8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

1/10

Office of the Directorof Public ProsecutionsThe MonthlyLegal Update

NewsletterMarch 2012

Issue 14

To No One Will We SellTo No One Deny or Delay Justice

Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

2/10

EDITORIAL

Dear Readers,

It is to me that this months responsibility for the

editorial came, Zaynah Essop being in India on adrafting course. I did not have too hard a task

since one major event ruled the month of Febru-

ary for the ODPP, namely the Commonwealth

Secretariat Prosecution and Police Training Pro-

gramme (National Mentoring Component in Mau-

ritius).

In this issue, we give an overview of the training

programme held from 27 February to 2March

last, and a summary of each session. I have had

the benefit of talking to MrNicholas Cowdery QC,

lead Consultant for the Commonwealth Secretari-

at and past DPP for New South Wales for more

than 16 years. I trust our readers will find his in-

terview to be as interesting and stimulating as I

did.

We also inform our readers that the preparations

for the Regional Conference of the International

Association of Prosecutors (IAP) from 26 to 29

August 2012 are well under way, with a number

of confirmed speakers and participants from

around the world.

Our usual rubric, a summary of the judgments of

our courts for the month of February is at pages 6

and 7.

We hope you enjoy reading this issue of the

monthly newsletter.

Sulakshna BeekarryPrincipal State CounselOffice of the Director of Public Prosecutions

2nd Regional IAP Conference, 26-29 August 2012,

Sofitel lImperial Resort

The 2nd Regional Conference of the International Associa-

tion of Prosecutors, in collaboration with the Office of the

Director of Public Prosecutions, will be held from 26 to 29

August 2012 at the Sofitel, Flic en Flac.

The event aims to attract maximum participation fromprosecutors (and lawyers) around the world, coming to-

gether to discuss the upholding of the Rule of Law in the

African-Indian Ocean Region.

The African Association of Prosecutors (APA) will be part

of the gathering, and shall hold its Annual General Meet-

ing at the conference venue after the panel discussions on

a number of themes would have ended.

A number of distinguished speakers from abroad have

confirmed their participation so far. A few of these include:

Mr James Hamilton, President IAP, past DPP Ire-land

Elizabeth Howe OBE, General Counsel, IAP

Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC, Lead Consultant, Com-monwealth Secretariat, past DPP, New SouthWales

Mr James Guthrie QC, of 3 Hare Court, London

Ambassador Thomas Winkler, Foreign Affairs Minis-try, Denmark

Judge Duncan Gaswaga, Supreme Court, Sey-chelles

Mr Francois Falletti, Secretaire General, Association

Internationale des Procureurs et Pousuivants Fran-cophones

Representatives of UNODC

Mr Basile Elombat, Magistrat, Cour dAppel, Came-roon

Mr Buteera, DPP,Uganda

Details of registration and participation will soon be availa-

ble on the conference website, and through the newsletter.

The Mauritian Bar will be invited to participate in the dis-

cussions. Keep your diary free to attend from the 26th to

the 29th of August 2012.

IN THIS ISSUE

1. Commonwealth secretariat training

Programme.. Pgs 2-3

2. Open talk with Mr Nicolas Cowdery, QC.Pgs 4-5

3. Supreme Court judgments.Pgs 6-7

4. Law day celebration.Pg 7

5.

Asset recovery unit in ODPP.Pg 8

6. Debate on PACE .Pg 9

Page 1 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

3/10

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT PROSECUTION AND POLICE TRAINING PROGRAMME27th Feb to 1st March 2012, Municipality of Port Louis

The Commonwealth Secretariat Prosecution and Training Programme was developed as a holistic and focusedtraining programme, with a view to promote the criminal justice system by emphasizing on the roles of every protag-onist in the system.

The training programme took place in Mauritius from 27th

February till 1st

March 2012 and was chaired by Mr RashidAhmine, Senior Assistant DPP.

The participants in the 4 days programme were law officers (ODPP and Attorney Generals Office) and the police.

The programme ensured maximum interaction between participants and experts from the Commonwealth Secretari-at It also provided a forum for countries to share their experiences, discuss about their difficulties and identify mainareas of challenges in the criminal justice system.

Various topics were covered in intensive sessions, from mutual legal assistance, disclosure of materials by prosecu-tion, advocacy, victim and witness protection, asset recovery to investigations in transnational crimes.

SUMMARY OF THE 2 DAYS INTENSIVE SESSIONS

Day 1

During the Welcome Session, the DPP, Mr Satyajit Boolell, SC emphasized on the discretionary powers which theDPP has as well as on the powers exercised by the police in investigating crimes in Mauritius. Emphasis was also

laid on the fact that the public should be aware of the manner in which the DPP and the police work and exercisetheir various powers. Furthermore, the DPP briefly commented on the various areas the ODPP is working on ,suchas the need for disclosure by prosecution, victims and witness protection as well as the new asset recovery legisla-tion passed recently in Mauritius.

Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition By Mr A. Richardson

Mr Richardson gave a very informative presentation on the issue of mutual legal assistance. He revisited the HarareScheme and emphasized upon the need to have a Central Authority which would act as the main point of contact inmutual legal assistance issues. The participants were provided with practical guidance as to the manner in whichrequests for information and documents should be made. The presentation also covered the issue of mutual legalassistance when it comes to prosecuting asset recovery cases. This proved to be quite important to the participantsin light of the Asset Recovery Act which came in force in February 2012.

Disclosure Law and Practice in Mauritius By Mr R. Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP, ODPP

Mr Ahmine gave a presentation on disclosure by prosecution while emphasizing on the very important constitutionalguarantee afforded to accused parties in criminal cases Section 10 of the Constitution relating to a fair trial. Heargued that disclosure of information by the prosecution goes to the very root of fairness. He noted this issue of fair-ness was crucial inasmuch as a breach of an accused right to fair trial may lead to a stay of proceedings.

Mr Ahmine also gave us an overview of Mauritian cases dealing with the importance of disclosure by prosecution.But, the most important part on which discussion was made arose on the need to have a legislation in relation todisclosure and also the importance of guidelines which would accompany the legislation. Emphasis was also laid onthe role of a disclosure regime whereby one would look at all the evidence in a case file and certify in writing aboutthe materials to be disclosed.

An issue was raised as to when disclosure would be appropriate whether it should be at the stage of investigationor before trial? It was observed that even in other jurisdictions, no provision is made for disclosure of material by theprosecution at the investigation stage. The DPP also intervened to point out the importance to preserve the sover-eignty of investigations by the police. Finally, the participants agreed that while disclosure by prosecution was

Page 2 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

4/10

important role in the criminal justice system and that disclosure by the defence could go as far as disclosure of factsor points of law to be taken during trial.

Advocacy Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC

Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC gave a very helpful presentation on the various ways to improve advocacy skills and de-fined the whole art that advocacy is. He forcefully reiterated that there is no alternative to good case preparation, norto ethics and etiquette.

Legal medicine: New Challenges By Dr. S.Boolell

Dr Satish Boolell recalled his rich and fruitful career in legal medicine and his experiences as an expert witness innumerous cases. He laid particular emphasis on the need to keep a scene of crime untouched and undisturbed. Healso discussed the role of various persons at a scene of crime while recounting the various difficulties encounteredsuch as risks of contamination, accuracy of results, memory lapses of witnesses, importance of counter experts,length of time before a result is obtained as well as the need to maintain confidentiality. The police investigators in-tervened to point out that as at present scene of crime managers monitor access on the spot. Dr. Boolell made sug-gestions to have scene of crimes and autopsies filmed from start till the end.

DAY 2

Asset Recovery, Proceeds of Crime and AML By R. Atkins

Under the new Asset Recovery Act 2012, there is a need for police investigators and prosecutors to work in closecollaboration to make of asset recovery an efficient tool to fight crime. Mr Atkins gave an overview of the importantaspects of asset recovery such as confiscation orders, property, proceeds of crimes, possible human rights issueslike right to property. It was also suggested that a secondary legislation would be very useful in providing the neces-sary guidelines when it comes to procedures as well as time limits set.

Co-ordination and interaction among investigators and prosecutors in the criminal justice system By MrC.Potter and Mr H.Kumar (Attorney Generals Office, Seychelles)

The purpose of the programme being the training of both investigators and prosecutors, Mr H.Kumar pointed out theimportance of co-operation between these two institutions at a very early stage, which would help to achieve good

results in a criminal justice system. Mr H.Kumar also gave an overview of the laws governing the procedural aspectin Seychelles

Victim and Witness Assistance By Medaven Armoogum, State Counsel, ODPP.

Mr Armoogums address was on victim and witness protection in Mauritius. He remarked that there is no specificlegislation dealing with this issue in Mauritius. It was also agreed that based on the guidelines issued by the Com-monwealth Secretariat, the main protagonists in ensuring victims and witnesses protection are the police, the prose-cutors and the judiciary. He noted that it is high time for Mauritius to come up with legislation in this area becausewitnesses are crucial to the system and need protection and assistance. Discussions took place on the ways inwhich protection can be afforded to victims and witnesses, mainly through psychological support, attending to theirqueries, making witnesses conversant with procedures in court well before the trial. The police stated that at their

level, they already have a victim support scheme, but it is also important to regulate same by way of a comprehen-sive piece of legislation.

Investigations and gathering of evidence in complex money laundering and transnational cases By ASPRamgoolam, Mauritius Police Force

This presentation proved to be very fruitful inasmuch as the participants were given an idea on the manner in whichinvestigators work as well as the role of the various persons involved in investigating a scene of crime, such as theenquiring officer, the crime scene manager, the criminal investigators and the scene of crime officers. The partici-pants were also enlightened on the various difficulties encountered at the scene of crime by investigators.

Case preparation

As an end note, both Mr Atkins and Mr Richardson shared their views and gave advice on case preparation. It wasnoted that there was a need for prosecutors to enhance their advocacy and prosecutorial skills with a view to im-prove the criminal justice system.

Page 3 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

5/10

Open talk with Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC, past DPP, New South Wales

Question: What is your background?

Answer: I joined the Commonwealth Crown Solicitors Office in Sydney and worked there for 3 years. That

is where I got my first exposure to prosecution work, and I found that I was very interested in the prosecu-

tion process. I qualified in 1971 and went to Papua New Guinea to work as a public defender for the local

people. That was hard work in a different country, different culture but very interesting. I wanted to be ofservice to people in need. I came back to Sydney in 1975 and practiced as a barrister up to 1994.

Question: When did you become Director of Public Prosecutions?

Answer: I was appointed Queens Counsel in 1987, and also served as an acting Judge from 1988 -1990. I

was convinced then that I did not want to be a Judge. My own feeling is that you are a prisoner when you

are a judge. I enjoyed being at the Bar handling a lot of criminal work and big cases on taxation fraud and

security fraud. Towards the end of my time at the Bar I handled 2 very significant briefs, one involving

prosecuting a High Court judge and a district court Judge for attempting to pervert the course of justice,

and another involving a former Chief Minister being prosecuted on a charge of perjury. I was contacted

when the post of DPP became vacant. I was appointed in October 1994 as DPP of New South Wales.

Question: What did your job as DPP involve?

Answer: I had 400 prosecutors under my direction, in 10 offices across New South Wales. My daily job

consisted in making prosecution decisions and managing crisis. I also appeared in Court regularly. We

were successful in all cases except 3. That is a pretty good success rate! I retired from the post in March

2011 after I reached the age of 65.

Question: What does life after retirement as DPP hold for you?

Answer: Since then I have been appointed Professor in 4 universities. I am very much involved in interna-

tional associations like the IAP where I have previously held office as President from 1999 to 2005, and

the International Bar Association where I was the inaugural co-chair of the Human Rights Institute. I have

had a rich career, balanced I hope. My visit to Mauritius is a visit to my 80 th destination. I was awarded the

Medal of Honour by the IAP last year, which is for me a great privilege and a great pleasure.

Question: What were the main challenges you faced as DPP?

Answer: Exercising given powers in an appropriate way requires judgment and balance, and the ability to

resolve competing considerations. The whole process is assisted very much if there are competent people

Page 4 - Issue 14

Mr Nicholas Cowdery, now lead Consultant for the Commonwealth

Secretariat, kindly accepted to answer a few questions during his visit

in the context of the Mauritius Mentoring Programme. His rich career

path and wide experience make invaluable reading and give an in-

sight in a man whose life has been, and still is, devoted to the prac-tice of the law.

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

6/10

in ones team. A DPP should not try to be popular with anyone because that will fail. His job is to exercise

his functions in a proper manner. A DPP goes to work knowing that almost any decision would make

somebody unhappy. It is not easy to adjust to this feeling. My protection against criticism is that I applied

the rules. The same applied to my team. Prosecutors only get into trouble if they try to bend the rules.

This is to be avoided. Rules are the product of long experience and trial and error. The best protection is

to your job according to the rules.

Question: Would you agree that it may be necessary in some cases for a DPP to give reasons for

his decisions?

Answer: The issue is controversial. In some cases there may be privacy considerations, security issues or

public interest issues. There are cases where people who are sensitive or controversial should not be ex-

posed. On the other hand, however, the prosecutor, as the representative of the community, should have

the communitys confidence . To build that confidence there has to be communication so that the commu-

nity knows what is happening in their name. Reasons give that confidence. Where they are given, rea-

sons should be given in short form, as opposed to lengthy communiqus. Accountability can also be en-

sured through reporting mechanisms like Annual Reports.

Question: What do you think of public guidelines?

Answer: Public Guidelines are terrific. They are signposts though, they cannot cover everything. They

can give people general directions on what particular decisions will be. Prosecutors are protected too -they

can point to the guidelines. They can say they followed them. Guidelines can be very valuable both philo-

sophically and practically.

Question: Do you believe a barrister needs to follow up on advocacy training throughout his ca-

reer?

Answer: Formal advocacy training is helpful at all stages. If you have acquired some bad habits formal

training ensures that you get rid of them.

Question: Ethics and Etiquette-how important are these at the Bar?

Answer: Any profession needs ethical standards. Etiquette should be applied. It falls to the leaders of the

profession to try and ensure people coming into the profession learn. The rules can be written down but

they have to be practiced and their value believed in.

Question: What would you say is the relationship between prosecution and human rights; are they

mutually exclusive?

Answer: Fortunately times have changed. It is now recognized that one of the fundamental tasks of the

prosecution is to protect the fundamental human rights of everyone at the trial.

Page 5 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

7/10

Please find below the summary of SupremeCourt judgments for the month of February2012

Easton v The State [2012] SCJ 55Customs Act charge put to the Accused

The Appellant was prosecuted under section 127A ofthe Customs Act for failing to produce books, recordsand documents. The conviction was quashed on ap-peal for the following reasons:-

The verbal request made to the Appellant was neverput to her at enquiry stage whilst the evidence beforethe court was that there was a verbal request. No evi-dence was adduced as to which documents the Appel-lant was requested to produce. The Learned Magis-trate failed to direct her mind to the reliability of theevidence of the officer of the Comptroller of Customs;the said officer gave evidence in relation to the verbalrequest made in January 2006 whilst he was posted at

the office of the Comptroller of Customs in July 2006,such that his evidence was hearsay.

Papiah v The State [2012] SCJ 56Trial in public-Gross indecent act in public ele-ment of publicity; damaging enclosure whetherenclosure included windows and window panes

The Appellant was prosecuted on two counts of grossindecent act in public and damaging enclosure respec-tively. On the grounds of appeal, the Appellate Courthad the opportunity to reiterate the following princi-

ples:-

True it is that the Accused has a constitutionalright to trial being carried out in public. A trialcarried out in the Chambers of the Magistratedoes not invariably mean that there has been abreach of the said right. There are cases thatcall for trial in camera; however a trial in cham-bers does not preclude members of the publichaving access to the Magistrates chambers tofollow the proceedings. In the present matter,the trial was conducted in chambers inasmuchas the court room was occupied by another

magistrate.

Enclosure, in the offence of damaging enclo-sure, included windows and window panes;

The element of publicity in the offence of grossindecent act in public was assessed by the prin-ciple laid down in Nahaboo v Lowtun [1985] MR240;

The appellate court would be slow in interferingin appreciation of facts by lower courts, unlesssuch appreciation was unreasonable.

Chaman v The State [2012] SCJ 57Causing death by dangerous driving defective tyre standard of competence

The Appellant was prosecuted before the IntermediateCourt for causing death by dangerous driving. The casefor the prosecution before the trial court was that the vanhad a defective tyre, was travelling over a long distancewith several passengers on board. The tyre burst, causing

the van to zig zag, and end up in a gutter. A passengerdied as a result of the accident.

The Appellate court upheld the finding of the trial court thatthe drivers driving was far below the standard expected ofa competent and careful driver; and his vehicle was in adangerous state, in view of the defective tyre. Referencewas made to the case of R v Robert Millar (Contractors)Ltd and Robert Millar [1970] 1 All ER 577, which had simi-lar facts to the present case.

Heerah v The State [2012] SCJ 71

Appeal against sentence Community Service Order

The Appellant was prosecuted for possession of articleswithout sufficient excuse or justification, which articleswere obtained by means of larceny by night-breaking. Hewas convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year imprison-ment. The Appellate Court reviewed the sentencing prin-ciples and reduced the sentence to 6 months imprison-ment, whilst also directing the lower court to make a Com-munity Service Order.

State v Abdourazak F [2012 SCJ 47]

Assizes Drug trafficking

The accused, a Comorian National, pleaded guilty to hav-ing on 9 January 2009 importedinto Mauritius, as trafficker, heroin contained in 606.4grams of white powder (with a purity of51 % and estimated to have a market value of Rs 9m),concealed in the false bottom of a blackhandbag.

The Court made an overview of various judgments forsentencing purpose and held that apart from the discountthat the accused is entitled to for having made a timely

plea of guilty, she deserved a further discount in view ofthe provision of section 43(2) of the Act

Court hence sentenced the accused to undergo 22 yearspenal servitude. Two thirds of the 1093 days she hasspent on remand have been deducted from the custodialsentence imposed.

Page 6 - Issue 14

THOUGHT OF THE MONTH

Great spirits have always encountered

violent opposition from mediocre minds

Albert Enstein

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

8/10

Treebhowon A v The District Magistrate of RiviereDu Rempart District Court [2012 SCJ 51]Bail Application- Committal to Assizes

Applicant, one Avinash Treebhowon who has beencommitted to the Assizes following the holding of aPreliminary Enquiry made an application to be re-leased on bail. He was provisionally charged with mur-der together with a co-accused before the District

Court of Rivire

du Rempart.

The grounds for objection against his release found inthe affidavit dated 9 November2011 of Inspector Gerard were:

1. Applicant will tamper with evidence.2. Applicant will interfere with witnesses.3. Applicant will abscond and fail to surrender to cus-tody,4. Bail should not be granted for the own protection ofthe Applicant.

Submissions were offered by Counsel for the applicanton the Constitutional Right to freedom, Human rightsand the presumption of innocence .

Court held that both the applicant and the respondenthave put meager material before this court in their re-spective affidavits and that sufficient facts and evi-dence need to be placed before court to be able toreach a reasoned and balanced conclusion as towhether a person who is presumed to be innocent canbe released pending his trial and the safeguards thatcould be put in place to ensure non-interference with

the prosecution witnesses and evidence.

Referring to the overriding consideration of the immi-nence of the first trialstated in the case of Deelchandv Director of Public Prosecutions [2005 SCJ 215],Court had set aside the petition inasmuch as a firmtrial date had been set within months.

Isseljee M.F. v ICAC & ANOR [2012 SCJ 46]Appeal outside delay - sentence

The appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of,

two counts of unlawfully giving a gratification to anoth-er person to use his influence to obtain a benefit froma public body. He appealed against his sentence onthe ground that it was manifestly harsh and excessive;and the appeal was fixed for hearing. However, be-fore the appeal was heard, the appellant sought leaveto file additional grounds of appeal outside the statuto-ry delay.

The Court set aside the motion of appellant on thefollowing grounds::

Appellant was assisted by learned counsel be-fore he gave notice of appeal to the trial court.

The fact of invoking the Constitution or raisingan issue of jurisdiction of the trial court will notper se compel the appellate court to hear the

additional grounds of appeal.

The additional grounds which the appellant purportsto raise were not novel.

The skeleton arguments on both the originalgrounds of appeal and the proposed additionalgrounds of appeal were only communicated to thecourt by the legal advisers of the appellant on the

eve of the hearing of the appeal.

The court also dismissed the appeal by stating that thelearned Magistrate did take into consideration the guiltyplea of the appellant, his age and state of health, his cleanrecord as well as the fact that he cooperated with the po-lice and she exercised her discretion under section 151 ofthe Criminal Procedure Act in the appellants favour .

LAW DAY CELEBRATION, 4th MARCH 2012

The first celebration of the Law Day began on 2nd

March 2012 at the University of Mauritius with a

workshop entitled Mauritian Legal System: Retro-

spective and Challenges Ahead. The various partic-

ipants were members of the judiciary, the Law Re-

form Commission, the National Human Rights Com-

mission, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecu-

tions, the Attorney Generals Office, the Bar Council,

the Law Society and the Chamber of Notaries. The

purpose of that celebration was to raise the aware-

ness of the population of the significance of individu-

als rights.

Honourable Yatin Varma, Attorney General, in his

speech said, it will bring together key players in the

legal field and, as mentioned in the theme 'Mauritian

Legal System: Retrospective and Challenges Ahead',

they will look back on the court system and they will

be showcasing some of the reforms already in the

government program.On Saturday, March 4 the Law Clinics were held be-

tween 10 to 14 hours at the premises of the CAB-

Plaine Magnien, Triolet, Bamboo, Vacoas, Bel-Air

and Port Louis and free legal advice was given to

members of the public.

Page 7 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

9/10

The Asset Recovery Unit of the Office of the DPP

A very intensive and informative mentoring session on the Asset Recovery Unit newly set up at the ODPP was held.This was a crucial mentoring session which coincided with the proclamation of the new legislation in this area andthe setting up of an Asset Recovery Unit within the office of the DPP. The participants discussed practical issuesand challenges they may face in investigating and prosecuting asset recovery cases, especially when it comes tocivil asset forfeiture, which is totally new to the system.

Mr Rashid Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP, gave an overview of what has been done so far after the proclamation of

the Asset Recovery Act since February 2012:

1) Identifying investigators having experience in investigating financial crimes2) Meeting with various stakeholders such as the FIU, the ICAC and the police3) Drafting of MOUs4) Preparation of referral forms to be used by investigators

During the mentoring several recommendations were made:

Recommendations

Working with independent receivers, as opposed to those employed by the judiciary in order to avoid potentialconflicts, especially where insolvent companies are involved;

Restraint orders to be given priority with a view to avoid tipping off especially where recourse is being made foraccount monitoring orders;

Need to get acquainted with Company law, Insolvency law and the Civil Procedure;

Provide basic courses to investigators on civil law;

Ensure adequate resources are available because of huge costs involved when it comes to investigation, prose-cution and paying fees of receivers and financial experts;

Possibility of self-managing assets instead of appointing receivers to reduce costs;

Need to focus more on the outcome of the case by ensuring maximum impact in preventing further re-offending;

Restraint orders to be applied for at a very early stage to avoid risk of dissipation;

Co-operation and good relationship between investigators and prosecutors;

Allowance for payment of counsel fees out of property frozen;

Readjusting rates of legal aid when it comes to asset recovery cases, to ensure that the respondent is repre-sented;

Further investigation on the possibility of hidden assets (e.g trails of credit cards);

Respecting confidentiality aspect at all times (e.g giving testimony anonymously, protecting identity of prosecu-tors to avoid risks of retaliation);

Addressing legal challenges in advance (e.g human rights issues);

Dealing similar cases together;

Drafting of application to be done jointly by law officers, investigators and attorneys;

Designate a certain number of counsels to acquire expertise in drafting because this will play a very importantrole in making applications;

The investigation team should submit reports to law officers to assess the strength of the case;

Reports and communications to be done electronically and acquisition of I2 system (enable possibility of assettracing)

Page 8 - Issue 14

8/2/2019 Newsletter 2014 1

10/10

DEBATE ON THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILLHELD AT THE BAR COUNCIL ON 9TH MARCH 2012

The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill concerns all the protagonists of our criminaljustice system. It is a proposed legislation which will definitely have an impact onthe whole of our criminal law system. In this respect, the Bar Council had orga-nized a debate on the Bill on Friday 9th March 2012 at 2p.m at its Seat. The eventwas well attended.

The interveners on the Bill were:

Sir Victor Glover Kt, G.O.S.K ,Former Chief JusticeMr. Raouf GulbulMr. Sanjay Buckhory, SCMr Satyajit Boolell, SC (DPP)

Mr. Rosario Domingue acted as moderator during the debate. The Attorney General was also present.

After the intervention by the main speakers, various persons present shared their respective views and commentson the Bill. I have endeavoured to summarise as faithfully as I could the gist of the comments by the speakers at theevent.

Sir Victor Glover was called upon to provide an overview of the Bill. He stated that the Bill is in fact one of the objec-tives found in the electoral manifesto of the current government and for this purpose, inspiration has been takenfrom the UK legislation. The Bill goes further in providing for the protection of victims and wide powers to excludeunfair evidence, together with a disclosure regime.

Mr Raouf Gulbul expressed doubt on the provision allowing for certain depositions and statements to be admissiblewhere a witness is unable to attend Court, since the possibility of cross examination would no longer exist, and therewould be prejudice caused to the accused. He was also of the view that the right to silence is threatened by the Bill,since the Judges Rules are being abolished and accused parties may be requested to provide a defence statementto the Court specifying the line of defence before the prosecution opens its case. He also commented on the exces-sive minimum fine of Rs50,000 inflicted on a witness who fails to attend court (discouraging witnesses to come for-ward)

For Mr S. Buckhory SC, the definition of victim in the Bill is too narrow and excludes the French notion ofprejudice. He suggested that victim should be defined as meaning any person who has suffered prejudice ofwhatsoever nature as a result of an offence. This should also include potential prejudice. Mr Buckory also ex-pressed the view that the principle of equality of arms is already being respected and there may be no additionalneed to request the defence (through a defence statement) to give notice of facts and matters within its knowledge.

The Director of Public Prosecutions gave an overview of the history of the equivalent of the Bill in UK and furthercommented that we cannot import wholesale a legislation from UK and apply same in Mauritius. We need to domes-ticate the law in Mauritius by choosing what is good for us and bringing same into our criminal law system.

In Mr Boolell SCs view, there is a need to have a new culture and a new mind set in the police force before weadopt this Bill.

He summarised the main features of the Bill as follows:

Imposing a duty on the police to be more transparent

Introducing a scheme for barristers to be on call hence making them accessible to suspects

New provisions on issues of search, arrest and detention

Drawing of adverse inferences when an accused is silent, which is already part of the Common Law

Duty of disclosure on defence

Finally, the DPP stressed on the fact that by providing for protection to witnesses, we are in fact promoting our crimi-nal law system inasmuch as if there is no witness, there is no justice.

To conclude, the DPP stated that a lot of training has to be given to the police before implementing this law and it isbest to refer it to the Law Reform Commission for further discussions and suggestions by law practitioners as well asthe police.

Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel