Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 juin 2020, 2020 MBG 2 – POLICE V DAVIDSON . B. J

POLICE V DAVIDSON . B. J

2020 MBG 2

CN: 5128/19

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRAND PORT

IN THE MATTER OF:- POLICE V DAVIDSON BRADLEY JEAN

JUDGMENT Accused stands charged with the offence of Possession of Cannabis in breach of section 34 (1) (b) and 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and appeared inops consilii at trial stage. The court proceedings were conducted in creole for the benefit of the Accused.

An FSL report dated 26.06.19 was produced to the effect that when the leaf matter which were secured in the present case was examined and analysed, revealed the presence of Cannabis. The said FSL report was marked as Doc A.

The prosecution then called PS Valsada (witness 1) who read and produced the out of court statement of the Accused dated 27.02.19 and marked as Doc B. The witness was not cross examined.

PC Puttee (witness 2) deposed to the effect that on the 27.02.19, he proceeded to the place of the Accused. Reaching there, the Police met with the Accused and revealed their identity as ADSU officers. The Accused was shown a search warrant by the Police and the former agreed for the search to be carried out. Nothing incriminating was found on the Accused and a search was carried out in the house of the Accused. Whilst searching the living room, PC Puttee secured on a table a piece of aluminium foil which contained a certain amount of leaf matter. After the Accused was shown the evidence against him, informed of his constitutional rights and given the usual warning, the Accused replied the following: “Gandia pou mo fimer sa.” In the presence of the Accused, the exhibit was secured and sealed in an envelope. Witnesses 2 and 3, together with the Accused signed on the said envelope. Subsequently the exhibit was sent to the FSL for examination. Witness 2 identified and produced in Court a sealed envelope coded VPI/2019. The sealed envelope was opened and shown to the Accused who admitted to the exhibit (marked as Exhibit 1). The witness was not cross examined and that was the case for the prosecution.

The Accused was informed of his constitutional rights to give evidence and elected to give evidence under oath. In Court, the Accused denied the charge against him and didn’t say anything further. Under cross examination, he agreed that his defence statement was produced in Court, he did not make any complaint with regards to the drugs secured at his place and he admitted to the exhibit produced in Court.

The Accused made a confession in his defence statement and did not challenge its admissibility in Court.

It is trite law that it is essential for the prosecution to establish the following elements to prove its case, namely that:

(1) the drugs were in physical control or custody of the Accused; and

(2) the Accused had knowledge of the drugs.

The word ‘possession’ in the case of dangerous drugs has been defined by the Privy Council in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Brooks (1974) A.C. 862, quoted in M. Yousoufkhan Omarsaib v The State [1996 SCJ 30], as follows: “In the ordinary use of the word ‘possession’ one has in one’s possession whatever is, to one’s own knowledge, physically in one’s custody or under one’s physical control.”

In The State v Kanojia Kamala Pannalal [1992 SCJ 381], the Supreme Court pointed out that: “Knowledge is of course an abstract concept which unless a person tells of what he has behind in mind can only be revealed by examining his conduct in the light of the circumstances surrounding the case.

The Court has duly assessed all the evidence on record. The facts of the case reveal that the drugs were secured in the living room of the Accused in his presence and upon being duly cautioned, he replied that the drugs were his. The Prosecution witnesses deposed in a clear- cut manner and their evidence remained unchallenged as the Accused chose not to cross examine them.

Based on the above, the Court is satisfied from the evidence on record that the accused had in his possession- with knowledge and control- the drugs secured at his place.

The Court also finds that there is no reason to disregard the confession the Accused made in his defense statement and the confession of the accused is in itself sufficient evidence against the accused.

I find it apposite at this stage to refer to the case of DPP v Aumont [1989 SCJ 338], where it was stated that: “…A voluntary confession by an accused party that was direct and positive and had been satisfactorily proved was the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against the accused.”

In the light of the above, the Court finds that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly finds the accused guilty as charged.

P. VEERABADRAN- MUDALIAR

Ag. District Magistrate 30 June 2020