Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 avril 2026, 2026 INT 110 – Police v. Jean Fabrice Thierry Walter

Police v. Jean Fabrice Thierry Walter

2026 INT 110

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS

CN: – 150/22 In the matter of: – Police v. Jean Fabrice Walter JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offence of unlawfully and by imprudence, whilst driving a motor car on a road, being the unwilling cause of homicide of one Haresse Gungabissoon in breach of section 239 (1) of the Criminal Code coupled with section 52- Second Schedule and 133 of the Road Traffic Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and was represented by counsel.

It is the case for the prosecution that on 23rd July 2013 at 20 13 hrs, there occurred a road accident along Royal Road, Nouvelle France, close to the Nouvelle France Police Station. The enquiry revealed that the deceased had attended a funeral prior to the accident and met with the accident whilst he was crossing the road when the vehicle driven by accused collided with the deceased.

The accused did not depose in court. In his unsworn statement given under caution to the police, it is the version of the accused that on 23rd July 2013, at about 20 15 hrs, he was driving vehicle bearing registration number 4273 JU 13 along Royal Road, Nouvelle France proceeding towards Souillac from the direction of Curepipe, on the left hand side of the road, at a speed of about 30 to 40 km/hr, when he manoeuvered to the right side to enter into a side lane to turn right towards Souillac, when he suddenly saw a person in front of his vehicle. He immediately braked but could not avoid a collision.

Learned State Counsel submitted that there are no independent eye witnesses and that the prosecution relies on the statement of the accused, the real evidence and the evidence of the police officers. She submitted that both parties were at fault for the accident but that the fault of the victim did not absolve the accused of his fault.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted for his part that firstly, the court is left in the dark as to the exact circumstance of the accident. Secondly, it is not disputed that the victim was not crossing in a safe place and that it was raining and foggy. Thirdly, there is no evidence of the clothing worn by the victim which could enlighten the court as to whether he was visible or not. He further submitted that the submission of learned State Counsel that the accused should have put his full headlights on is neither here nor there. Fourth, no weight can be attached to Doc L as the witness has passed away and could not be cross examined. Fifth, it is not disputed that there were pavements on both sides of the road. Sixth, the deceased had attended a funeral before the accident. Seventh, the accident occurred in an unsafe, accident- prone area and there is no evidence that accused could by known by way of a signpost that the area was accident prone. Finally, there is no evidence that the accused was imprudent and, in the alternative, if there is some element of imprudence on the part of the accused, the imprudence of the victim is “so grossière qu’elle fait disparaite” the fault of the accused. [vide Sham v. The Queen 1982 MR 224]

I have considered the evidence adduced as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and their respective demeanours. Firstly, PS Sadoo produced a rough sketch which he made after the accident [Doc H] and a plan which was drawn up by PC Marceline under his instructions [Doc L]. I note that the point of impact marked C in Doc H and marked A in Doc L are not the same in that, in Doc H the point of impact is in the side lane leading to Beau Climat and in Doc L it is on the main road. Similarly, the position of the victim at point B in Doc H is in the side lane leading to Beau Climat, whereas in Doc L the victim is at point B on the main road. These inconsistencies have remained unexplained for by PS Sadoo save and except that in cross examination, he stated that he could not confirm the correctness of Doc L and confirmed that the accident occurred in the side lane leading to Beau Climat. I am therefore of the view that it would be unsafe to rely on Doc L.

Secondly, there is no independent eye witness and it would be unsafe for me to make any assumptions as to where the victim was proceeding to and from which direction he was crossing the road.

Thirdly, as regards the circumstances of the accident itself, I only have the version of the accused as per his statement given under caution to the police that on 23rd July 2013 at about 20 15 hrs, he met with an accident, in the course of which he collided with the victim, who he suddenly saw in the middle of the road, as he was in the process of manoeuvring into a lay by so as to turn right towards Souillac.

Fourthly, it is not disputed as confirmed by PS Sadoo that the victim was crossing the road in an unsafe accident-prone area, before a slope where the road was not flat, that it was raining and foggy at the material time and that despite street lights, the road was not well lit. There is further no evidence as per the police enquiry that the accused was speeding or driving at unreasonable speed at the material time.

In view of the above, I have not been satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was imprudent and that his driving fell below the standard of the reasonable and prudent driver.

For the above reasons, I dismiss the case against the accused.

S Chui Gunness [Judgment delivered by S Chui Gunness (Mrs) Ag Vice President, Intermediate Court, Criminal Side] [Judgment delivered on 01st April 2026]