Supreme Court of Mauritius Criminal Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court of Mauritius

  • Unlimited Jurisdiction
  • Supervisory Jurisdiction
  • Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Reference of constitutional questions
• Unlimited Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

  Section 76 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Supreme Court for Mauritius which shall have unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law
• Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

  Section 82(1) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to supervise any civil or criminal proceedings before any subordinate Court and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is duly administered by any such Court
• Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

  • Maunthrooa v DPP 2015
  • DPP v Sabapathee 1996
  • Boolell v Her Honour Ms. Ramsoondar 2019
  • Awotar v State 2004
  • Hurnam v DPP 2008
  • Alain-Gordon Gentil v State 1998
  • Chady v Her Honour Seetohul-Toolsee 2011
  • Nowzadick v State 2017
  • Jhungee v State 2019
  • DPP v Lagesse 2020
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to supervise any civil or criminal proceedings before any subordinate Court and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is duly administered by any such Court
• The Supreme Court will only intervene under its supervisory jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where the lower Court is not administering justice and there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to intervene as no other means are available
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under both Section 82(1) of the Constitution and Section 96(5) of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act to order a retrial
• The Supreme Court's power to order a retrial under Section 96(5) of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act is triggered by a "serious irregularity" occurring in the trial process, which means any material irregularities that could lead to an incorrect outcome, excluding immaterial or trial irregularities
• The phrase "serious irregularity" in Section 96(5) of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act is intended to cover any material irregularities which may occur in the course of a criminal trial and which could mean that an incorrect outcome has been arrived at, but excludes immaterial or trial irregularities
• The phrase "serious irregularity" sets out the threshold condition to be met before the Supreme Court has the power under Section 96(5) to order a retrial
• There will be many cases where a material irregularity has occurred at first instance in which the Supreme Court, as an appellate Court, cannot be sure whether the correct outcome of the trial should have been a conviction or an acquittal, for the very reason that the trial process has not been conducted in a proper way
• In such a case, the obvious way in which justice will be served is for there to be fresh examination of the facts of the case in a trial conducted in a proper way and according to law
• Section 82(1) of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the constitutional function of supervising criminal proceedings before subordinate Courts, including the Intermediate Court, which means that it must be in a position to act in an appropriate way to correct material irregularities which occur in such proceedings
• Section 82(1) of the Constitution also gives the Supreme Court the function of taking action to ensure that justice is duly administered by any such Court, which means that if the due administration of justice requires that there be a retrial before such a Court the Supreme Court's role is to order that
• Section 96(5) of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act should be read so as to conform with the Constitution
• Where an accused has been convicted by the Intermediate Court in circumstances where there has been a material irregularity in his trial, it is clearly apt to describe the irregularity as "serious", since it may mean that an innocent accused has been found guilty
• The constitutional guarantee in Section 10(1) of the Constitution of a fair trial on a criminal charge supports the wider interpretation of the phrase "serious irregularity" in such cases
• The correct interpretation is that the finding that there was a serious irregularity is the threshold condition giving rise to a power as described in the last phrase, which is to "declare the trial to be a nullity and order a retrial"
• Quite apart from Section 96(5), the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under Section 82(1) of the Constitution to order a retrial in this case since there was a serious, that is material, irregularity in the trial in the Intermediate Court
• Section 82(2)(b) of the Constitution coupled with Section 92(a) of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act creates a mandatory right of appeal from any final decision of a Subordinate Court in criminal proceedings only where the Subordinate Court has imposed a term of imprisonment or a fine of Rs 500 or more
• The right of appeal afforded under Sections 92 and 96 of the DIC (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act is in the nature of a rehearing and the Supreme Court may affirm or reverse, amend or alter the conviction, order or sentence
• Where the constitutional right of appeal under Section 82(2)(b) of the Constitution would not afford an adequate means of redress and the immediate intervention of the Supreme Court is called for in order to ensure that justice is duly administered, the Supervisory jurisdiction of the Court may be resorted to
• The Supreme Court is entitled pursuant to Section 82(1) of the Constitution to supervise any criminal proceedings before the Intermediate Court and "to make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is duly administered by any such Court"
• Under Section 84(1) of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution
• Where the lower Court refers a matter to the Supreme Court under Section 84 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will only try that particular matter and not the whole case and will revert the matter to the lower Court after interpreting that constitutional question
• Mauthrooa v DPP 2015: the Supreme Court reiterated the landmark case of DPP v Sabapathee 1996 PRV where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed that the "supervisory role of the Supreme Court which is reflected in Section 82(1) of the Constitution is to exercise a much closer supervision over the lower Criminal Courts".
• Awotar v State 2004 : when considering application of this nature, that the facts of the case must be such as to warrant the intervention of this Court and "....should show, in the terms of Section 82(1), that justice is not being duly administered and that there is a dire need for the Supreme Court to intervene so as to ensure that justice is duly administered by any such Court. The Supreme Court is not likely to grant an order if it finds that other avenues of redress are still available to an applicant";
• Hurnam v DPP 2008 where it was held that 'in order to avail oneself of Section 82(1) of the Constitution even while a case before the lower Court is being heard, it has to be shown that: 1)the lower Court is not administering justice; and

  2) there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to intervene as no other means are available.