To No One Will We Sell To No One Deny or Delay Justice Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions The Monthly Legal Update Newsletter March 2012 Issue 14

EDITORIAL

2nd Regional IAP Conference, 26-29 August 2012, Sofitel lImperial Resort

Dear Readers,

It is to me that this months responsibility for the editorial came, Zaynah Essop being in India on a drafting course. I did not have too hard a task since one major event ruled the month of February for the ODPP, namely the Commonwealth Secretariat Prosecution and Police Training Programme (National Mentoring Component in Mauritius).

The 2 Regional Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors, in collaboration with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, will be held from 26 to 29 August 2012 at the Sofitel, Flic en Flac. The event aims to attract maximum participation from prosecutors (and lawyers) around the world, coming together to discuss the upholding of the Rule of Law in the African-Indian Ocean Region. The African Association of Prosecutors (APA) will be part of the gathering, and shall hold its Annual General Meeting at the conference venue after the panel discussions on a number of themes would have ended. A number of distinguished speakers from abroad have confirmed their participation so far. A few of these include: Mr James Hamilton, President IAP, past DPP Ireland Elizabeth Howe OBE, General Counsel, IAP Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC, Lead Consultant, Commonwealth Secretariat, past DPP, New South Wales Mr James Guthrie QC, of 3 Hare Court, London Ambassador Thomas Winkler, Foreign Affairs Ministry, Denmark Judge Duncan Gaswaga, Supreme Court, Seychelles Mr Francois Falletti, Secretaire General, Association Internationale des Procureurs et Pousuivants Francophones Representatives of UNODC Mr Basile Elombat, Magistrat, Cour dAppel, Cameroon Mr Buteera, DPP,Uganda

nd

In this issue, we give an overview of the training programme held from 27 February to 2 March last, and a summary of each session. I have had the benefit of talking to Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC, lead Consultant for the Commonwealth Secretariat and past DPP for New South Wales for more than 16 years. I trust our readers will find his interview to be as interesting and stimulating as I did.

We also inform our readers that the preparations for the Regional Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) from 26 to 29 August 2012 are well under way, with a number of confirmed speakers and participants from around the world.

Our usual rubric, a summary of the judgments of our courts for the month of February is at pages 6 and 7.

Details of registration and participation will soon be available on the conference website, and through the newsletter. The Mauritian Bar will be invited to participate in the discussions. Keep your diary free to attend from the 26th to the 29th of August 2012. IN THIS ISSUE

We hope you enjoy reading this issue of the monthly newsletter.

1.

Commonwealth secretariat training Programme.. Pgs 2-3

2.

Open talk with Mr Nicolas Cowdery, QC.Pgs 4-5 Supreme Court judgments.Pgs 6-7 Law day celebration.Pg 7 Asset recovery unit in ODPP.Pg 8 Debate on PACE .Pg 9

Sulakshna Beekarry Principal State Counsel Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

3. 4. 5. 6.

Page 1 - Issue 14

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT PROSECUTION AND POLICE TRAINING PROGRAMME 27th Feb to 1st March 2012, Municipality of Port Louis

The Commonwealth Secretariat Prosecution and Training Programme was developed as a holistic and focused training programme, with a view to promote the criminal justice system by emphasizing on the roles of every protagonist in the system. The training programme took place in Mauritius from 27 th February till 1st March 2012 and was chaired by Mr Rashid Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP. The participants in the 4 days programme were law officers (ODPP and Attorney Generals Office) and the police. The programme ensured maximum interaction between participants and experts from the Commonwealth Secretariat It also provided a forum for countries to share their experiences, discuss about their difficulties and identify main areas of challenges in the criminal justice system. Various topics were covered in intensive sessions, from mutual legal assistance, disclosure of materials by prosecution, advocacy, victim and witness protection, asset recovery to investigations in transnational crimes. SUMMARY OF THE 2 DAYS INTENSIVE SESSIONS Day 1 During the Welcome Session, the DPP, Mr Satyajit Boolell, SC emphasized on the discretionary powers which the DPP has as well as on the powers exercised by the police in investigating crimes in Mauritius. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the public should be aware of the manner in which the DPP and the police work and exercise their various powers. Furthermore, the DPP briefly commented on the various areas the ODPP is working on ,such as the need for disclosure by prosecution, victims and witness protection as well as the new asset recovery legislation passed recently in Mauritius. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition By Mr A. Richardson Mr Richardson gave a very informative presentation on the issue of mutual legal assistance. He revisited the Harare Scheme and emphasized upon the need to have a Central Authority which would act as the main point of contact in mutual legal assistance issues. The participants were provided with practical guidance as to the manner in which requests for information and documents should be made. The presentation also covered the issue of mutual legal assistance when it comes to prosecuting asset recovery cases. This proved to be quite important to the participants in light of the Asset Recovery Act which came in force in February 2012. Disclosure Law and Practice in Mauritius By Mr R. Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP, ODPP Mr Ahmine gave a presentation on disclosure by prosecution while emphasizing on the very important constitutional guarantee afforded to accused parties in criminal cases Section 10 of the Constitution relating to a fair trial. He argued that disclosure of information by the prosecution goes to the very root of fairness. He noted this issue of fairness was crucial inasmuch as a breach of an accused right to fair trial may lead to a stay of proceedings. Mr Ahmine also gave us an overview of Mauritian cases dealing with the importance of disclosure by prosecution. But, the most important part on which discussion was made arose on the need to have a legislation in relation to disclosure and also the importance of guidelines which would accompany the legislation. Emphasis was also laid on the role of a disclosure regime whereby one would look at all the evidence in a case file and certify in writing about the materials to be disclosed. An issue was raised as to when disclosure would be appropriate whether it should be at the stage of investigation or before trial? It was observed that even in other jurisdictions, no provision is made for disclosure of material by the prosecution at the investigation stage. The DPP also intervened to point out the importance to preserve the sovereignty of investigations by the police. Finally, the participants agreed that while disclosure by prosecution was
Page 2 - Issue 14

important role in the criminal justice system and that disclosure by the defence could go as far as disclosure of facts or points of law to be taken during trial. Advocacy Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC gave a very helpful presentation on the various ways to improve advocacy skills and defined the whole art that advocacy is. He forcefully reiterated that there is no alternative to good case preparation, nor to ethics and etiquette. Legal medicine: New Challenges By Dr. S.Boolell Dr Satish Boolell recalled his rich and fruitful career in legal medicine and his experiences as an expert witness in numerous cases. He laid particular emphasis on the need to keep a scene of crime untouched and undisturbed. He also discussed the role of various persons at a scene of crime while recounting the various difficulties encountered such as risks of contamination, accuracy of results, memory lapses of witnesses, importance of counter experts, length of time before a result is obtained as well as the need to maintain confidentiality. The police investigators intervened to point out that as at present scene of crime managers monitor access on the spot. Dr. Boolell made suggestions to have scene of crimes and autopsies filmed from start till the end. DAY 2 Asset Recovery, Proceeds of Crime and AML By R. Atkins Under the new Asset Recovery Act 2012, there is a need for police investigators and prosecutors to work in close collaboration to make of asset recovery an efficient tool to fight crime. Mr Atkins gave an overview of the important aspects of asset recovery such as confiscation orders, property, proceeds of crimes, possible human rights issues like right to property. It was also suggested that a secondary legislation would be very useful in providing the necessary guidelines when it comes to procedures as well as time limits set. Co-ordination and interaction among investigators and prosecutors in the criminal justice system By Mr C.Potter and Mr H.Kumar (Attorney Generals Office, Seychelles) The purpose of the programme being the training of both investigators and prosecutors, Mr H.Kumar pointed out the importance of co-operation between these two institutions at a very early stage, which would help to achieve good results in a criminal justice system. Mr H.Kumar also gave an overview of the laws governing the procedural aspect in Seychelles Victim and Witness Assistance By Medaven Armoogum, State Counsel, ODPP. Mr Armoogums address was on victim and witness protection in Mauritius. He remarked that there is no specific legislation dealing with this issue in Mauritius. It was also agreed that based on the guidelines issued by the Commonwealth Secretariat, the main protagonists in ensuring victims and witnesses protection are the police, the prosecutors and the judiciary. He noted that it is high time for Mauritius to come up with legislation in this area because witnesses are crucial to the system and need protection and assistance. Discussions took place on the ways in which protection can be afforded to victims and witnesses, mainly through psychological support, attending to their queries, making witnesses conversant with procedures in court well before the trial. The police stated that at their level, they already have a victim support scheme, but it is also important to regulate same by way of a comprehensive piece of legislation. Investigations and gathering of evidence in complex money laundering and transnational cases By ASP Ramgoolam, Mauritius Police Force This presentation proved to be very fruitful inasmuch as the participants were given an idea on the manner in which investigators work as well as the role of the various persons involved in investigating a scene of crime, such as the enquiring officer, the crime scene manager, the criminal investigators and the scene of crime officers. The participants were also enlightened on the various difficulties encountered at the scene of crime by investigators. Case preparation As an end note, both Mr Atkins and Mr Richardson shared their views and gave advice on case preparation. It was noted that there was a need for prosecutors to enhance their advocacy and prosecutorial skills with a view to improve the criminal justice system.
Page 3 - Issue 14

Open talk with Mr Nicholas Cowdery QC, past DPP, New South Wales Mr Nicholas Cowdery, now lead Consultant for the Commonwealth Secretariat, kindly accepted to answer a few questions during his visit in the context of the Mauritius Mentoring Programme. His rich career path and wide experience make invaluable reading and give an insight in a man whose life has been, and still is, devoted to the practice of the law.

Question: What is your background? Answer: I joined the Commonwealth Crown Solicitors Office in Sydney and worked there for 3 years. That is where I got my first exposure to prosecution work, and I found that I was very interested in the prosecution process. I qualified in 1971 and went to Papua New Guinea to work as a public defender for the local people. That was hard work in a different country, different culture but very interesting. I wanted to be of service to people in need. I came back to Sydney in 1975 and practiced as a barrister up to 1994.

Question: When did you become Director of Public Prosecutions? Answer: I was appointed Queens Counsel in 1987, and also served as an acting Judge from 1988-1990. I was convinced then that I did not want to be a Judge. My own feeling is that you are a prisoner when you are a judge. I enjoyed being at the Bar handling a lot of criminal work and big cases on taxation fraud and security fraud. Towards the end of my time at the Bar I handled 2 very significant briefs, one involving prosecuting a High Court judge and a district court Judge for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and another involving a former Chief Minister being prosecuted on a charge of perjury. I was contacted when the post of DPP became vacant. I was appointed in October 1994 as DPP of New South Wales.

Question: What did your job as DPP involve? Answer: I had 400 prosecutors under my direction, in 10 offices across New South Wales. My daily job consisted in making prosecution decisions and managing crisis. I also appeared in Court regularly. We were successful in all cases except 3. That is a pretty good success rate! I retired from the post in March 2011 after I reached the age of 65.

Question: What does life after retirement as DPP hold for you? Answer: Since then I have been appointed Professor in 4 universities. I am very much involved in international associations like the IAP where I have previously held office as President from 1999 to 2005, and the International Bar Association where I was the inaugural co-chair of the Human Rights Institute. I have had a rich career, balanced I hope. My visit to Mauritius is a visit to my 80 th destination. I was awarded the Medal of Honour by the IAP last year, which is for me a great privilege and a great pleasure.

Question: What were the main challenges you faced as DPP? Answer: Exercising given powers in an appropriate way requires judgment and balance, and the ability to resolve competing considerations. The whole process is assisted very much if there are competent people

Page 4 - Issue 14

in ones team. A DPP should not try to be popular with anyone because that will fail. His job is to exercise his functions in a proper manner. A DPP goes to work knowing that almost any decision would make somebody unhappy. It is not easy to adjust to this feeling. My protection against criticism is that I applied the rules. The same applied to my team. Prosecutors only get into trouble if they try to bend the rules. This is to be avoided. Rules are the product of long experience and trial and error. The best protection is to your job according to the rules.

Question: Would you agree that it may be necessary in some cases for a DPP to give reasons for his decisions? Answer: The issue is controversial. In some cases there may be privacy considerations, security issues or public interest issues. There are cases where people who are sensitive or controversial should not be exposed. On the other hand, however, the prosecutor, as the representative of the community, should have the communitys confidence . To build that confidence there has to be communication so that the community knows what is happening in their name. Reasons give that confidence. Where they are given, reasons should be given in short form, as opposed to lengthy communiqus. Accountability can also be ensured through reporting mechanisms like Annual Reports.

Question: What do you think of public guidelines? Answer: Public Guidelines are terrific. They are signposts though, they cannot cover everything. They can give people general directions on what particular decisions will be. Prosecutors are protected too-they can point to the guidelines. They can say they followed them. Guidelines can be very valuable both philosophically and practically.

Question: Do you believe a barrister needs to follow up on advocacy training throughout his career? Answer: Formal advocacy training is helpful at all stages. If you have acquired some bad habits formal training ensures that you get rid of them.

Question: Ethics and Etiquette-how important are these at the Bar? Answer: Any profession needs ethical standards. Etiquette should be applied. It falls to the leaders of the profession to try and ensure people coming into the profession learn. The rules can be written down but they have to be practiced and their value believed in.

Question: What would you say is the relationship between prosecution and human rights; are they mutually exclusive? Answer: Fortunately times have changed. It is now recognized that one of the fundamental tasks of the prosecution is to protect the fundamental human rights of everyone at the trial.

Page 5 - Issue 14

Please find below the summary of Supreme Court judgments for the month of February 2012
Easton v The State [2012] SCJ 55 Customs Act charge put to the Accused The Appellant was prosecuted under section 127A of the Customs Act for failing to produce books, records and documents. The conviction was quashed on appeal for the following reasons:The verbal request made to the Appellant was never put to her at enquiry stage whilst the evidence before the court was that there was a verbal request. No evidence was adduced as to which documents the Appellant was requested to produce. The Learned Magistrate failed to direct her mind to the reliability of the evidence of the officer of the Comptroller of Customs; the said officer gave evidence in relation to the verbal request made in January 2006 whilst he was posted at the office of the Comptroller of Customs in July 2006, such that his evidence was hearsay. Papiah v The State [2012] SCJ 56 Trial in public - Gross indecent act in public element of publicity; damaging enclosure whether enclosure included windows and window panes The Appellant was prosecuted on two counts of gross indecent act in public and damaging enclosure respectively. On the grounds of appeal, the Appellate Court had the opportunity to reiterate the following principles: True it is that the Accused has a constitutional right to trial being carried out in public. A trial carried out in the Chambers of the Magistrate does not invariably mean that there has been a breach of the said right. There are cases that call for trial in camera; however a trial in chambers does not preclude members of the public having access to the Magistrates chambers to follow the proceedings. In the present matter, the trial was conducted in chambers inasmuch as the court room was occupied by another magistrate. Enclosure, in the offence of damaging enclosure, included windows and window panes; The element of publicity in the offence of gross indecent act in public was assessed by the principle laid down in Nahaboo v Lowtun [1985] MR 240; The appellate court would be slow in interfering in appreciation of facts by lower courts, unless such appreciation was unreasonable.

Chaman v The State [2012] SCJ 57 Causing death by dangerous driving defective tyre standard of competence The Appellant was prosecuted before the Intermediate Court for causing death by dangerous driving. The case for the prosecution before the trial court was that the van had a defective tyre, was travelling over a long distance with several passengers on board. The tyre burst, causing the van to zig zag, and end up in a gutter. A passenger died as a result of the accident. The Appellate court upheld the finding of the trial court that the drivers driving was far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and his vehicle was in a dangerous state, in view of the defective tyre. Reference was made to the case of R v Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd and Robert Millar [1970] 1 All ER 577, which had similar facts to the present case. Heerah v The State [2012] SCJ 71 Appeal against sentence Community Service Order The Appellant was prosecuted for possession of articles without sufficient excuse or justification, which articles were obtained by means of larceny by night-breaking. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year imprisonment. The Appellate Court reviewed the sentencing principles and reduced the sentence to 6 months imprisonment, whilst also directing the lower court to make a Community Service Order. State v Abdourazak F [2012 SCJ 47] Assizes Drug trafficking The accused, a Comorian National, pleaded guilty to having on 9 January 2009 imported into Mauritius, as trafficker, heroin contained in 606.4 grams of white powder (with a purity of 51 % and estimated to have a market value of Rs 9m), concealed in the false bottom of a black handbag. The Court made an overview of various judgments for sentencing purpose and held that apart from the discount that the accused is entitled to for having made a timely plea of guilty, she deserved a further discount in view of the provision of section 43(2) of the Act Court hence sentenced the accused to undergo 22 years penal servitude. Two thirds of the 1093 days she has spent on remand have been deducted from the custodial sentence imposed.

THOUGHT OF THE MONTH Great spirits have always encountered

violent opposition from mediocre minds

Albert Enstein

Page 6 - Issue 14

Treebhowon A v The District Magistrate of Riviere Du Rempart District Court [2012 SCJ 51] Bail Application- Committal to Assizes Applicant, one Avinash Treebhowon who has been committed to the Assizes following the holding of a Preliminary Enquiry made an application to be released on bail. He was provisionally charged with murder together with a co-accused before the District Court of Rivire du Rempart. The grounds for objection against his release found in the affidavit dated 9 November 2011 of Inspector Gerard were: 1. Applicant will tamper with evidence. 2. Applicant will interfere with witnesses. 3. Applicant will abscond and fail to surrender to custody, 4. Bail should not be granted for the own protection of the Applicant. Submissions were offered by Counsel for the applicant on the Constitutional Right to freedom, Human rights and the presumption of innocence . Court held that both the applicant and the respondent have put meager material before this court in their respective affidavits and that sufficient facts and evidence need to be placed before court to be able to reach a reasoned and balanced conclusion as to whether a person who is presumed to be innocent can be released pending his trial and the safeguards that could be put in place to ensure non-interference with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. Referring to the overriding consideration of the imminence of the first trialstated in the case of Deelchand v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005 SCJ 215], Court had set aside the petition inasmuch as a firm trial date had been set within months. Isseljee M.F. v ICAC & ANOR [2012 SCJ 46] Appeal outside delay - sentence The appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, two counts of unlawfully giving a gratification to another person to use his influence to obtain a benefit from a public body. He appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly harsh and excessive; and the appeal was fixed for hearing. However, before the appeal was heard, the appellant sought leave to file additional grounds of appeal outside the statutory delay. The Court set aside the motion of appellant on the following grounds:: Appellant was assisted by learned counsel before he gave notice of appeal to the trial court. The fact of invoking the Constitution or raising an issue of jurisdiction of the trial court will not per se compel the appellate court to hear the
Page 7 - Issue 14

additional grounds of appeal. The additional grounds which the appellant purports to raise were not novel. The skeleton arguments on both the original grounds of appeal and the proposed additional grounds of appeal were only communicated to the court by the legal advisers of the appellant on the eve of the hearing of the appeal.

The court also dismissed the appeal by stating that the learned Magistrate did take into consideration the guilty plea of the appellant, his age and state of health, his clean record as well as the fact that he cooperated with the police and she exercised her discretion under section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the appellants favour .

LAW DAY CELEBRATION, 4th MARCH 2012

The first celebration of the Law Day began on 2nd March 2012 at the University of Mauritius with a workshop entitled Mauritian Legal System: Retrospective and Challenges Ahead. The various participants were members of the judiciary, the Law Reform Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney Generals Office, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chamber of Notaries. The purpose of that celebration was to raise the awareness of the population of the significance of individuals rights. Honourable Yatin Varma, Attorney General, in his speech said, it will bring together key players in the legal field and, as mentioned in the theme 'Mauritian Legal System: Retrospective and Challenges Ahead', they will look back on the court system and they will be showcasing some of the reforms already in the government program. On Saturday, March 4 the Law Clinics were held between 10 to 14 hours at the premises of the CABPlaine Magnien, Triolet, Bamboo, Vacoas, Bel-Air and Port Louis and free legal advice was given to members of the public.

The Asset Recovery Unit of the Office of the DPP

A very intensive and informative mentoring session on the Asset Recovery Unit newly set up at the ODPP was held. This was a crucial mentoring session which coincided with the proclamation of the new legislation in this area and the setting up of an Asset Recovery Unit within the office of the DPP. The participants discussed practical issues and challenges they may face in investigating and prosecuting asset recovery cases, especially when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, which is totally new to the system. Mr Rashid Ahmine, Senior Assistant DPP, gave an overview of what has been done so far after the proclamation of the Asset Recovery Act since February 2012: 1) 2) 3) 4) Identifying investigators having experience in investigating financial crimes Meeting with various stakeholders such as the FIU, the ICAC and the police Drafting of MOUs Preparation of referral forms to be used by investigators

During the mentoring several recommendations were made: Recommendations Working with independent receivers, as opposed to those employed by the judiciary in order to avoid potential conflicts, especially where insolvent companies are involved; Restraint orders to be given priority with a view to avoid tipping off especially where recourse is being made for account monitoring orders; Need to get acquainted with Company law, Insolvency law and the Civil Procedure; Provide basic courses to investigators on civil law; Ensure adequate resources are available because of huge costs involved when it comes to investigation, prosecution and paying fees of receivers and financial experts; Possibility of self-managing assets instead of appointing receivers to reduce costs; Need to focus more on the outcome of the case by ensuring maximum impact in preventing further re-offending; Restraint orders to be applied for at a very early stage to avoid risk of dissipation; Co-operation and good relationship between investigators and prosecutors; Allowance for payment of counsel fees out of property frozen; Readjusting rates of legal aid when it comes to asset recovery cases, to ensure that the respondent is represented; Further investigation on the possibility of hidden assets (e.g trails of credit cards); Respecting confidentiality aspect at all times (e.g giving testimony anonymously, protecting identity of prosecutors to avoid risks of retaliation); Addressing legal challenges in advance (e.g human rights issues); Dealing similar cases together; Drafting of application to be done jointly by law officers, investigators and attorneys; Designate a certain number of counsels to acquire expertise in drafting because this will play a very important role in making applications; The investigation team should submit reports to law officers to assess the strength of the case; Reports and communications to be done electronically and acquisition of I2 system (enable possibility of asset tracing)

Page 8 - Issue 14

DEBATE ON THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL HELD AT THE BAR COUNCIL ON 9TH MARCH 2012 The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill concerns all the protagonists of our criminal justice system. It is a proposed legislation which will definitely have an impact on the whole of our criminal law system. In this respect, the Bar Council had organized a debate on the Bill on Friday 9th March 2012 at 2p.m at its Seat. The event was well attended. The interveners on the Bill were: Sir Victor Glover Kt, G.O.S.K ,Former Chief Justice Mr. Raouf Gulbul Mr. Sanjay Buckhory, SC Mr Satyajit Boolell, SC (DPP) Mr. Rosario Domingue acted as moderator during the debate. The Attorney General was also present. After the intervention by the main speakers, various persons present shared their respective views and comments on the Bill. I have endeavoured to summarise as faithfully as I could the gist of the comments by the speakers at the event. Sir Victor Glover was called upon to provide an overview of the Bill. He stated that the Bill is in fact one of the objectives found in the electoral manifesto of the current government and for this purpose, inspiration has been taken from the UK legislation. The Bill goes further in providing for the protection of victims and wide powers to exclude unfair evidence, together with a disclosure regime. Mr Raouf Gulbul expressed doubt on the provision allowing for certain depositions and statements to be admissible where a witness is unable to attend Court, since the possibility of cross examination would no longer exist, and there would be prejudice caused to the accused. He was also of the view that the right to silence is threatened by the Bill, since the Judges Rules are being abolished and accused parties may be requested to provide a defence statement to the Court specifying the line of defence before the prosecution opens its case. He also commented on the excessive minimum fine of Rs50,000 inflicted on a witness who fails to attend court (discouraging witnesses to come forward) For Mr S. Buckhory SC, the definition of victim in the Bill is too narrow and excludes the French notion of prejudice. He suggested that victim should be defined as meaning any person who has suffered prejudice of whatsoever nature as a result of an offence. This should also include potential prejudice. Mr Buckory also expressed the view that the principle of equality of arms is already being respected and there may be no additional need to request the defence (through a defence statement) to give notice of facts and matters within its knowledge. The Director of Public Prosecutions gave an overview of the history of the equivalent of the Bill in UK and further commented that we cannot import wholesale a legislation from UK and apply same in Mauritius. We need to domesticate the law in Mauritius by choosing what is good for us and bringing same into our criminal law system. In Mr Boolell SCs view, there is a need to have a new culture and a new mind set in the police force before we adopt this Bill. He summarised the main features of the Bill as follows: Imposing a duty on the police to be more transparent Introducing a scheme for barristers to be on call hence making them accessible to suspects New provisions on issues of search, arrest and detention Drawing of adverse inferences when an accused is silent, which is already part of the Common Law Duty of disclosure on defence

Finally, the DPP stressed on the fact that by providing for protection to witnesses, we are in fact promoting our criminal law system inasmuch as if there is no witness, there is no justice. To conclude, the DPP stated that a lot of training has to be given to the police before implementing this law and it is best to refer it to the Law Reform Commission for further discussions and suggestions by law practitioners as well as the police. Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel
Page 9 - Issue 14