Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions E
Transcription
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