Supreme Court of Mauritius, 12 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 212 – RS Paulen v Police

1 RS Paulen v Police

2020 BRC 212

Provisional Cause Number 2631/19 (Lower Plaines Wilhems (Rose-Hill)) BRC Cause Number 4271/19 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Rony Sandy Paulen v/s Police RULING

Introduction

1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of possession of cannabis in breach of sections 34(1)(b) and 47 (5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He has been on remand since the 22 nd November 2019 and has moved that he be admitted to bail.

2. Facts and circumstances of the case

On the 22 nd November 2019, at 06 30 hours, the Police searched the Applicant’s house, and secured an improvised pipe, fitted with a cone and suspected to be used for smoking cannabis, and a pill, labeled “tranxene”. The Applicant has confessed to the charge and the value involved is Rs 1,500.

Case for Respondent

3. Inspector Jeewon, of Beau-Bassin police station, has been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist bail in the present case on the following ground:

2 (i) Risk of reoffending

4. In support of the ground of objection, Inspector Jeewon stated that the Police believe that the Applicant will indulge anew in similar transactions, if admitted to bail, given that he is borne on record for three cognate offences (Doc X) and is on bail for non-cognate offences (Doc A).

5. The enquiry has been completed and the case file sent to superior officers for PF 100 since the 01 st June 2020. The main EO was not cross examined by the Applicant.

Case for the Applicant

6. From the dock, the Applicant stated that he would abide to all conditions imposed if granted bail.

The Law

7. I bear in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence and the Constitutional rights of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and liberty. This Court is well aware of the rationale of bail expounded in the cases of Maloupe v/s The District Magistrate of Grand Port and Anor [2000 SCJ 223], Deelchand v/s The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others [2005 SCJ 215] and Islam v Senior District Magistrate Grand Port District Court [2006 SCJ 282].

Nature of the evidence 8. Given that the Applicant has confessed to the charge, bearing in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, this Court, without delving into the merits of the case, takes the view that there is strong evidence against the Applicant.

9. The ground of objection raised by the Police has been analysed as follows:

(a) Risk of reoffending

Given the lucrative nature of the drug business, its proliferation and the

3 nature of the evidence against the Applicant, and given that the latter is borne on record for three cognate offences (Doc X), I find that the danger of re-offending, if granted bail, is “plausible” [Re: Deelchand v DPP & Anor 2005 SCJ 215 citing Clooth v Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) at para 40]

Conclusion 10. Having found that there is a plausible risk, this does not entail that bail should be refused to the Applicant. There is an inherent duty upon this Court to assess whether conditions can be imposed to adequately curb the risks, so as to render the risks negligible as expounded in the case of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port and Anor [2000 SCJ 223].

11. In Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (supra), it was held that “Security appears applicable to all the risks as it may be an incentive to the applicant to appear for trial, to behave whilst on bail and to refrain from interfering with witnesses, or tampering with evidence.”

12. I find that stringent bail conditions can be imposed on the Applicant to minimise the risks identified by the Police. I therefore set aside the ground of objection and order that the Applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions:

(i) The Applicant shall furnish a surety of Rs 8,000 in cash;

(ii) The Applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 50,000 in his own name;

(iii) The Applicant shall reside at a fixed address, which address shall be provided to the police; and

(iv) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station to his place of abode everyday, once a day, between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours.

Shavina Jugnauth (Miss)

4 District Magistrate This 12 th June 2020