Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, Jean Brayan Judex Musette, was provisionally charged with drug dealing (possession of cannabis, seeds, and cultivation) and money laundering under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Police seized 541 grams of cannabis, 300 cannabis seeds, 228 cannabis plants (3 mature, 225 seedlings), Rs47,200 in cash, an electronic scale, and 30 resealable sachets from his residence. The court granted bail with conditions including two sureties of Rs500,000 each, a recognizance of Rs3,000,000, daily police reporting, a curfew from 9pm to 5am, and restrictions on leaving Mauritius or contacting witnesses. The applicant was arrested on 15/06/2023 and the ruling was delivered on 22/03/2024.
Issues
- The court evaluated the risk of the Applicant reoffending, considering the nature and strength of the evidence against him, the seriousness of the drug charges, the lucrative nature of drug dealing, and his clean criminal record. The court found the risk to be real and plausible.
- The court assessed the risk of absconding by weighing the Applicant's presumption of innocence, his clean record, and employment status against the severity of the charges, the high value of seized drugs, and the lack of family ties. The court concluded the risk was real and plausible.
Holdings
- The Applicant undertakes not to leave Mauritius without the authorisation of the Court.
- The Applicant is not to contact any witnesses, suspects or potential suspects in this case directly or indirectly, through any means of telecommunication or any third party, pending completion of the main case.
- The Applicant shall reside at a fixed address, which address shall be provided to the police.
- The Applicant shall furnish two sureties of Rs500,000/- each by bank cheque.
- Daily curfew order on the Applicant from 9pm to 5am. In the event that the Applicant has to venture outside during these hours due to an emergency, he is to inform the police prior to leaving his house.
- The Applicant shall have in his possession a mobile phone in good working condition, the phone number of which is to be provided to the police.
- The Applicant shall report to the police station nearest to his place of abode twice daily once between 6am and 8am and once between 6pm and 8pm.
- The Applicant shall inform the police of his daily activities and whereabouts every time that he reports at the police station.
- The Applicant shall enter into a recognizance of Rs 3,000,000/- in his own name.
Remedies
- The Applicant shall enter into a recognizance of Rs3,000,000/- in his own name.
- The Applicant shall furnish two sureties of Rs500,000/- each by bank cheque.
- The Applicant shall not leave Mauritius without the authorisation of the Court.
- The Applicant shall not contact any witnesses, suspects, or potential suspects in this case, directly or indirectly, through any means of communication or third party.
- The Applicant shall observe a daily curfew from 9pm to 5am. If venturing out during these hours for emergencies, prior police notification is required.
- The Applicant shall reside at a fixed address, which address shall be provided to the police.
- The Applicant shall report to the police station nearest to his place of abode twice daily, once between 6am and 8am and once between 6pm and 8pm.
- The Applicant shall have a mobile phone in good working condition, the number of which is to be provided to the police.
- The Applicant shall inform the police of his daily activities and whereabouts every time he reports at the police station.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principle that the respondent bears the burden to substantiate grounds for refusing bail, referencing Maloupe v District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000 SCJ 223]. The Respondent's failure to provide a clear timeline for the main case was highlighted as a concern.
- The court emphasized the presumption of innocence under section 5(3) of the Constitution of Mauritius, noting that the right to liberty cannot be unduly prolonged without compelling reasons. This principle was central to balancing the Applicant's liberty against societal protection.
Precedent Name
- Sheriff v District Magistrate of Port Louis
- Hossen v District Magistrate of Port Louis
- DPP V Louis Jimmy Marthe
- Nurkoo
- Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors
- Labonne v. DPP & Anor
- Maloupe v District Magistrate of Grand Port
- J.J Harris v His Honour Y. Ramsohok, Ag. District Magistrate Bail and Remand Court and Anor
- Rangasamy v The Director of Public Prosecutions
- Hurnam v The State
- Korimbaccus M. S. V. The District Magistrate Of Port Louis, IIND DIVISION
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Mauritius
- Bail Act 1999
- Dangerous Drugs Act
Judge Name
Ms Ashmi Nuckchady
Passage Text
- I find that the risk of reoffending and the risk of absconding, though real and plausible, can be minimized to an acceptable level with stringent conditions being imposed. I, therefore, set aside the grounds of objection and order that the Applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions...
- The rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage is, accordingly, that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risks referred to above –i.e. risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society –to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance.
- What may be examined at the stage of an application for bail is the 'nature' of the evidence, but this should not be a doorway for looking in detail at the evidence itself as opposed to the surrounding circumstances which have a bearing upon its quality.