Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 mars 2026, 2026 BMB 24 – Police v Charles Louis NANCY

Police v Charles Louis NANCY

2026 BMB 24

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number 1282/2025 Police V Charles Louis NANCY JUDGMENT 1. The accused pleaded not guilty to an information charging him with the offence of trading without licence, pursuant to regulation 4, 13 of GN 91/04 made under the Beach Authority Act 2002.

2. He was unrepresented.

3. It is the prosecution’s case that a licence is required from the Beach Authority to trade on a public beach. To that effect, a memo dated 11 th June 2024 was produced on behalf of the Beach Authority to the effect that the accused was not the holder of any beach trader licence to operate along Flic en Flac public beach and that for the activity of selling glass beads, a licence was required.

4. Witness no.1 deposed to the effect that on the 7 th June 2024, at around 10h30, he was on duty on patrol along Flic en Flac public beach and he was on foot in the National Coast Guard uniform. Upon reaching near restaurant Mer de Chine, he noticed the accused who was selling bead necklaces to two tourists. The accused – Mr Nancy – is well known to police in the region.

5. He approached the accused and questioned him as to whether he had any licence from the Beach Authority to operate and the latter replied in the negative. The accused

was cautioned of the offence of trading without licence and he made the following reply: “Mo pe trace ene lavie, prend ou contravention”.

6. There were three necklaces in the accused’s hand and witness no.1 secured the necklaces as exhibits. in court, he produced three necklaces which the accused identified. The exhibits were collectively marked Exhibits I.

7. Witness no.1 identified the accused in the dock as the person whom he contravened on that day.

8. In cross-examination, witness no.1 stated that no statement was recorded from the tourists as there was direct police evidence against the accused. He mentioned that the accused had already sold to the two tourists when he approached the accused. He took the money and placed it in his bag. The necklaces that were secured were necklaces that the accused had left after having sold to the two tourists.

9. At the close of the prosecution’s case, accused elected to remain silent.

10. I have considered the evidence on record and I find that the prosecution’s case has remained unshaken and unrebutted. Witness no.1 deponed in a clear and unambiguous manner and he stood the test of cross-examination.

11. As per regulation 4 of GN 91/04 – Beach Authority (Traders’ Licence) Regulations 2004, it is an offence to carry out a trade on a public beach without licence. Pursuant to the first schedule of the regulations, under Class II, the court is satisfied that for the trade of ‘selling of handicraft, artisanal and fancy products’, a trade fee of Rs5000 is required to be paid.

12. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was operating an activity which fell into the category of trade under the regulations and the place where such activity was being conducted was a public beach.

13. I find the accused guilty as charged.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 30 th March 2026