Automated Summary
Key Facts
Alvinio Maurizio Steward Labonne was provisionally charged with drug dealing offenses involving synthetic cannabinoids (600.6 grams of cannabis) and heroin (29 aluminum foils). Police secured drugs from his Rose Hill residence in August 2018, valued at Rs 419,450. The bail application was a fresh hearing after the first motion was set aside in May 2019. Prosecution objected solely on risk of re-offending, but the main enquiry officer admitted no evidence supported this claim. The applicant denied selling the drugs but admitted possession. The court granted bail with conditions including Rs 300,000 bank cheque surety, Rs 400,000 open surety, Rs 1,000,000 recognizance, daily police check-ins, curfew, and mobile phone monitoring.
Issues
The central issue was whether the Applicant should be granted bail given the prosecution's objection based on the risk of re-offending, considering the nature of the drug offences, the Applicant's admission to possession but denial of intent to sell, and the lack of evidentiary support for the re-offending risk.
Holdings
The court granted bail to the Applicant despite the Respondent's objection on the risk of re-offending. The court found no evidence to support the objection, noting that the main enquiry officer admitted a lack of evidence in cross-examination. Bail was granted with conditions including sureties, daily police reporting, curfew, and a mobile phone monitoring requirement. The court emphasized that these conditions would effectively reduce the risk of re-offending to a negligible level.
Remedies
- The Applicant is to furnish a second surety of Rs 400,000 (open).
- The Applicant is to furnish a first surety of Rs 300,000 by bank cheque.
- The Applicant is to be permanently equipped with a mobile phone, the number of which he shall communicate in advance to the ADSU officers nominated for that purpose.
- The Applicant is to reside at a fixed place of address, address provided to the police.
- The Applicant should not commit any offence and reoffend whilst on bail.
- The Applicant to enter into a recognizance in the sum of Rs 1,000,000 in his own name.
- A curfew order is imposed on Applicant. He is to remain indoors at his residential address as provided to the police between 20 00 hours and 05 00 hours on a daily basis. In case of emergency, the police are to be contacted to inform them of his predicament before proceeding outside during the hours of curfew.
- The Applicant is to ensure that the mobile phone is in good working condition and open for communication at all times to enable ADSU officers at any time to ascertain his movements and location and if necessary to direct him to be in attendance at any indicated spot.
- The Applicant is to report to the nearest police station once daily between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours.
Legal Principles
- The prosecution must provide evidence to substantiate the ground of risk of re-offending. In this case, the court found no evidence to support the police's objection, highlighting the burden on the state to prove such risks.
- The standard of proof for the risk of re-offending requires the danger to be a 'plausible one,' as established in Clooth v Belgium. The court deemed the police's objection mere apprehension lacking sufficient evidence.
- The presumption of innocence is a key consideration in bail decisions, balancing the liberty of the citizen against risks to society and the administration of justice. The court emphasized that bail should be granted unless conditions can reduce risks to a negligible level.
Precedent Name
- Hurnam v The State
- Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port
- Deelchand V The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (Supra)
- Dookhit S. v The District Magistrate of Pamplemousses District Court, Pamplemousses
Cited Statute
- Bail Act 1999
- Dangerous Drugs Act
Judge Name
B. Prayag-Rajcoomar (Mrs)
Passage Text
- I have noted that the Applicant is borne on record for a case of possession of cannabis only and therefore it cannot be said that he has an overriding pattern of behaviour which would induce him to commit a similar offence if released.
- I find therefore that an imposition of a heavy security will ensure the Applicant's appearance before Court and will be an incentive for him not to indulge in any other offence.
- After carrying out the required balancing exercise, I hold that the need for Applicant to be in continued detention in the circumstances does not outweigh his right to remain at large.