law in as much as Section 2 of the
Act was amended with effect as from 01 October 2006 by section 7 of
the Business Facilitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 by
It was undisputed that this appeal should be allowed on the ground
that the learned Magistrate failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain
whether the complainant, who was then aged 11, understood the
nature of an oath before giving evidence.
Page 10
The court relied on the case of Jeetah v The State [2014 SCJ 337] in
which the Supreme Court reviewed the law on the evidence of child
witnesses. It was held that any child witness – whether or not the
alleged victim in the case – above the age of 9 and under 14 is able to
depose only upon taking an oath or a solemn affirmation under
Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act but must be subjected to a
competency test before being allowed to do so.
April 2016 - Issue 57
Based on the above and the contents of the letters, the Court held
that the Respondent intended to undermine public confidence in
the administration of justice. The Court went to state that the nature
and extent of these wide-ranging and emphatic assertions of
partiality, bias, bribery and gross misconduct on the part of these
judges established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent
was not involved in any fair criticism in good faith of the judiciary
but was bent on undermining public confidence in the
administration of justice.
It was clear according to the Judges, that the child was not subjected to
a competency test by the learned Magistrate before being allowed to
give evidence under solemn affirmation. The Court thus held that his
evidence was null and void. The Court went on to conclude that since
the learned Magistrate relied on that evidence to find the Appellant
guilty as charged and there was no other evidence establishing his The fact that the Respondent stated in his affidavits that the
Judiciary in Mauritius was a butchery, no longer independent, not
guilt, his conviction cannot stand.
impartial and that he wanted the “whole of Mauritius to lose
Since that it was a common stand that the case be remitted for a fresh
confidence in the judiciary”, the Court was bond to concluded that it
trial, the Court ordered same. The appeal was thus allowed, the trial
was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent acted in
was declared a nullity and a fresh trial before a different Magistrate
bad faith and intended to undermine the public confidence in the
was ordered.
administration of justice. He was therefore found guilty of contempt
for having publicly scandalised the Supreme Court and brought the
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v DABY R [2016] SCJ 73
administration of justice into disrepute.
By Hon. A. Caunhye, Judge
Contempt Of Court – Scandalising the Supreme Court – Bringing the The fact that the Respondent did not show any remorse, persisted in
Administration of Justice Into Disrepute
maintaining all his allegations, that the allegations were of a serious
The Applicant brought contempt of Court proceedings against the nature and that the Respondent did not offer any apology, the Court
Respondent on the ground that the latter had publicly scandalized the sentenced the Respondent to undergo four months’ imprisonment
Supreme Court and brought the administration of justice into and to pay a fine of Rs 100,000.
disrepute.
The Respondent wrote 3 letters which were addressed to the Prime
Minister, some members of Parliament, the Chief Justice and copied to
other persons which included the Attorney-General, the Solicitor
General, the Master and Registrar and some Magistrates.
Through his letters, the Respondent sought to show that it was the
members of the Judiciary themselves who were bringing the judiciary
into disrepute and he had been consequently victimized as a litigant or
party. He did not deny the tenor and contents of the letters which
constitute the subject matter of the present motion for contempt.
“Be who you are and say what you feel,
because those who mind don't matter, and
those who matter don't mind.”
- Bernard M. Baruch
The Court considered the case of Dhooharika v The Director of Public
Prosecutions [2014] UKPC 11 in which it was stated that where the
defendant was acting in good faith, he had a defence to any allegation
of contempt by scandalizing the Court and the burden was on the
prosecution to prove absence of good faith.
Page 11
Director of
Public
Prosecutions
E-Newsletter
Issue 57
April 2016
‘To No One Will We Sell, To No One
Deny or Delay Right or Justice’
Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215
April 2016 - Issue 57
IN THIS ISSUE:
PAGE
Editorial
1
Pour une protection renforcée des témoins
2
Launching of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2014-2015
3
3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture and Advocacy Training 2016
4
The Maritime Crime and Justice Course (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
6
Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de justice
7
Summary of Supreme Court judgments
9
EDITORIAL TEAM
Miss Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel
Ms Zaynah Essop, State Counsel
Mrs Shaaheen Inshiraah Dawreeawoo, State Counsel
Mrs Pooja Autar-Callichurn , State Counsel
Mr Yashvind Kumar Rawoah, STM Intern (Legal Research)
Mr Ajmal Toofany, STM Intern (Legal)
Miss Jouana Genave, STM Intern (Sociology)
The views expressed in the articles are those of
the particular authors and should under no
account be considered as binding on the Office.
April 2016 - Issue 57
EDITORIAL
Dear Readers,
Welcome to the 57th issue of our newsletter. In light of the recent discovery of human
remains suspected to be those of a prosecution witness in a drug trafficking case, the
Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Satyajit Boolell, SC grapples with thought-provoking
issues, namely the need to set up a Witness Protection Scheme in Mauritius and the
possibility of making statements of absent witnesses admissible under our law, as it exists
in various Commonwealth countries.
“If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still while the rest of the
world goes on, and that will be bad for both.” Lord Denning (Parker v Parker[1954] All ER 22).
From this inspirational quote, one can take two important things: firstly, the value of doing things not done before and secondly,
the importance of not allowing rules, principles and values to stand still whilst the world moves on. In the same vein, the Office of
the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has, on 4th April 2016, launched the second edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law
Review (MCLR), a publication brimming with riveting legal articles by renowned jurists as well as case commentaries. The MCLR,
which is a non-profit making publication, is indeed a compendious epitome of research and opinions on pertinent legal topics,
which will no doubt shore up the toolkit of legal professionals.. On the same occasion, the ODPP also organised the 3rd Rajsoomer
Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture, delivered by Mrs Sarah Whitehouse, QC from 6 KBW College Hill, LONDON, on an intriguing
topic - ‘Secret Courts’.
Moreover, in this issue readers will have an insight of a three days’ advocacy training provided by Mrs Whitehouse to law officers
whereby mock cases as well as legal predicaments faced by the officers during their course of duties were propitiously discussed.
You will also have an overview of the workshops attended by our law officers recently, namely ‘The Maritime Crime and Justice
Course’ as well as the ‘1st Prosecutors’ Network Meeting’. This issue furthermore provides our readers with an interesting article
on “Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de justice” which addresses broadly the importance of responsible
journalism. Finally, in line with our usual endeavour to keep our readers updated on recent judgments delivered by the Supreme
Court, a synopsis of same is included. We wish our readers a pleasant reading.
Miss Anusha Rawoah,
State Counsel
Page 1
April 2016 - Issue 57
Pour une protection renforcée des témoins
La récente découverte macabre d’ossements humains, présumés être la dépouille d’un
témoin de la poursuite dans une récente affaire de drogue nous interpelle à questionner
la nécessité et l’efficacité de la protection des témoins en matière de poursuites pénales.
Les faits de l’espèce ont indubitablement un impact contraignant sur la volonté du
citoyen de se mettre en avant pour apporter son concours à la justice. L’intimidation des
témoins est passible de poursuites pénales en vertu de l’article 156 (2) du code pénal
mauricien qui prévoit une peine maximale de 5 ans et de Rs100,000. Cependant, cette
prévision législative est insuffisante pour garantir le bon fonctionnement du procès
pénal. Ainsi le statut de témoin doit faire l’objet d’une protection renforcée.
Le droit anglais accorde un régime juridique particulier permettant de protéger les témoins vulnérables et susceptibles
d’intimidation sous le ‘Youth Criminal Evidence Act 1999’. L’anonymisation du domicile ainsi que le témoignage sous-couvert
d’anonymat sont des dispositifs qui ont été consacrés dans bon nombre de juridictions y compris en France. Il serait loisible de
recommander une éventuelle étude sur la mise en place d’un « Witness Protection Scheme » qui permettrait à un témoin de
bénéficier de l’anonymat de son domicile ou de sa personne sous couvert de certaines conditions comme la compensation
financière ou la gravité de l’affaire. L’objet d’un tel dispositif est de protéger et d’accompagner le témoin, avant, pendant et
après le procès.
Autre élément saillant de la poursuite pénale a trait à la recevabilité du témoignage post-mortem. Le droit mauricien ne valide
pas une telle pratique et ainsi la mort d’un témoin peut constituer un mobile envisageable dans la commission d’une infraction.
Ceci revient à affirmer que la procédure pénale se doit de changer son mode opératoire si on veut garantir l’obtention d’une
condamnation dans l’éventualité de l’absence de comparution du dépositaire. La mise en place d’une telle disposition en droit
mauricien enlèvera tout intérêt de commettre une infraction à l’ égard du témoin car la preuve subsistera valablement.
Le droit anglais consacre à la section 116 du ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003’ la recevabilité du témoignage post-mortem ainsi que
d’autres témoignages formulés à l’écrit mais qui pour une raison ou une autre ne peuvent pas être donnés en cour. La récente
décision de R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14 illustre la recevabilité de la preuve des témoins absents dans certaines
circonstances. Cette entorse au ‘hearsay’ a été jugée comme s’alignant avec la section 6 de la Convention Européenne des Droits
de l’Homme qui prône le principe du droit à un procès équitable.
La mise en place d’un ‘witness protection scheme’ ainsi que la recevabilité des témoignages post-mortem sont des instruments
qui, en sus de contrer en amont les atteintes qui peuvent être portés à l’encontre des témoins, vont garantir la pleine efficacité
de la justice pénale. La valeur probante attachée au témoignage a un aspect primordial. Il faut agir et vite !
Satyajit Boolell, SC,
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Page 2
Launching of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review
2014-2015
April 2016 - Issue 57
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had the privilege to launch the second
edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2014-2015 this 4th of April 2016. The official
launch was made by Mrs Aruna Narain, Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court, also
member of the Editorial Board, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Satyajit Boolell
SC at the Rajsoomer Lallah Lecture Hall in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The launching ceremony was also marked by the annual lecture delivered by Mrs Sarah
Whitehouse, QC from 6 KBW College Hill, LONDON on ‘Secret Courts’.
Like the 1st edition of the Mauritius Criminal Law Review, the
second edition too is constituted of three parts. The first part of
the publication is devoted to articles by local and international
authors on legal updates and pertinent issues on the criminal
justice system. Topics such as “A charter for witness”, “Evaluating
the performance of a prosecuting agency and of individual
prosecutors”, “Interpretation and the Practice of Law”, “Magna
Carta”, “Proposition de réforme du code pénal mauricien: Droit
pénal général, infraction contre l’état et contravention” are to be
found.
The second part deals with commentaries on recent judgments delivered by the
Supreme Court of Mauritius and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. And
finally, the third part comprises of reviews of two recent books .
The Mauritius Criminal Law Review, which is a non-profit making publication, would
not have been fruitful without the hard work of the Editorial Board and the Editorial
subcommittee comprising of officers of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
and other contributors.
A copy of the
Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2015-2016
is available for sale at the office. All payments should be
made to the order of the Government of Mauritius.
Yashvind Kumar Rawoah,
STM Intern (Legal Research)
Page 3
April 2016 - Issue 57
3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture and
Advocacy Training 2016
Mrs Sarah Whitehouse QC, counsel from 6 KBW Chambers, London, delivered
the 3rd Rajsoomer Lallah Annual Memorial Lecture on 4th April 2016 and also
carried out the advocacy training from 5th to 7th April 2016 with law officers of
the ODPP.
During the annual memorial lecture, Mrs Whitehouse QC addressed the topic of
‘secret courts’, a subject which is of great interest in the United Kingdom. A
secret court is a legal mechanism which is known as closed material procedures
(CMP). Secret intelligence can be introduced by the government but will only be
seen by the judge and security-cleared "special advocates" . The special advocate
who represents the interest of an individual claimant cannot reveal precise
details of the evidence and may only provide a "gist" or loose summary.
Claimants may not, therefore, be aware of all the allegations made against them.
Critics say that this results in parties no longer being on an equal footing, tilting the advantage in the government's favour.
Closed hearings are not unprecedented. Cases in the family division of the high court relating to child custody and divorce
issues are regularly held in camera to protect privacy. CMPs are already used in employment tribunals, special immigration
appeals commission hearings and the investigatory powers tribunal, which handles complaints about the intelligence services.
The UK Justice and Security Act has recently extended them into the main civil courts, allowing the government to exploit
intelligence material to defend itself against claims for damages over alleged mistreatment such as rendition and torture. The
rationale for the change was to preserve the integrity of the UK's secret intelligence exchanges with the US and other allies. In
Australia, the head of the Federal Parliament's key security and intelligence committee has put controversial British-style secret
courts for terrorism cases on the political agenda, saying such an approach balances national security with judicial fairness.
However, the approach to secrets courts has been controversial. The special advocates themselves in Britain, in a jointsubmission to the government in 2012, said the closed courts "represent a departure from the foundational principle of natural
justice that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all the evidence relied upon before the court and to combat that
evidence by calling evidence of their own".
The lecture was followed by a 3-day advocacy training on appellate advocacy, trials and assize cases. Mrs Whitehouse QC
followed the Hampel method of training whilst assessing the various participants in the mock exercises. Mrs Whitehouse QC
emphasized that case preparation remains the most important part of the work of an advocate.
Sarah was appointed Queen’s Counsel and Senior Treasury Counsel in 2014. In 2011 Sarah was named Chambers and Partners
Crime Junior of the Year and in 2013 she was listed in the top 100 barristers in the United Kingdom. She is on the Attorney
Page 4
April 2016 - Issue 57
General’s list of special advocates. Sarah prosecutes and defends in a wide variety of cases, many of which are high profile. They
include murder, terrorism, corruption, sexual offences, fraud and cybercrime. She appears on a regular basis in the Court of
Appeal on behalf of both the appellants and the respondents as well as on behalf of the Attorney General. She is also
instructed to appear in the High Court in judicial reviews and appeals by way of case stated. Sarah also undertakes extensive
advisory work for public agencies, corporates and private individuals on a wide range of topics. As a former banker, she has an
excellent understanding of corporate and financial matters. She is frequently invited to speak at conferences and seminars on
topical legal issues. Sarah is a Grade A advocacy tutor and tutors on the annual international advocacy course at Keble College,
Oxford.
Zaynah Essop
State Counsel
Page 5
The Maritime Crime and Justice Course
(Colombo, Sri Lanka)
April 2016 - Issue 57
From the 15th to the 18th March 2016, Mr. Azam Neerooa, from the
Judiciary, Mrs. Audrey Sunglee, Ag SSC and myself participated in
the Maritime Crime and Justice Course in Colombo, Sri Lanka
organized by the UNODC. The course covered mostly Maritime Law
Enforcement and was highly interactive and touched upon topical
issues such as Maritime Security Enforcement, Mutual Legal
Assistance and International Cooperation.
From the 21st to the 23rd March, at the same venue, I participated in the 1st Prosecutors’ Network Meeting of
the Indian Ocean Forum for Maritime Crime (IOFMC) organised by the UNODC. The setting up of this
network was proposed last year during the Technical Meeting of the IOFMC on Heroin Trafficking in the
Maritime Domain in Seychelles held from March 30 to April 1, 2015. The objectives of last year’s meeting
were to develop regional cooperation among drug enforcement agencies and generate practical and
achievable recommendations to counter heroin trafficking in the Maritime domain. Thus to achieve this
aim, the establishment of an inter-regional network of prosecutors working to combat drug trafficking and
other transnational crimes under the umbrella of the IOFMC was proposed. In the course of this 1st
Prosecutor’s Network Meeting, recommendations were made with a view to strengthen and enhance
regional and national law enforcement cooperation and capacity, and also to enhance regional prosecutors
cooperation as well as victim and witness protection and also to secure an online platform.
Rehnu Gowry-Bhurrut,
Ag Principal State Counsel
Page 6
Le droit à l'information et le devoir envers une cour de
justice
April 2016 - Issue 57
Les accusés ont des droits ! Oui ce n'est un secret pour personne. Notre Constitution, en
son article 10, nous donne une liste de droits des accusés. L'article 10(1) stipule que "toute
personne accusée d'un délit (...) a droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable,
par une cour indépendante et impartiale."
Tout d'abord mettons les choses dans leurs contextes. La finalité souhaitée dans toute
procédure pénale est que les accusés se retrouvent devant une cour indépendante et
compétente et qu'ils soient jugés. Or, toutes les poursuites n'amènent pas forcément à une
condamnation. Il arrive parfois que les accusés ne puissent être poursuivis parce qu'ils ne
peuvent avoir un procès équitable.
Il y a 25 ans de l'affaire "Birmingham Six"
L'affaire R. v. McIlkenny, Hunter, Walker, Callaghan, Hill and Power (1991) 93 Crim. App. R. 287, plus connue sous le nom de
"Birmingham Six", est l'un des cas les plus célèbres du Royaume Uni. Le 14 mars 2016 a marqué les 25 ans de la décision de cour
d'appel de les innocenter en cassant le verdict de culpabilité de la cour de première instance. Ils avaient été trouvé coupable de
l'attaque à la bombe qui a fait 21 morts et 182 blessés le 21 novembre 1974 dans deux tavernes à Birmingham.
L'analogie entre le sujet traité dans cet article et cette affaire est un peu moins connue que la formidable histoire faisant la
lumière sur des éventuelles erreurs judiciaires. Il s'agit des officiers du West Midlands Police qui ont enquêté sur ce cas. " Les
officiers de police ont menti lors du procès et ont fabriqué une partie ou l'intégralité des témoignages recueillies." Cette
déclaration de la cour d'appel avait choqué plus d'uns, qui ne pouvaient concevoir, à l'époque, que la police pouvait
éventuellement mentir. Il faut rappeler que l'énigmatique Lord Denning pensait lui aussi qu'il était inconcevable que la police
puisse mentir.
Après une énorme campagne de stigmatisation par la presse anglaise, le procès contre le surintendant de police Reade ainsi que
deux autres officiers pour parjure et pour avoir comploté afin d'entraver le cours de la justice n'a pu avoir lieu. Le juge Garland,
dans l'affaire R. v Reade, unreported, CCC, devait statuer que certains articles et reportages étaient "tellement irresponsables et
préjudiciables" que cela "rendrait impossible l'administration de la justice". Il faut toutefois savoir que le procès était devant un
jury contrairement à Maurice où ce cas aurait été devant un magistrat.
Page 7
April 2016 - Issue 57
Dans R v Kray and Ors [(1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 412] par contre, la cour a déclaré " beaucoup de journaux ont commenté les preuves
avant le procès. Je n'aurais rien vu de mal en cela si le commentaire était équitable".
Trial by the press à Maurice
La motion de Pre-trial Publicity ou de Trial by the press à Maurice, n'est pas chose commune quoi que certains avocats l'ont
tentée sans grand succès. Un signe que la presse mauricienne est relativement responsable dans ses choix et que la liberté
d'expression a une estime particulière auprès de notre judiciaire. Dans l'affaire State v Bacha (1996), la motion d'abus de
procédure a été débattue et la cour a statué qu' "un article de presse peut être préjudiciable à un procès équitable seulement si les
jurés le lisent, y croient, s'en souviennent, et agissent de façon à montrer une préférence pour les preuves qu'ils reçoivent pendant
le procès malgré les instructions reçues". Les articles visés dans la motion dataient de 18 mois avant le procès.
Dans un article sur le rôle des médias (http://dpp.govmu.org/English/Documents/publication/media.pdf), le Directeur des
poursuites publiques Satyajit Boolell, SC explique que "la relation symbiotique entre le judiciaire et les médias reste un paradoxe."
"Un État de droit a besoin d'une presse libre et indépendante et d'un judiciaire indépendant. Il est de notre responsabilité en tant
que société de maintenir une presse libre et indépendante," expliquait le DPP. Et que les médias ont le devoir de prendre ses
responsabilités envers ses lecteurs de maintenir leur impartialité et leur indépendance.
Conclusion
Si la motion d'abus de procédure à cause des commentaires dans la presse n'a jamais été accordée à la défense à Maurice, il serait
toutefois judicieux pour les médias de rester prudent. Pour cela, il est important pour les journalistes de garder une éthique
exemplaire et de faire preuve de diligence en rapportant certains évènements car les membres du jury ne sont pas toujours
séquestrés.
Le Journalisme responsable et le juste équilibre entre la liberté d'expression, l'intérêt public et le respect de la réputation des
individus. Le maintien de cette norme est dans l'intérêt public et ceux dont la réputation est impliquée. Cela peut être considéré
par les journalistes comme le prix à payer pour le privilège qu'ils du privilège reçu. [citation de Lord Nicholls dans l'affaire
Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300, 309]
Ashley Victor
Page 8
SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS:
February 2016
THE STATE v SOOKUR [2016] SCJ 48
By Hon. J. Benjamin G, Marie Joseph, JudgeKey terms
Murder – Penal Servitude For Life
The Accused was found guilty of the offence of murder on the person
of one Jessica Winny Stacey Henrisson, in breach of Sections 216, 217
and 222 (1) of the Criminal Code by a jury by a majority verdict of 7 to
2.
Following the death of her father in October 2011, the deceased who
was then 17, was living under the roof of the accused and her mother.
In 2011, she inherited the estate of her late father which was worth
millions. In May 2012, the Accused, his daughter, his son and the
deceased returned from a trip to India, while the deceased’s mother
remained there for medical purposes. On 05.05.12, the Accused was
alone with the deceased and thereafter the deceased was discovered
on 12.05.12 in a ravine at Plaine Champagne in a state of
decomposition.
The Accused was thereafter arrested and he confessed that he killed
the deceased on 05.05.12 by smothering her to death and disposed of
her body with the help of his driver in the ravine. He also confessed in
those statements that he tried to cover up the crime by getting rid of
the personal belongings of the deceased in order to make believe that
she had ran away from home.
Afterwards, the Accused retracted his confessions and alleged that he
was subject to police brutality and that the crime was actually
committed by his driver, the latter’s on and the deceased uncle and
aunt, which version obviously the Jury did not retain.
At the hearing of the matter for the purpose of sentence, Counsel for
the Prosecution submitted that the accused deserved penal servitude
for life and that the maximum of 60 years should be imposed.
Counsel for the Prosecution referred to several salient features
namely, the fact that the deceased was smothered to death at a time
when she was unable to defend herself, that it was a cold blooded
murder and contended that the Accused after having killed the
deceased dumped her body like an animal and lastly that there
conduct of the accused towards the deceased was one which can only
be characterised by a complete breach of trust.
The Court held that the accused deprived the deceased of her life in a
most horrendous manner and in trying to explain his misdeed, the
April 2016 - Issue 57
Accused tried to come with several versions which did not hold
water. However, the evidence disclosed facts and circumstances
indicating the possible motive of the Accused as being that of
appropriation of the wealth which the deceased had inherited
rather than the alleged bad conduct. The Court therefore sentenced
the Accused to penal servitude for life.
UTEENE M R v THE STATE [2016 ]SCJ 51
By Hon. D.Chan Kan Cheong, Judge and Hon. O.B.Madhub, Judge
The Principles of Sentencing - Discount – Mitigation
This is an appeal against a sentence of 5 years penal servitude,
inflicted by the Intermediate Court on the appellant, upon a charge
of drug dealing, namely importation of 221.6 grams of cannabis
resin (hashish), in breach of section 30(1)(b)(ii) and 47(5)(a) of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, on the ground that same is harsh and
excessive.
The Accused at the very early stage of the proceedings, pleaded
guilty to the charge and after the hearing, the learned Magistrate
sentenced the accused, to five years penal servitude as well as a fine
of Rs 100,000.
Counsel for the Appellant did not dispute the fact that the learned
Magistrate did take on board all the mitigating factors raised
during the course of the hearing, but she was of the view that each
mitigating factor should have been allocated a specific discount as
was done by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in the case of
Voong v The Queen [2000] WASCA 220 (August 2000) and not a
global discount as was done in the present case.
Counsel further did not dispute the fact that a custodial sentence
was warranted, but was of the view that a sentence of 2 to 3 years
imprisonment would have been more appropriate in the present
case.
The respondent on the other hand submitted that the Magistrate
did look into all the issues and inflicted the proper sentence, which
in Counsel’s submissions, was neither harsh nor excessive. He drew
a parallel with the cases of Raynal v The State [2009 SCJ 411] and
Suddason v The State [2011 SCJ 206], whereby he submitted that if
the methodology advocated by Counsel for the appellant is to be
adopted, then the appellant should have been met with a more
severe sentence.
Page 9
The Court thereafter held that irrespective of any minimum sentence
stated in the legislation, it will also look at the proportionality of the
sentence, and the need to individualise the sentence. Moreover the
sentence should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
In addition, the Court will take into account time spent in custody in
the final sentence to be imposed. It went on to concluded that the
learned Magistrate, in a well-reasoned judgment, has highlighted the
different matters he has taken into account before considering that
the accused deserved a custodial sentence. This included the early
plea of guilty, the seriousness and nature of the offence for which the
accused stood charged, the quantity, value and nature of drug
involved and the mitigating circumstances that played in his favour.
He then considered the proportionality aspect of the sentence, before
concluding that a term of 5 years’ penal servitude, which is also the
minimum sentence under the law, was the appropriate term. He
further ordered that the time spent by the accused in custody be
deducted from that sentence.
April 2016 - Issue 57
deleting the words “Part I” in the definition of “Classified Trade”
with reference to the Eighth Schedule of the Act, thus leaving only
Part II in existence.
As a result of that amendment the section of the law which creates
the offence, namely section 102 (3) of The Act only makes it an
offence to trade without licence in relation to classified trades
specified in Part II of the Eighth Schedule of The Act, and as the
trade in relation to which the appellant was convicted is to be found
under the previous Part I and not in Part II, no offence has therefore
been created by the legislator in relation to that activity (selling of
foodstuff (mobile)), for which the appellant stood charged in
accordance with the information preferred against him.
The Court in its examination of the sections of the law held that the
Prosecution had to prove that the said trade or activity falls under
Part II of the said schedule. One of the essential elements of the
The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly harsh and
offence was therefore not proved because “seller of foodstuff (mobile)
excessive and did not warrant their intervention. The appeal was
was not to be found anywhere in Part II but was in Part I.
dismissed.
In view of the above and the stand of the Respondent, the Court had
OLLITE A R v THE STATE OF MAURITIUS [2016] SCJ 63
no option but to quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant
By Hon. A.Hamuth, Judge and Hon. G. Jugessur-Manna, Judge
and consequently the information was dismissed against him.
Carrying Out A Classified Trade Without The Authorisation Of The
Permits And Business Monitoring Committee – Offence Not Known CAWDER M R v THE STATE [2016] SCJ 65
By Hon. N. Devat, Judge and Hon. D. Chan Kan Cheong, Judge
to Law
This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Magistrate of Competency Test – Fresh Trial
the Upper Plaines Wilhems District Court, convicting the appellant,
then accused, of the offence of carrying out a classified trade without
the authorisation of the Permits and Business Monitoring Committee
(of the Municipal Council of Curepipe), in breach of sections 2, 102
(3), (a), (b) and 140 of the Local Government Act 2003 (The Act), as
amended by the Business Facilitation Act 2006.
This is an appeal against a judgment of the learned Magistrate of
the District Court of Lower Plaines Wilhems finding the appellant
guilty as charged of involuntary wounds and blows by imprudence
in breach of section 239(2) of the Criminal Code coupled with
sections 133(1)(2) and 52 of the Road Traffic Act.
The Appellant was then charged with having on 19 November 2009,
carried out a “classified trade specified in Part II of the Eighth
Schedule, to wit: seller of foodstuff(mobile) without the authorization
of the permits and business monitoring committee acting under the
authority of the chief executive and on payment of the prescribed fee”
The case for the Prosecution was that the Appellant was driving a
van, overtook a stationary vehicle and went to knock against a young
boy. The latter was coming in the opposite direction on his bicycle
and had stopped on seeing the oncoming van. The learned
Magistrate relied on the evidence of the young boy (the
complainant) to convict the appellant.
The Respondent conceded that the Appellant has been convicted of
an offence which does not exist in law in as much as Section 2 of the
Act was amended with effect as from 01 October 2006 by section 7 of
the Business Facilitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 by
It was undisputed that this appeal should be allowed on the ground
that the learned Magistrate failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain
whether the complainant, who was then aged 11, understood the
nature of an oath before giving evidence.
Page 10
The court relied on the case of Jeetah v The State [2014 SCJ 337] in
which the Supreme Court reviewed the law on the evidence of child
witnesses. It was held that any child witness – whether or not the
alleged victim in the case – above the age of 9 and under 14 is able to
depose only upon taking an oath or a solemn affirmation under
Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act but must be subjected to a
competency test before being allowed to do so.
April 2016 - Issue 57
Based on the above and the contents of the letters, the Court held
that the Respondent intended to undermine public confidence in
the administration of justice. The Court went to state that the nature
and extent of these wide-ranging and emphatic assertions of
partiality, bias, bribery and gross misconduct on the part of these
judges established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent
was not involved in any fair criticism in good faith of the judiciary
but was bent on undermining public confidence in the
administration of justice.
It was clear according to the Judges, that the child was not subjected to
a competency test by the learned Magistrate before being allowed to
give evidence under solemn affirmation. The Court thus held that his
evidence was null and void. The Court went on to conclude that since
the learned Magistrate relied on that evidence to find the Appellant
guilty as charged and there was no other evidence establishing his The fact that the Respondent stated in his affidavits that the
Judiciary in Mauritius was a butchery, no longer independent, not
guilt, his conviction cannot stand.
impartial and that he wanted the “whole of Mauritius to lose
Since that it was a common stand that the case be remitted for a fresh
confidence in the judiciary”, the Court was bond to concluded that it
trial, the Court ordered same. The appeal was thus allowed, the trial
was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent acted in
was declared a nullity and a fresh trial before a different Magistrate
bad faith and intended to undermine the public confidence in the
was ordered.
administration of justice. He was therefore found guilty of contempt
for having publicly scandalised the Supreme Court and brought the
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v DABY R [2016] SCJ 73
administration of justice into disrepute.
By Hon. A. Caunhye, Judge
Contempt Of Court – Scandalising the Supreme Court – Bringing the The fact that the Respondent did not show any remorse, persisted in
Administration of Justice Into Disrepute
maintaining all his allegations, that the allegations were of a serious
The Applicant brought contempt of Court proceedings against the nature and that the Respondent did not offer any apology, the Court
Respondent on the ground that the latter had publicly scandalized the sentenced the Respondent to undergo four months’ imprisonment
Supreme Court and brought the administration of justice into and to pay a fine of Rs 100,000.
disrepute.
The Respondent wrote 3 letters which were addressed to the Prime
Minister, some members of Parliament, the Chief Justice and copied to
other persons which included the Attorney-General, the Solicitor
General, the Master and Registrar and some Magistrates.
Through his letters, the Respondent sought to show that it was the
members of the Judiciary themselves who were bringing the judiciary
into disrepute and he had been consequently victimized as a litigant or
party. He did not deny the tenor and contents of the letters which
constitute the subject matter of the present motion for contempt.
“Be who you are and say what you feel,
because those who mind don't matter, and
those who matter don't mind.”
- Bernard M. Baruch
The Court considered the case of Dhooharika v The Director of Public
Prosecutions [2014] UKPC 11 in which it was stated that where the
defendant was acting in good faith, he had a defence to any allegation
of contempt by scandalizing the Court and the burden was on the
prosecution to prove absence of good faith.
Page 11
