Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Accused, Zaheed Jangeerkhan, was charged with 'Breach of Curfew Order' for being outdoors on 23 April 2020 at Abercrombie Street, Les Salines, Port Louis, without a permit during an active curfew period (15 April 2020 to 4 May 2020). The prosecution's witness testified that the Accused was found sitting on the road at 8:45 AM, a time when curfew restrictions were in force. The court found no evidence from the Accused to justify his presence outdoors for essential purposes (e.g., medical treatment, food, or livelihood), and the defense's claims about methadone treatment or traveling to a police station were refuted by the witness. The Accused was ultimately found guilty.
Issues
The court had to determine if the accused's presence outdoors during a curfew order was necessary to access essential services or medical treatment, as permitted under regulation 14(4) of the Prevention and Mitigation of Infectious Disease (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. The prosecution argued the accused had no valid permit or justification, while the defense did not present evidence. The court found no necessity for his presence outdoors, leading to a guilty verdict.
Holdings
The court found the accused guilty of breaching the curfew order as there was no evidence to show his presence outdoors was necessary for accessing medical treatment, essential supplies, or other essential items for subsistence or livelihood. The prosecution's case was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of Burden of Proof, determining that the Accused failed to demonstrate that his presence outdoors during the curfew was necessary for accessing essential services or medical treatment as required by regulation 14(4) of the Prevention and Mitigation of Infectious Disease (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Cited Statute
Prevention and Mitigation of Infectious Disease (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
Judge Name
M. V. Mayer
Passage Text
- considering the alphabetical order in place during the period of confinement, the Accused was not permitted to be outdoors at the material time.
- I have assessed the evidence on record and I am of the view that witness No.1 testified in a plausible, coherent and consistent manner. As to the case put by the Accused in cross-examination, I note that the witness refuted that the Accused had just taken his methadone or was on his way to report to the police station. In the absence of any evidence from the Accused as to the reason why, at the material time, he was outdoors, I am not satisfied that his presence outdoors at the material time was necessary in order to avail himself of medical treatment, essential supplies, foodstuff, medicine or any other item essential for his subsistence or livelihood.
- In accordance with regulation 14(4) of the Prevention and Mitigation of Infectious Disease (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, no offence shall be committed in the event that a person is outdoors without being the holder of a WAP during a curfew order, if he is able to show that his presence outdoors was necessary in order to avail himself of medical treatment, essential supplies, foodstuff, medicine or any other item essential for his subsistence or livelihood.