Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions E

Office of the
Director of
Public
Prosecutions
E-Newsletter
Issue 33
February 2014
‘To No One Will We Sell, To
No One Deny or Delay Justice’
Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215
February 2014 – Issue 33
IN THIS ISSUE:
Editorial
Pg 2
Les normes de sécurité dans les biens de consommation
Pgs 3-4
EUCAP NESTOR Workshop held in Nairobi
Pg 5
Les crimes extra-territoriaux rattrapés par le droit pénal mauricien
Pgs 6-7
Conviction rate for trials before the Supreme Court in 2013
Pg 8
Bar Council Election
Pg 9
Summary of Court Judgments
Pgs 10-12
List of new callees to the Mauritian Bar
Pg 13
EDITORIAL TEAM
Mrs Sukakhsna Beekarry-Sunassee, Principal State Counsel
Mrs Zaynah Essop, State Counsel
Mr Ashley Victor, Public Relations Officer
Mr Nitish Bissessur, LRO
Mr Toshan Rai Bundhun, LRO
Mr Ajmal Toofany, LRO
Miss Nadiah Ramsamy, LRO
Mr Yashvind Kumar Rawoah, LRO
We look forward to hear about
your comments/suggestions on:
[email protected]
Page 1
February 2014 – Issue 33
EDITORIAL
Dear Readers,
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s newsletter is celebrating its third anniversary this February. In
the past three years, the members of the editorial team have had their share of challenges but they have always
remained filled with the most enriching experiences. As our readers, you have been part of such experiences and
you have contributed to the growing success of this newsletter.
It is with great enthusiasm, therefore, that in this 33rd issue, we share with you, as part of our Special Criminal Law
section, Mr Toofany’s article on ‘les normes de sécurité dans les biens de consommations’ whilst Mr Bissessur talks
about ‘les crimes extra-territoriaux ratrappés par le droit mauricien.’ Mrs Ashwina Joree, State Counsel, shares
with us her experience at the first regional workshop for prosecutors dealing with piracy and other maritime
crimes held in Nairobi on the 10th and 11th December 2013. The workshop has been most informative in view of
the fact that the first piracy case is currently being tried in Mauritius. In January 2013, the legal profession was
marked by two important events. The first one was the election of the new chairman of the Bar Council and its
executive committee. Our sincere congratulations go to Mr Antoine Domaingue SC who has been elected as
Chairman. The second event was the swearing in ceremony held at the Supreme Court of Mauritius whereby 28
new barristers joined the profession. This issue also includes some valuable information about the conviction rate
for cases tried before the Supreme Court for the year 2013. Last but not least, a summary of judgments have been
given to you.
On behalf of the editorial team, I wish to thank you all for having been with us for the past three years. We invite
you to forward your comments and suggestions at the email address given to you at the previous page.
Have a pleasant reading!
Zaynah Essop
State Counsel
Page 2
February 2014 – Issue 33
Les normes de sécurité
dans les biens de consommation
La résolution 39/248 des Nations Unies reconnait un ‘droit à la sécurité ’ des consommateurs qui incorpore ‘le droit d’être
protégé contre les produits et les processus de fabrication de biens et services qui sont dangereux pour la santé et pour la vie.’
Ces mesures doivent également permettre aux consommateurs et aux associations d’obtenir réparation au travers de procédures
formelles ou informelles qui sont de nature rapide, équitable, peu coûteux et accessible. Il incombe aux distributeurs de ‘veiller à
ce que, pendant qu’ils en ont la garde, les produits ne perdent pas leur qualité de sûreté par suite d’une manutention ou d’un
entreposage inadéquat. ‘Haute partie contractante des Nations Unies et de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Commerce et
le Développement (CNUCED), l’ile Maurice dispose d’un arsenal législatif en la matière, composé principalement du ‘Hire
Purchase and Credit Sale Act 1964’, ‘Fair Trading Act 1979’, ‘Prices and Consumer Protection Advisory Committee Act 1983’,
‘Consumer Protection Act 1991,’ ‘Essential Commodities Act 1991 ‘et du ‘Consumer Protection (Price and Supply Control) Act 1998’.
L’obligation de sécurité qui pèse sur les distributeurs se situe à l’article 3 alinéa 1 du ‘Consumer Protection Act 1991’ qui dispose
que ‘no person shall supply any goods which suffer from any fault with regard to any proscribed quality, quantity, potency,
purity or standard or, in the case of any machinery or motor vehicle, with regard to the quality, nature or manner of its
performance.’ Il convient de souligner que les exigences de sécurité sont relatives aux biens uniquement et non aux services.
L’article 9 de la même loi enjoint le non-respect de cette obligation d’une amende de Rs500 à Rs5000 et en cas de récidive, d’une
amende de Rs1000 à Rs10,000 ainsi que d’une peine d’emprisonnement ne dépassant pas 12 mois. La compétence
juridictionnelle est celui du Magistrat qui ne dispose pas, dans ce contexte, du pouvoir discrétionnaire de rendre une sentence
inférieure aux peines minimales prévues.
En matière de sécurité alimentaire, le ‘Food Act 1998’ prévoit à son article 16 que ‘no person shall import, prepare, supply or sell
any food unless such food is of merchantable quality. Any person who imports, prepares, supplies, distributes or sells any food
which is poisonous, harmful or injurious to health (impairment whether permanent or temporary) […] shall commit an offence.’
Les peines prévues à l’article 17 sont plus sévères car elles prévoient une amende jusqu’à Rs2000 ainsi qu’une peine
d’emprisonnement maximale de 2 ans. En terme de règlements, nous retrouvons également le ‘Traders Warranty Regulations
1981’ ainsi que le ‘Electronical and Electronic Domestic Appliances (Trade Practices) Regulations 1989’ qui viennent poser un cadre
légal. Néanmoins sous le premier règlement malgré une pénalisation du comportement du professionnel aucune peine n’est
prévue tandis que le second règlement, quant à lui, ne prévoit aucune sanction pénale.
La mise en œuvre d’un régime de responsabilité pénale nécessite une identification précise des différents protagonistes. La
définition de ‘consommateur’ se retrouve éparpillée dans quelques textes de lois et souffre d’absence d’uniformité. Alors que le
Page 3
February 2014 – Issue 33
‘Consumer Protection Act 1991’ n’offre pas de définition du consommateur, le ‘Consumer Protection (Price and Supply Control) Act
1998’ dispose quant à lui que le consommateur est une ‘personne à l’égard de qui des biens sont fournis par le biais du commerce
moyennant une prestation financière ou évaluable en argent’’. Le ‘Fair Trading Act 1979’ définit le consommateur comme ‘un
individu à qui des biens et des services sont fournis par le biais du commerce ou de services professionnels.’ Le ‘Competition Act
2007’ offre une définition plus approfondie du consommateur qui serait ‘tout utilisateur directe ou indirecte d’un bien ou d’un
service fourni par une entreprise dans le cadre de son activité commerciale.’ Cependant force est de constater que seul le
‘Consumer Protection Act 1991’ offre la garantie de poursuites pénales en matière de sécurité physique. Le consommateur est par
ailleurs défini par la nature contractuelle de sa relation avec le commerçant qui se matérialise limitativement au travers de la
vente, du louage, de la location-vente ou de la vente à crédit. En terme de définition nous ne retrouvons cependant pas celle de
‘fabriquant’, ‘d’importateur’ ou de ‘fournisseur’ ni celui de ‘consumer agreement.’
La répression des délits en matière de consommation à Maurice est moins sévère qu’en France où par exemple la Chambre
criminelle de la Cour de Cassation n’hésita pas à condamner à 18 mois d’emprisonnement et 15000 euros d’amende le gérant
d’une société suite à l’homicide involontaire d’un enfant occasionné par l’usage du bien vendu. La décision fut rendu sous l’empire
de l’article 121-3 du code pénal français par une interprétation large de la ‘faute d’imprudence et de négligence.’ Le droit français
dispose par ailleurs du ‘délit de tromperie,’ inscrit dans la Code de la Consommation, qui emporte la responsabilité pénale du
professionnel lorsque ce dernier manque à ses obligations de vigilance. La chambre criminelle considère que même un ‘certificat
de conformité’ ne dispense pas l’importateur de devoir contrôler personnellement la conformité des produits importés.
Dans l’optique de mettre en place un cadre législatif renforcé, la ‘Law Reform Commission’ a, à la requête du ministère pour la
protection des consommateurs, publié en 2010 un rapport intitulé ‘Report on review of aspects of consumer protection laws,’
analysant au détail près les particularités du droit de la consommation à Maurice et répondant par des recommandations aux
lacunes repérées. Ces recommandations ont donné naissance au ‘Consumer Protection Bill 2013’ qui se caractérise par son apport
lexical ainsi que des peines plus sévères. S’il est vrai qu’une forte pénalisation du comportement des professionnels pourrait
occasionner une certaine paralysie des initiatives économiques, il n’en demeure pas moins que le consommateur reste la partie
faible dans les contrats de consommation qui sont majoritairement des contrats d’adhésion, invitant ainsi à un rééquilibrage des
rapports de force.
Ajmal Toofany
Legal Research Officer
Page 4
February 2014 – Issue 33
EUCAP NESTOR WORSHOP held in NAIROBI
Piracy and Maritime Crimes
I participated in the first regional workshop for prosecutors dealing with piracy and other maritime crimes in Nairobi on the 10th
and 11th December 2013. It was a real privilege to meet with senior prosecutors from neighbouring countries which are already
trying piracy cases and exchange useful information.
The main aim of this workshop, the start of a process to bring prosecutors together to explore how to better deal with and combat
piracy and other serious crime, was fully met. We discussed the difficulties met in Court and compared the Mauritian, Kenyan,
Seychelles and Somalia’s legislations dealing with:

Piracy;

Illegal fishing;

Failing to inform entry into the maritime zones; and

Drug smuggling.
The other participants were apprised of the first piracy case which Mauritius is trying. Following an attack in early January on a
Panama flag merchant ship, MS Jasmine, 260 miles off the Somali Coast, twelve men suspected of committing an act of piracy were
transferred by EU Naval Force warship, FS Surcouf, to the Mauritian authorities for prosecution.
Arguments which were heard in Mauritius, such as the applicability of the Universal Jurisdiction principle and the admissibility of
exhibits were common in all jurisdictions.
In terms of the way forward, it was unanimously agreed by all participants that the group would meet again this year for further
information exchange and contact building. Possible venues for the next meeting were suggested and certain topics were
proposed for the agenda
We also decided that key judgments and important materials on maritime crime-related cases would be published on the EUCAP
Nestor website to facilitate the easy exchange of information.
Ashwina Joree
State Counsel
Page 5
Les crimes extraterritoriaux rattrapés
par le droit pénal mauricien
February 2014 – Issue 33
Quel est l’intérêt de se préoccuper des crimes ayant eu lieu en dehors de notre territoire national? De bon sens, on peut dire que
les crimes aussi bien que les criminels sont amovibles (c’est-à-dire, se déplacent d’un territoire à l’autre). En principe, la loi pénale
doit avoir une compétence territoriale, c’est-à-dire, les tribunaux d’un Etat ont uniquement compétence pour juger les personnes
qui ont commis un crime sur leur territoire. Mais, pour rattraper les infracteurs extraterritoriaux, la loi doit dépasser la sphère
territoriale. A cet égard, le droit doit pouvoir agir dans un sens universel dans la mesure où le lieu de la commission de
l’infraction est indifférent à la répression. C’est en effet l’hypothèse de la compétence universelle des juridictions.
L’adoption par 120 Etats à Rome (1998) du statut de la Cour internationale de Justice (ratifié par l’Etat mauricien en mars 2002) a
suscité de nombreux espoirs pour relancer la dynamique de la lutte contre l’impunité à un niveau international. Cependant, force
est de constater que la compétence de ladite Cour est souvent limitée à des crimes les plus graves tels que les actes de torture ou
de génocide. Toutefois, d’autres crimes aussi graves (Trafic international de stupéfiants ou d’enfants) échappent souvent à sa
compétence et demeurent impunis par l’avènement des conflits de juridiction des différents Etats. Pour pallier ces carences
juridiques, existent au niveau local certaines dispositions légales (I) mais qui ne peuvent être efficaces qu’avec une coopération et
entraide judiciaire bien établie (II) entre ces différents Etats.
I)
Les dispositions légales existantes
A) ‘Piracy and Maritime Violence Act 2011’
La section 3 de la législation susmentionnée réprime la piraterie. Celle-ci est définie comme tout acte de violence, de détention ou
de déprédation d’un navire ,avion ou de ses passagers à des fins privées par l’équipage d’un autre navire ou avion privé . A cet
effet, le bureau du Directeur des Poursuites Publiques a publié un rapport intitulé ‘Transfer of Suspected Pirates and Seized
Property to Mauritius’ en septembre 2012.
B) ‘Asset Recovery Act 2011 ’
En vertu de la section 17 de ladite législation, ‘l’Enforcement Authority’, le Directeur des Poursuites Publiques, peut confisquer les
biens provenant d’une entreprise criminelle d’une personne (se trouvant même dans un Etat étranger) faisant l’objet d’une
condamnation antérieure. Ce texte est de bon sens car il permet aux Etats non seulement de punir le coupable pour l’infraction
commise mais aussi de récupérer les biens (immeubles, comptes bancaires...) issus de cette entreprise criminelle qui s’opère au
niveau international. Par exemple, une escroquerie ayant eu lieu en France à des fins de blanchiment d’argent dans les banques
mauriciennes. Ainsi, la confiscation des biens par ‘l’Asset Recovery Unit’ justifie une certaine équité de la justice car elle permet
une restitution d’une partie des biens aux personnes escroquées.
Page 6
February 2014 – Issue 33
Par ailleurs, cette confiscation aura un effet dissuasif sur le mobile financier qui entoure la commission de ces types d’infractions.
C) Dangerous Drugs Act 2000
L’article 29(2)(b) de la législation anti-drogue sanctionne le fait pour une personne, se trouvant en dehors du territoire mauricien,
qui commet des actes préparatoires pour faire parvenir une drogue dangereuse sur le sol mauricien à une peine
d’emprisonnement n’excédant pas 15 ans. Cette disposition est d’une grande utilité juridique mais elle serait munie d’une
insuffisance pratique sans l’assistance mutuelle de l’autorité compétente de l’Etat dans lequel le trafic est orchestré. A titre
d’exemple, le trafic de ‘Subutex’ orchestré en France à destination de l’Ile Maurice nous a mis en présence du phénomène de
l’impunité de l’instigateur. Plusieurs arrêts de la Cour Suprême en témoignent: Arrêt Blondeau [2013], Arrêt Dangla [2013], Arrêt
Placais [2012]. Au cours de ces procès, la justice mauricienne a pu sanctionner les transporteurs de ‘Subutex’ (les mules) sans
pour autant atteindre les instigateurs (se trouvant à l’étranger).
II) Les dispositions légales envisageables
A) Une similitude de droit entre les Etats concernés: A titre d’exemple, tel était l’objet de la « Conférence Judiciaire de l’Océan
Indien de St Denis, La Réunion du 20-22 juin 2013 ». Au cours de celle-ci, les hautes autorités judiciaires de ces îles, dont l’île
Maurice, ont évoqué que cette similitude du droit criminel et civil, puisant sa base dans le droit français, devrait aboutir à
une coopération plus efficace pour des phénomènes criminels communs.
(B) Une approche plus pragmatique: le dernier sommet, organisé par ‘l’International Association of Prosecutors’, a publié des
lignes directrices concernant l’assistance mutuelle légale pour les affaires criminelles. En effet, ce rapport met en avant une
technique de procédure commune à suivre concernant des infractions extraterritoriales en s’appuyant sur une pierre
angulaire qui est ‘The Rule of Law’. L’idée se base sur une certaine harmonisation globale d’une procédure pénale commune.
En conclusion, on pourrait dire que seules les dispositions législatives nationales et internationales ne suffisent pas pour lutter
contre l’impunité des crimes extraterritoriaux. Il faudrait indispensablement l’assistance mutuelle des autres Etats pour pouvoir
aboutir comme le disait Mireille Delmas-Marty en 1996 ‘vers un droit commun de l’humanité.’
Mr. Nitish Bissessur
Legal Research Officer
Page 7
February 2014 – Issue 33
Conviction rate for trials
before the Supreme Court in 2013
In 2013 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in 12 cases of Murder/Manslaughter and 23 cases of drugs during that period. In
all the cases the prosecution secured a conviction.
During the 1st term of 2013, Jean Lido Gentil was sentenced to 27 years of penal servitude for manslaughter. Satianand Nunhoo
was convicted under a charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to 18 years of penal servitude. Jean Clifford Pitchee and
Ludmilla Marie Nunkoo pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter and were sentenced to 17 years of penal servitude. Daniel
Desire Steve Monvoisin and Jacques Desire Laval Sambacaille pleaded guilty on lesser charge of manslaughter and were
sentenced to 16 years.
During the 2nd term of the Assizes, Avinash Ramgotee pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and was sentenced to 37
years. The DPP has however appealed on the sentence, finding the sentence of the Court too lenient on this double murder case.
Shyam Sooknauth was sentenced to 30 years of penal servitude for manslaughter. Farook Ramjane pleaded guilty to the
manslaughter of his daughter-in-law Bibi Nazeemah Bocus and was sentenced to 35 years. Ravianand Rughoo was jailed to 30
years of penal servitude after pleading guilty of the manslaughter and Ahad Roomaldawo also prosecuted for manslaughter,
was sentenced to 30 years.
During the 3rd term, Yesudass Veeranah pleaded not guilty to Manslaughter and the jury found him guilty of wounds and
blows causing death without intention to kill on his wife. He was sentenced to 8 years. Samuel Edgar pleaded guilty to
Manslaughter and he was sentenced to 22 years penal servitude.
In Subutex cases, during the 1st term of 2013, the Court sentenced Mathieu Blondeau, Toma Carlos Pedraza and Deborah
Dangla to 20, 14 and 17 years penal servitude respectively. In other drug importation cases, John Paul Jhureea, Nirina
Razafimanantsoa, Josiane Razafintsalama and Claudia Mbotiravo were sentenced to 20 years. Charles Edouard Boudeuses was
sentenced to 8 years and Nadeem Beedasee to 10 years. The Supreme Court also jailed Pritiviraj Deepchund and Cuthbert
Sendiga Chivuguto for 38 and 30 years respectively.
During the 2nd term Johannes Jurie Botha was sentenced to 33 years, Marisca Scannell to 20 years, Qadeer Baig Mirza to 12 years
and Jean Laval Palmyre to 30 years. The four Tanzanian accused parties, namely, Ramdhani Fills, Nathnael Elia Charles, Ally
Rajabu Msengwa and Petro Charles Mtagwa were sentenced to 15 years penal servitude. Farah Nachi was sentenced to 15 years
for importation of Subutex.
Ashley Victor, Public Relations Officer
Page 8
February 2014 – Issue 33
Bar Council Election
The Bar Council held elections for its new executive committee on the 22nd of January 2014. The election took place at the Mauritius
Bar Council in Port- Louis and 168 lawyers were present in order to cast their votes. Mr. Antoine Domingue SC is now the new
President of the Council, a position previously held by Ms Urmilla Boolell.
The executive committee also comprises of Mr. Raouf Gulbul who is now head of the disciplinary committee, of Ms. Nargis
Bundhun who is the current treasurer and of Mr. Jagganaden Muneesamy, Senior State Counsel at the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions, who has been elected to the post of secretary. It is to be noted that Mr. Satish Faugoo, the current Attorney
General, is the Vice-President of the Council.
In a recent interview in the newspaper Week-End, Mr. Antoine Domingue SC expressed his desire to help young barristers. He
also affirmed that he wants to modernise the laws governing the Council.
The new chairman came out first of the Council of Legal Education (Mauritius) Bar Examinations in 1985 and received the Sir
Raymond Hein prize. He became Senior Counsel in 2010. During his career, he appeared before all the courts of Mauritius,
including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Antoine Domingue SC is also a member of the present Council of
Vocational Legal Education (CVLE) and of the Vocational Examinations Board.
Mr. Ashley Victor
Public Relations Officer
Page 9
SUMMARY OF SUPREME
COURT JUDGMENTS
STATE v SIVATHREE G [2014 SCJ 12]
By Hon. G. Marie Joseph, Judge
Unlawful use and possession of dangerous drugs for the
purpose of cultivation and distribution; admissibility of evidence
The accused stood charged with the offence of unlawful use
and possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of
cultivation and distribution in breach of sections 30(1)(f)(i) ,
34(1)(b), 45(1) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000
(‘DDA’). In view of the manner in which the drugs were
concealed and the street value of the drugs, the accused was
considered to be a drug trafficker in breach of section 41(3) of
the same Act. The accused pleaded guilty to the charges.
Following the submission whereby the assessment of the value
of the drugs was inadmissible, it was held that “it is proper for
ADSU officers to rely on information obtained from culprits to
assess the street value of drugs” since “they have to rely on
their own experience in dealing and enquiring into drug
offences to come up with a price that a particular dangerous
drug would usually fetch”. To that effect, the cases of State v
Fangamar [2008 SCJ 25] and Gooranah v State [2012 SCJ 35]
were being relied upon. Based on the unequivocal plea of the
accused as well as the street value of the drug which exceeded
Rs1 million, it was considered that “even if evidence as to the
value cannot be relied upon”, reasonable inference can be
drawn that accused is a drug trafficker. Having regard to the
mitigating circumstances of prompt admission, age, family
commitments and delay, the accused was found guilty as
February 2014 – Issue 33
STATE v AH-LAYE F.R. [2014 SCJ 7]
By Hon. N. Devat, Judge
Drug offence; appreciation of mitigating circumstances
The accused was found guilty of the offence of attempting to
possess dangerous drugs for the purpose of distribution in
breach of sections 5(a), 30(1)(f)(i) and 47(2) of the DDA 2000.
The accused pleaded guilty to the charges.
It was held that despite his involvement, the accused’s
cooperation with the police didn’t yield out any positive
outcome and furthermore, the person referred to by the
accused in his statement remains untraceable. The court found
it hard to believe that “the accused would have agreed to pick
up a parcel from an unknown person on behalf of a total
stranger without any promise of reward”. It was however
pointed out from the case of State v Rava [2006 SCJ 73] that “in
the absence of any evidence showing what reward the accused
was to get for picking the drugs, the accused is entitled to the
most favorable construction in that connection”. It was also
taken into consideration that the accused’s guilty plea came
only after the averment of drug trafficking against him was
dropped. Since the role of the accused in trying to take
possession of a considerable quantity of drugs for the purpose
of distribution could not be minimized, he was sentenced to
undergo 11 years penal servitude and a fine of Rs50,000.
charged and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and a fine of
Rs3000.
Page 10
February 2014 – Issue 33
DPP v PARDESSY D [2014 SCJ 15]
By Hon. R. Mungly-Gulbul, Judge & Hon. A.R Hajee Abdoula,
Judge
Conspiracy; agreement; evidence; circumstantial evidence
The respondent was prosecuted before the Intermediate
Court on a charge of conspiracy in breach of section 109(1) of
the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act for having
criminally and wilfully agreed with another person to
possess and distribute dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty
to the charge and the learned magistrate dismissed the
charge on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove the
element of “agreement”.
In order to prove its case the prosecution had to establish the
following elements: (1) an agreement; (2) between two or
more persons; (3) to do an unlawful act. Following an appeal
made by the DPP, it was held that although there may not
be any direct evidence of any agreement, there was enough
circumstantial evidence from which the learned magistrate
could infer that such an agreement did indeed exist. The
circumstances in which the drug was taken possession of
could reveal that there was an agreement. Reference was
made to the Australian case of R v Gudgeon [1995] QCA 506
where it was held that “evidence of acts following the
agreement may be, and often is, the only available proof that
the agreement was made; but it is the agreement and not the
evidence that constitutes the offence”. The learned judges
added that there was no need for the purpose of the offence
of conspiracy for the prosecution to produce the drugs or
prove their content. Such offence would be complete if the
prosecution established that the accused had entered into an
agreement for the purpose of possession. The decision was
quashed and the case was remitted to the lower court for
retrial before a new bench.
RAMDHONY K AND ORS v THE HONOURABLE SENIOR
MAGISTRATE, MAPOU COURT AND THE DPP [2014 SCJ 4]
By Hon. E. Balancy Senior Puisne Judge & Hon A.R. Hajee
Abdoula, Judge
Application for judicial review; preliminary enquiry
An application for leave to apply for judicial review of the
respondent’s decision was made on the ground that ‘the
respondent has taken a decision which is unreasonable, unfair,
biased, unjust, irrational, against the rules of natural justice
and contains procedural irregularity.’ The co-respondent
resisted the application on the basis that ‘judicial review would
not lie against the decision of the Magistrate following a
preliminary enquiry because the decision does not finally affect
anyone’s interests, the only exception being where the enquiry
has been conducted in flagrant violation of the law, triggering
the intervention of this Court in the exercise of its supervisory
powers under section 82 of the Constitution.’ The corespondent relied on the cases of Boobhun v District Magistrate
of Black River [1999 MR 120] and Duval v District Magistrate of
Flacq [1990 MR 125].
Although Counsel for applicant argued that judicial enquiries
should be distinguished from preliminary enquiries, it was
held that the distinction is without any difference in relation to
the question whether the decision of the Magistrate in either
case is amenable to judicial review. In both preliminary and
judicial enquiries, the DPP is not bound by the conclusions
and findings of the learned magistrate which do not constitute
any final determination of anyone’s rights, and therefore are
not amenable to judicial review. It was held that since in the
present matter the enquiry was not conducted in flagrant
violation of the law such as to trigger the exercise of the
Page 11
supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 82
of the Constitution, the leave sought was refused and the
application was set aside.
MURDAY V THE STATE [2014 SCJ 013]
By Hon. E.Balancy SPJ and Hon. N.Matadeen, Judge
Nuisance; Road Traffic Offence
The appellant was prosecuted for the offences of (1) “Parking
on the wrong side of the road”; (2) “Playing music in a loud
tone”; and (3) “Outrage against an agent in civil authority” .
He pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was convicted and
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 500 under the first count, Rs
2000 under the second count and Rs 25,000 under the third
count.
It was held that the regulation under which count I was laid
was no more in force on the date of the offence. Concerning
Count 2 the Court ruled there was a breach of the Regulation
3(1) of Environmental Protection (2008) whereby “no person
shall make or cause to be made any noise which constitutes a
nuisance” and there was sufficient evidence to justify that
there was indeed some nuisance. Count 3 was also dismissed
following the argument that “ the Court would not be
prepared to act on the accused’s statement that the police had
made a false case as a cover up for the police brutality that the
accused was a victim of since the initial case of outrage
occurred prior to the accused being taken into police custody”.
February 2014 – Issue 33
SOHUN RAMKALAWON V THE STATE [2014 SCJ 9]
By Hon. E. Balancy, SPJ & Hon. N. Madadeen, Judge
Exercise supervisory jurisdiction - driving or being charged with
motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limits
- Road traffic Offences
The appellant was prosecuted for consuming alcohol exceeding
the prescribed limit. He pleaded guilty and was convicted to
pay a fine of Rs 20,000 and sentenced to undergo 6 months
imprisonment. He was moreover disqualified from holding or
obtaining any driving licence for any type of vehicle for a
period of 12 months and his licence was cancelled and was
endorsed accordingly.
The Appellate Court was called upon to reconsider the
sentence which was applicable to an offender who had been
wrongly dealt with under section 123F(4) instead of section
123F(3) of the Act. Upon considering the appropriate sentence
under the latter subsection, the Court reduced the term of
imprisonment imposed from six months to two weeks. The
decision of the Court to maintain a custodial sentence, albeit a
much shorter one, was motivated by the high amount of
alcohol found in the appellant’s blood and the aggravating
factor that he was a driver by profession.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
Page 12
January 2014 – Issue 32
List of new callees - Barristers
1. Mr. Sivaramen Subbarayan
2. Ms Ashwina Rangasamy
3. Mr. Muhammad Azmat Daooud
4. Mrs. Bhavna Bhagwan
5 . Ms. Taroonah Doolub
6. Ms. Marie Axelle Tania Huët
7. Ms. Bibi Azna Bholah
8. Mr.Pratabsing Bacorisen
9. Ms. Ourvashinee Roopchund
10. Mr. Gérard Jacques Sebastian La Hausse de La Louvière
11. Mr. Yosheel Bala Bungaroo
12. Mrs. Poonam Calcutteea
13. Mr.Takeshwarnath Jugoo
14. Ms. Bibi Shammina Jaddoo
15. Mr. Shrivan Dabee
16. Ms.Parhveena Gokhool
17. Ms. Boowhasheenee Dulthummon
18. Ms. Vanela Mooken
19. Mr. Mekrajsingh Bissessur
20. Ms. Yovanee Hansheela Goinden
21. Ms. Melany Nagen
22. Ms. Guylaine Kelly Li Kum Fong
23. Mr. Desigan Ponnan
24. Ms. Anekha Punchoo
25. Mrs. Bibi Arzeenah Itoola Namdarkhan
26. Ms. Manisha Meetarbhan
27. Mr. Javed Moussa Allybokus
28. Mrs. Sharveena Devi Bhugun
Page 13