Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 30 – Police v Harrydeo HURDYAL

Police v Harrydeo HURDYAL

2026 BMB 30

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER

In the matter of: CN 5726/23

Police

V

Harrydeo HURDYAL

JUDGMENT 1. Accused stands prosecuted for the offence of breach of curfew under regulations 14(1), (3) and 19(3) of the Prevention and Mitigation of infectious disease (Coronavirus) [GN 58 of 2020].

2. Accused pleaded not guilty and was unrepresented.

The case for the prosecution 3. The prosecutor produced a memo from the Police Head Quarters in relation to any work access permit issued in the name of the accused on 21 st April 2020. The accused had no objection to its content and production and the document was marked Doc A.

4. The contravening officer – witness no.1 – testified upon oath and stated that on the 21 st April 2020, at around 10h10, she was on patrol in police uniform along Black River Road, Petite Riviere when she saw Mr Hurdyal whom she identified as the accused in court. The accused was outside on the road during a period where there was a curfew order which prohibited members of the public to be outside. The accused was questioned about his presence outside but was unable to furnish any explanations, nor could he show any permit authorising him to be outside. Witness no.1 then informed the accused of the offence committed and his constitutional rights following which the accused replied that he was making a round in the locality (‘faire ene letour dans l’endroit’).

5. In cross-examination, witness no.1 maintained that accused was the very person whom she contravened on the material day and at that time, it was near route Riviere Noire, Petite Riviere, near the dispensary.

The Defence Case 6. The accused elected to testify upon oath and stated that he was a representative of the Senior Citizen Council at the Black River District Council. During the covid-19 pandemic, there was vaccination campaigns for senior citizens and other disabled persons. There was a van of the Ministry of Health that was dispatched to the dispensary situated next to his house. As a representative of the Senior Citizen Council, accused stated that he was present there on that day, ie the 21 st April 2020.

7. Furthermore, he mentioned that he was issued with a pass from the Ministry of Social Security. He brought a snapshot of a mobile phone screen which he produced without there being objection and the said snapshot was marked Doc B and B1.

8. Accused also produced a letter from the Senior Citizen Council with regards to his position thereat. The said letter was produced and marked Doc C.

9. He thus denied the charge and stated that he was duly authorised to be outside.

10. In cross-examination, he admitted that he personally did not apply for a work access permit but that it was the council which did all the procedure. He also admitted that the snapshot of the mobile phone screen does not mention the date on which such permit was granted.

11. He also replied that he did not show the contravening officer the permit on his phone as the latter never asked him about same.

The Law 12. Regulation 14(3) and (4) of GN 58/2020 is as follows: “(3) Any person who contravenes – (a) any provision of a curfew order; (b) any condition to which a permit is issued under paragraph (2), shall commit an offence.

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to – (a) a person who has to avail himself of medical treatment, or procure essential supplies, food stuff, medicine or any other item essential for his or his family’s subsistence or livelihood […]”

13. According to GN 512 of 2020, a curfew order in Mauritius was in place from 23 rd March 2020 and was extended until it was repealed on 12 th June 2020, so that the Court is satisfied that on the date of commission of the present offence, there was a curfew order in place in Mauritius.

Analysis of the evidence 14. The court has duly assessed the evidence on record and the demeanour of the witnesses who deponed during the trial.

15. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused has not disputed the fact that he was indeed outside on the 21 st April 2020. He simply disagreed with the charge levelled against him on the ground that he was lawfully authorised to be outside.

16. In fact, the accused’s version in court to the effect that he was a representative of the senior citizen council and that he was outside to attend the vaccination campaigns for senior citizens is a version that is raised for the first time at the close of the prosecution’s case.

17. When the court considers the deposition of the contravening officer, it is clear that the accused was given the opportunity to explain his presence outside and at no point in time did he state his reasons to the contravening officer.

18. Instead of giving his reasons to the contravening officer, the accused merely stated that he was making a round of the locality. This deposition from the contravening officer has remained unshaken. The accused did not deny making that statement as well.

19. The statement of the accused in court which came 6 years after the alleged incident comes at the eleventh hour as it came after the prosecution had closed its case. I find it difficult to attach much weight to such statement.

20. Another aspect of this case is the different memos produced by the prosecution. Two memos emanating from the Police Head Quarters were produced to the effect that the name ‘Harrydeo HURDYAL’ and the national identity card number of the accused are not found on the work access permit database management system. As opposed to that, the accused produced a snapshot of a mobile phone screen showing what appears to be a QR code with his name on it and a permit number. However, this court agrees with the prosecution that this document does not show any date so that it is not relevant to show that a work access permit existed at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

21. Therefore, the court considers it safer to rely on the document produced by the prosecution.

22. The second issue that the court has to determine is whether, as representative of the senior citizen council, the accused was justified to be outside on the aforementioned date.

23. Regulation 14(4) of GN 58/2020 provided for specific scenarios where the curfew order which was in place would not apply. It was incumbent upon an accused party to satisfy the court that he was outside ‘to avail himself of medical treatment, or procure essential supplies, food stuff, medicine or any other item essential for his or his family’s subsistence or livelihood…’

24. If this court were to take the deposition of the accused at its highest, he was merely outside to attend an alleged vaccination campaign of senior citizen in his capacity as a representative of the senior citizen council. His presence outside was therefore not to avail himself of any medical treatment, nor to procure any essential supply for himself or his family’s subsistence or livelihood. The reason provided by the accused to be outside on the 21 st April 2020 does not fall within the specific scenarios provided by law where an accused party was right to derogate from the application of the curfew order.

25. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found outside in breach of a curfew order in place on the aforesaid date. I find the accused guilty as charged.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 28 th April 2026