Supreme Court of Mauritius, 11 février 2020, 2020 PL2 11 – Pce v Darbon

1

Pce v Darbon

2020 PL2 11

POLICE v DARBON Pascal Jeffrey Emmanuel

CN: 5116/19 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2 nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V DARBON Pascal Jeffrey Emmanuel

JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offences of: (I) Fai to produce driving licence on demand or photocopy thereof in breach of Section 46 (1) (2) and 163 of RTA (II) Alighting passengers except on a bus stop in breach of Reg 114(a) & 125 of GN 53/10 (III) Failing to remain stationery as long as required by a police officer in breach of Section 134 (2) (a) (ii) (b) & 163(1) (a (iii) (b) of RTA

The accused pleaded not guilty to all three counts was inops concilii at trial stage.

Prosecution produced a memo from the NTA, marked as Doc A.

Prosecution called witness no.1, WPC Raphael who read and produced a statement recorded from accused and marked as Doc B. Prosecution called witness no.2, PC Bundhoo, who related that on the material day, he was on duty in police uniform, regulating traffic. He signaled the accused who was driving a bus, to alight passengers on a lay-by. The accused went ahead instead of stopping to alight his passengers thereat. The officer approached the accused and requested for his licence to which the accused replied “to pe perdi mo le temps” and drove away before he could be duly informed of the offences.

The witness was cross-examined.

The case was closed for the Prosecution. The accused was informed of his Constitutional rights and elected to make a statement from the dock to the effect that he gave a copy of his licence and that given the officer was taking long, he had to drive his bus back on time. The case was then closed for the Defence. The Court has considered the evidence on record and has observed the Prosecution witness with care. The contravening officer explained clearly how the accused contravened the law and came across as being truthful. The Court found no sinister motive in the fact that the accused was contravened. The accused elected to make a statement from the dock. This Court is of the view that the principle elicited in the case of Andoo v R [1989 MR 241] is of relevance in the present case: “This Court has repeatedly stressed that the unsworn statement of the accused is only evidence of what he told the Police. Where the evidence for the prosecution establishes a strong and unshaken prima facie case and the accused chooses not to swear to his statement and expose himself to cross-examination, the trial Court is perfectly entitled to conclude that the prosecution evidence remains unrebutted. It is of course true that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused squarely lies on the prosecution and that the accused is entitled to remain silent. His right to silence, however, is exercised at his risk and peril when, at the close of the case for the prosecution, a prima facie case has been clearly established since

the burden then shifts on him to satisfy the Court that it should not act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We need only repeat what was said by Sir A Herchenroder CJ in Ramkalawan v R [1914 MR 124] [at page 125] namely that the observation of Beccaria should never be forgotten-“imperfect proofs, from which the accused might clear himself, and does not, become perfect.’ This principle has been reaffirmed in the case of ANNIA T. v THE STATE 2006 SCJ 262 as follows:

“However, where the prosecution adduces evidence which is strong and credible enough to support the charge, it will be open to the trial court to act upon that evidence unless the accused party adduces such evidence as to satisfy the trial court that it should not act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. This principle has been reaffirmed in a number of cases and more recently in DPP v Bhageerutty [2006 SCJ 158]”

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly finds the accused guilty as charged under count I, count II and Count III.

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut (District Magistrate) Delivered on 11 February 2020