Jolicoeur v PoliceMr Y Ramsohok, Senior District Magistrate

Supreme Court of Mauritius

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The applicant, Jean Raquel Jolicoeur, is charged with domestic violence against his spouse under sections 2 & 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. On 14.04.25, the applicant allegedly snatched his concubine's phone, scrolled through it, and struck her multiple times, leading to a PF 58 report and hospital treatment. The applicant is currently on bail for six cases, including daily reporting requirements, but failed to report on 15.04.25. He provided a medical certificate and voluntarily reported the next day. The applicant denies the domestic violence charge, and the declarant has since withdrawn her complaint. The applicant has no prior convictions for domestic violence and has three children with the declarant. He is employed as a singer and has a sister willing to host him at 22, Raymond de Kervenne Street, Riche Terre. The court found the risk of re-offending plausible but dismissed the absconding risk as based on police apprehensions. Bail was granted with conditions: two sureties of Rs 7500 each, a Rs 50,000 recognisance, residence at the sister's address, no contact with the declarant, and weekly reporting to Terre Rouge police station.

Issues

  • The court balanced the applicant's freedom against public safety, finding that conditions—such as residing at a verified address, weekly police reporting, and financial sureties—would effectively reduce re-offending and absconding risks. These conditions were deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure compliance without violating the presumption of innocence.
  • The respondent argued the applicant might abscond, citing his failure to report to police on 15.04.25 and five prior convictions for breaching bail conditions in 2016. However, the court noted his recent compliance after providing a medical certificate and his strong family ties, concluding the risk was based on police apprehensions rather than concrete evidence.
  • The court assessed the risk of re-offending by considering the applicant's past domestic violence reports, the declarant's protection order application, and the applicant's denial of the current charge. Despite the declarant's withdrawal, the court found the risk plausible due to the proximity of the parties and the potential for impulsive re-offending.

Holdings

The court found the risk of re-offending to be real and plausible but dismissed the risk of absconding as based on mere police apprehensions. The applicant was admitted to bail with conditions including two sureties of Rs. 7,500 each, a recognisance of Rs. 50,000, residence at a verified address, contact restrictions with the declarant, and weekly police reporting.

Remedies

  • he furnishes 2 sureties in the sum of Rs. 7500 each in cash
  • he must reside at 22, Raymond de Kervenne Street, Riche Terre until the disposal of the present matter
  • The applicant must not directly or indirectly approach, interact or be in contact with the declarant, Miss Marie Cyndy Condita Ah Fock, until the disposal of the present matter
  • he enters into a recognisance in his own name in the sum of Rs. 50,000
  • he must report to Terre Rouge police station every Sunday once between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours

Legal Principles

  • The court referenced Sections 3 & 4 of the Bail Act and cited landmark cases (Sheriff Y. v District Magistrate 1989 MR 260 and Maloupe v District Magistrate 2000 SCJ 233) to assess bail conditions and the nature of evidence.
  • The court emphasized the applicant's presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as outlined in the analysis of the risk of re-offending.

Precedent Name

  • LABONNE J V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ANOR
  • MALOUPE V THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT
  • Deelchand V The Director of Public Prosecutions & ors

Cited Statute

  • Bail Act
  • Constitution
  • Protection from Domestic Violence Act

Judge Name

Mr Y. Ramsohok

Passage Text

  • I find that the risk of re-offending is real and plausible.
  • In the circumstances, I set aside the grounds of objection and order that the applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions...
  • I find that the risk of absconding is based on mere apprehensions of the police.