Supreme Court of Mauritius, 27 avril 2026, 2026 LPW 20 – Ruling Police-Seewoogobin

Ruling Police-Seewoogobin

2026 LPW 20

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS In the matter of 6405/23

Police V Hervish Sewoogobin

RULING 1. The accused stands charged under two counts for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. 2. On the 10 th August 2023, he pleaded not guilty to both counts. On the 17 th October 2024, he pleaded guilty after his counsel had withdrawn and the matter was fixed for hearing on the 8 th November 2024. 3. On 30 th July 2025, through his Counsel, Me Pillay, the accused moved to change his plea to not guilty anew. 4. The arguments were heard on the 3 rd of March 2026. 5. Defence Counsel called his client under oath. The latter explained that he pleaded guilty under stress. He could not remember whether there was a man or woman who had read the charge to him. He stated that he was not made aware of the level of alcohol in his breath and that whoever read the information to him had only told him “ou finn boire ou finn conduire”.. He vehemently denied having understood the charges when the information was read anew to him.

6. The Accused was then cross-examined by Counsel appearing for the prosecution and it came to light that the accused had changed counsel multiple times. However, he maintained his version under cross-examination that he did not understand the charges put to him and that he was under a state of panic.

7. I have addressed my mind to the testimony under oath of the accused and the submissions of counsel for both parties.

8. The principles governing a change of plea have been summarized in the case of Ssebuufu DEO v The State 2022 SCJ 269 where the following was held: “In O.M.M.Lalloo v The State & Ors [2011 SCJ 391] the Court aptly, when considering on appeal a refusal to allow a change of plea, provided the following: “The Court, in its discretion in deciding whether to allow a change of plea to one of not guilty; should be mindful of the presumption of innocence and of an accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial. It is therefore vital for the Court to ensure that he understands the nature of the charge against him before he pleads to it. He will be allowed to alter his plea if he satisfies the court that he has made a genuine mistake of fact or law (Sookun v R [1982 MR 230], or when his plea of guilty appears to be unclear, ambiguous and equivocal (Isidor v R [1982 MR 262]; Moonsamy Vyraven v The State [1995 MR 128].However, a motion for a change of plea will not be favourably entertained if made out of the accused’s whims and fancy.”

9. I have perused the court record and I have observed the following: a. The accused pleaded guilty not guilty on the 10 th August 2023; b. Me Ganoo appeared for the accused on the 17 th October 2024 on which day, she withdrew and the information was read to accused at his behest after the counsel had withdrawn; c. On the 22/11/2024, the accused has stated that he is maintaining his guilty plea but he wishes to retain services of counsel for mitigation purposes; d. On the 9/12/2025, the accused has filed a letter from Counsel Mrs Balgobin and the matter was fixed for Hearing for the 6 th February 2025 on which day Mrs Balgobin informed court that she has just been communicated with the brief and moved for a postponement to prepare the case for the defence; e. The case was fixed anew for hearing on the 5 th March 2025 on which day Me Balgobin withdrew; f. On the 25 th of April 2025, the accused filed a letter from his new Counsel, Me N Pillay who then on the 30 th July 2025 moved for a change of plea. The case was fixed for arguments on the 10 th of November 2025 on which day both Counsel stated to court that they have other professional commitments to

attend and jointly moved for the matter to be postponed for arguments. The arguments were finally heard before this court on the 3 rd of March 2026; 10. The accused deposed under oath for the purposes of the arguments in the present matter. He stated that when the information was read over to him, he was not informed of major particulars. He was not informed of the level of alcohol in his breath and that whoever had read the information to him had only told him “ou finn boire ou finn conduire”. He further explained that he was not informed about the prescribed limit of alcohol beyond which an offence is committed 1 . He could not recall when he pleaded guilty 2 although the record reflects that the information was read over to him at his own request. He, however, maintained his version that he did not understand a few issues when the information was read over to him.

11. It has been held in Moonsamy Vyraven v The State 1995 SCJ 353 that that “A motion for a change of plea must be favourably entertained if the Court is satisfied that the accused party, particularly in cases where he is unrepresented, gave his plea by a mistake of fact or of law.” Further, there is evidence that the person who read the information to him only stated “ou finn boire ou finn conduire” as per the testimony of the accused under oath 3 . Given that the accused was inops consili when his counsel had already withdrawn, I find that the possibility of him being under a mistake of fact or of law is plausible.

12. Moreover, in Lalloo v The State 2011 SCJ 391, the Supreme Court held that “whether to allow a change of plea to one of not guilty, should be mindful of the presumption of innocence and of an accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial. It is therefore vital for the Court to ensure that he understands the nature of the charge against him before he pleads to it”

13. Accordingly, I hold that I am entitled to use my discretion in the interests of justice to allow the accused to change his plea from Guilty to Not Guilty under both counts. Findings 14. For all of the above reasons, I find that the motion for change of plea under counts 1 and 2 from guilty to not guilty is granted.

1 Proceedings Page 15 2 Proceedings Page 16 3 Proceedings Page 14

WZ PEERALLY SAYED -HOSSEN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 27/04/2026