Supreme Court of Mauritius, 16 juin 2020, 2020 ROD 34 – POLICE V BEGUE STEVENSON

POLICE V BEGUE STEVENSON

2020 ROD 34

Cause No: 1682/2019 THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

STEVENSON BEGUE

———- JUDGMENT Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of obstructing a public officer in breach of section 3 (1)(a) and 3(2) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel at trial. The case for the Prosecution.

2. On 18 February 2016, at 06.45 hours, following information in relation to illegal drug cultivation, Police Sergeant Perrine, Police Sergeant Manan and other police officers posted at the Anti Drug and Smuggling Unit, Special Mobile Force and the Police Dog Unit proceeded in a forest found in the valley of Camp Baptiste.

3. Around 08.00 hours, Accused came on the spot where the search was being conducted and went towards Police Sergeant Perrine. Accused, equipped with a piece of wood in his hand asked Police Sergeant Perrine what the police was doing there and said: “Qui zot pe vine faire dans bois. Zot pe empeche nous vivre. Zot pe empeche nous respire, zot pe trop aller”.

4. Police Sergeant Perrine informed Accused that he was preventing the police to perform its duties but in return, Accused said to Police Sergeant Perrine that he did not bring his son at school today so that he can deal with the present matter. At that point, Police Constable Meunier came with the police dog and it is then that Accused ran away. Police Sergeant Perrine testified that the search could not proceed further due to the aggressive behaviour of Accused and also to avoid any police officers to be assaulted.

5. Police Sergeant Manan, another police officer who was present during the search was called by the prosecution and testified that on the material day and time, together with other police officers, he started a sweep from Dans Bebe up to Camp Baptiste. Around, 08.15 hours, when they reached Camp Baptiste and whist he was with Police Sergeant Perrine and Police Constable Samoisy, he saw Accused who looked angry and aggressive, and was holding a piece of wood of about one metre in his hand. Police Sergeant Manan testified that Accused was together with Guilliano Perrine, who resides at Vangard and Accused said to the police officers: “Ki zot pe vin faire dans bois, dans nous la foret, zot pe empeche nous vivre, zot pe empeche nous respire, pena aucain la fouille pou faire dans sa bois là”. Accused was called to order and Accused was informed of the offence he committed but Accused continued to behave aggressively and said that he did not bring his son to school so as to sort out the present matter. However, Accused ran away once a police dog handler came with the police dog.

6. Police Constable Meunier, the dog handler and Police Constable Samoisy were not called by the prosecution but were tendered for cross examination.

The Defence case

7. Accused stated from the dock that police officers came at his place without a search warrant and he only went to see Police Sergeant Perrine to get an explanation why his premises were being searched. Accused went on to state that he did not report any case against any police officers because he was not aware that Police Sergeant Perrine made a declaration against him despite after having shook hand with him before he left.

The law

8. Section 3 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act states that :-

Any person who by force or violence resists, opposes, molests, hinders, or obstructs —

(a) any public officer in the performance of his duty;

(b) any person lawfully engaged, authorised or employed in the performance of any public duty; or

(c) any person lawfully acting in aid or assistance of the public officer or person mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

(2) In the absence of force or violence, the penalty shall be a fine not exceeding 3,000 rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, the penalty shall be as provided in subsection (1).

Assessments of facts.

9. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 10. In the present case, for the prosecution, there is the version of Police Sergeant Perrine and Police Sergeant Manan who testified as to the circumstances where Accused intervened and due to his intervention, the police had no other alternative than to stop their sweep so to avoid any risk of injury in respect police officers involved during the search.

11. Having heard the version of Police Sergeant Perrine and of Police Sergeant Manan and also having observed their demeanours during their testimonies, I accept them as witnesses of truth. This is being said because I have found nothing which have undermined their testimonies. I instead have found both witnesses credible and reliable.

They were able to explain in clear terms as to how Accused’s intervention prevented the team of police officers to continue the sweep.

12. As regards to Accused, he gave his version from the dock and as stated above, Accused stated that he went to speak to Police Sergeant Perrine because police officers were searching his premises without being in possession of a search warrant.

13. Now, as regards to Accused, he gave his version from the dock and denied that he obstructed the police officers to continue their sweep. However, this being so, I find that he has failed to cast doubt in the prosecution case. this is being said because there are two police officers who deponed and whose testimonies have been found to be truthful compared to Accused who elected to make a statement from the dock and the said version obviously carries less weight when same has not been the subject of cross examination. Furthermore, Accused stated that he was not aware that there was a case levelled against him but I find that the version of Accused cannot stand because Accused was interviewed for this case during the same year when this case was reported and to which Accused declined to give a written statement.

14. Hence, in the light of the above, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused obstructed the police to perform its duties and this was following his intervention during the sweep conducted by the police officers.

Conclusion .

12. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

Daniel Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 16 June 2020.