{"id":1056335,"date":"2026-06-06T19:44:44","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T17:44:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T19:44:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T17:44:44","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 – JWC Ravat v Police"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1 JWC Ravat v Police<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 204<\/p>\n

Provisional Cause Number 5237\/18 (Port-Louis (Second Division)) BRC Cause Number 2691\/18 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Jean Christophe Wesley Ravat v\/s Police RULING<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: delivering \u201cBuprenorphine (Subutex)\u201d with an averment of trafficking in breach of sections 30(1)(d)(i), 41(3)(4) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He has been on remand since the 13 th July 2018 and his Counsel, Me Valayden, has moved that he be admitted to bail. Me Dawoodharry appeared for the Respondent, assisted by PS Appadoo.<\/p>\n

2. Facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n

On the 04 th July 2018, the Police searched the house of one Jean Ricky Rico Shocktorap, at Corson Street, Cite Briqueterie, St Croix, where five hundred and thirty-four Subutex tablets were secured. The said Shocktorap made certain allegations against the Applicant, to the effect that the latter had remitted the tablets to him in June 2018, in exchange of a reward of Rs 10,000. The value of the drugs secured is Rs 1,495,200 and the Applicant has denied the charge.<\/p>\n

Case for Respondent<\/p>\n

3. PS Bissessur, of ADSU, has been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist bail in the present case on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

(i) Risk of absconding (ii) Risk of reoffending<\/p>\n

4. In support of the first ground of objection, PS Bissessur stated that the Applicant is likely to be charged with a serious offence, before the Assizes, for which he will face a heavy penalty if found guilty. The Police believe that he will abscond if granted bail, through fear of such penalty.<\/p>\n

5. As far as the second ground of objection is concerned, given that drugs is a lucrative business, the Police believe that the Applicant will indulge anew in such transactions, should he be released on bail. It was confirmed that the latter is borne on record for two cognate offences (Doc X) and is on bail for non-cognate offences (Doc A).<\/p>\n

6. It was confirmed that the Police need three months to complete the enquiry and that the FSL report and itemised bills need to be put to the Applicant, which will be done after the period of confinement. The main EO was duly cross examined by Learned Counsel for the Applicant.<\/p>\n

Case for the Applicant<\/p>\n

7. From the dock, the Applicant stated that he would abide to all conditions imposed if released on bail. He has four children, including one who is physically handicapped, and they all need him.<\/p>\n

The Law<\/p>\n

8. I bear in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence and the Constitutional rights of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and liberty.<\/p>\n

9. Section 3 of the Bail Act provides that \u201cNotwithstanding any other enactment and subject to section 4, every defendant or detainee shall be entitled to be released on bail.\u201d<\/p>\n

10. Section 4 (1) of the Bail Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n

A court may refuse to release a defendant or detainee on bail where \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant or detainee, if released, is likely to \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) fail to surrender to custody or to appear before a Court as and when required;<\/p>\n

(ii) commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine;<\/p>\n

(iii) interfere with witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, in relation to him or to any other person;<\/p>\n

(b) it is satisfied that the defendant or detainee should be kept in custody \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) for his own protection;<\/p>\n

(ii) in the case of a minor, for his own welfare; or<\/p>\n

(iii) for the preservation of public order;<\/p>\n

(c) the defendant or detainee, having been released on bail, has \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) committed an act referred to in paragraph (a); or<\/p>\n

(ii) breached any other condition imposed on him for his release.<\/p>\n

(d) the defendant or detainee is charged or is likely to be charged with a serious offence;<\/p>\n

(e) there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee has \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) given false or misleading information regarding his names or address; or<\/p>\n

(ii) no fixed place of abode;<\/p>\n

(f) a detainee has failed to comply with section 12 (2).<\/p>\n

11. Section 4(2) of the Bail Act provides that:<\/p>\n

In considering whether or not to refuse bail on any ground mentioned in subsection (1), the Court shall decide the matter by weighing the interests of society against the right of the defendant or detainee to his liberty and the prejudice he is likely to suffer if he is detained in custody, taking into account every consideration which, in its opinion, is relevant, including \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) the period for which the defendant or detainee has already been in custody since his arrest;<\/p>\n

(b) the nature and gravity of the offence with which the defendant or detainee is or is likely to be charged and the nature and gravity of the penalty which may be imposed on him;<\/p>\n

(c) the character, association, means, community ties and antecedents of the defendant or detainee, including any non-compliance with any condition imposed for his release on bail with respect to any other offence; and<\/p>\n

(d) the nature of the evidence available with regard to the offence with which the defendant is charged.<\/p>\n

12. The rationale as to bail was clearly set out in the authority of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 233, where it was held that :<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage is, accordingly, that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risks referred to above \u2013 i.e. risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society \u2013 to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance When the imposition of the above conditions is considered to be unlikely<\/p>\n

5 to make any of the above risks negligible, then bail is to be refused.\u201d<\/p>\n

13. I bear in mind that the right balance has to be struck between the constitutional right of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and the interest of society at large.<\/p>\n

14. It was held in Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2005) SCJ 215 that \u201cIn all countries where human rights are respected, the function of the law of bail is likely to be the same, being to reconcile, as stated in Labonne v The D.P.P (supra, at para 2.2.), \u201con the one hand the need to safeguard the necessary respect for the liberty of the citizen viewed in the context of the presumption of innocence and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that society and the administration of justice are reasonably protected against serious risks which might materialise in the event that the detainee is really a criminal which he is suspected to be.\u201d<\/p>\n

15. In Islam v The Senior District Magistrate Grand Port District Court [2006] SCJ 282 at para 37, it was held that \u201cPre-trial bail is not a form of punishment to any individual. It is a form of partial and temporary restriction of his liberty with a view to disabling him against antisocial behavior.\u201d Finding Nature of the evidence<\/p>\n

16. It was held in Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 223] that in an application for bail, the Court should not examine \u201c\u2026the precise evidence available to the police and to conclude as to whether it amounts to a prima facie case\u2026 Witnesses in the course of the hearing of an application for bail should only be allowed to depone as to the nature i.e. the kind of evidence available (including external circumstances which have a bearing on its quality\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

17. Without delving into the merits of the case or making a detailed evaluation of the<\/p>\n

6 available evidence, this Court bears in mind that the evidence against the Applicant comes from a self confessed accomplice. It will be for the Trial Court, and not this Court, to assess the credibility of that self confessed accomplice, as expounded in the cases of DPP v P Sathebajee 2019 SCJ 8 and S Dookhit v The District Magistrate of Pamplemousses, District Court, Pamplemousses 2011 SCJ 101.<\/p>\n

18. For the purposes of the present bail application, on the issue of the evidence available against the Applicant emanating from a self confessed accomplice, it was held in DPP v Marthe 2013 SCJ 386 a that :<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that the evidence against an applicant for bail comes from a self- confessed accomplice does not necessarily mean that it is weak or unreliable. It cannot be overlooked that in drug transactions involving more than one person, some of the best evidence against traffickers can and does come from accomplices. The fact remains that Magistrates and Judges have very often convicted accused parties based on the sole evidence of an accomplice after having given themselves the appropriate warning that accomplice evidence is to be treated with care.\u201d<\/p>\n

19. It was further held in Marthe (supra) that:<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed, if an accused has denied the charges pending against him, the Magistrate may take that into consideration. But, the denial of a charge has to be assessed in the light of the strength of the evidence available against the accused by the prosecution. If the evidence of the prosecution is strong, the denial is neither here nor there. If the evidence of the prosecution is so weak as to be almost incapable of sustaining the charge against the accused at the subsequent trial, then the Magistrate may weigh the denial of the accused in the balance before deciding to reject the objection taken by the police.\u201d<\/p>\n

Analysis of the grounds of objection 20. As far as the first ground of objection is concerned, that is the risk of absconding, I have considered the personal circumstances of the Applicant and the fact that he has no history of absconding. I have also considered the following authorities:<\/p>\n

7 (a) In Hurnam v The State [2004] PRV 53, at para 16, the Board held that:- \u201cThe European Court has, realistically, recognised that the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re- offending (see, for example, Ilijkov v Bulgaria (Application no 33977\/96, 26 July 2001, unreported)), para 80, but has consistently insisted that the seriousness of the crime alleged and the severity of the sentence faced are not, without more, compelling grounds for inferring a risk of flight: Neumeister v Austria (No. 1) (1968) 1 EHRR 91, para 10; Yagci and Sargin v Turkey Series A No 319 (1995) 20 EHRR 505, para 52; Muller v France Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 \u2013 II, 374, para 43; IA v France Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 \u2013 VII, 2951, paras 105, 107. In Ilijkov v Bulgaria, above, para 81, the Court repeated \u201cthat the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand.\u201d\u201d (b) In Hurnam v The State (Supra), at para 15, the Board held that :<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is obvious that a person charged with a serious offence, facing a severe penalty if convicted, may well have a powerful incentive to abscond or interfere with witnesses likely to give evidence against him, and this risk will often be particularly great in drugs cases. Where there are reasonable grounds to infer that the grant of bail may lead to such a result, which cannot be effectively eliminated by the imposition of appropriate conditions, they will afford good grounds for refusing bail.\u201d<\/p>\n

(c) This Court has to also take into account other factors in deciding whether there is a serious risk of absconding. In Deelchand v DPP& Ors [2005 SCJ 215], it was held that \u201cthe severity of the sentence which the defendant would be likely to incur, if convicted, does not in itself justify the inference that he or she would attempt to evade trial of released from detention\u2026other factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country \u2026 may either confirm the existence of a danger of flight or make it appear so small that it cannot justify detention pending trial.\u201d<\/p>\n

(d) In DPP v Marthe 2013 SCJ 386 a, it was held that \u201c..we have to bear in mind that Mauritius is a small island having other islands as neighbours. This is something which is very specific to our country. It is very difficult, if not<\/p>\n

8 impossible, for the authorities to keep the whole of the shores of Mauritius under constant surveillance. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that, in the recent past, there have been cases where accused parties awaiting trial and persons convicted of drugs offences gave simply left the country by hiring a powerful boat following which there has been a great public outcry in the country. There is therefore an increased responsibility on the Courts, whilst bearing in mind the general principle that liberty is the rule and detention the exception, to see to it that justice is not baffled.\u201d<\/p>\n

(e) It was confirmed that the Applicant has family ties, a fixed address and that he has never jumped bail before. However, taking into account the seriousness of the offence at hand and the likelihood of a severe sentence, I find that there is a serious risk that the Applicant will abscond, if granted bail. The first ground of objection, therefore, succeeds.<\/p>\n

21. In relation to the second ground of objection, that is the risk of re-offending, considering the quantity and the value of drugs involved in the present case, the nature of the evidence against the Applicant and drug dealing being a lucrative business, I find that there is indeed a high risk that the Applicant might indulge anew in such transactions should he be released on bail. Doc X shows that he has the propensity to commit drug related offences. The present ground therefore succeeds after considering the following authorities:<\/p>\n

(a) In Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2005] SCJ 215 at para 5.8, it was held that : \u201cThe sentence expected in case of conviction is also a relevant consideration because of the greater risk that the offender may think he has nothing to lose by offending whilst on bail. The extent to which the offences which the applicant is suspected to have committed are lucrative should also be considered as the temptation, in case the applicant is guilty, that he may wish to make as much money as possible whilst on bail, is likely to be greater.\u201d (b) In Islam (Supra) at para 32, it was held that: \u201cThus, somebody who is admitted to bail, who has been able to purchase \u2013 so to speak – his freedom by some monetary condition, walks out of the court- room, free from any type of effective control over his movements or his activities other than presumably reporting to the nearest police station twice a<\/p>\n

9 day. In between, where he goes, under whose influence he falls, with whom he associates himself to pursue what design is left to himself.\u201d (c) In Hossen v District Magistrate of Port Louis [1993] MR 9, it was held that : \u201cEveryone knows that the consumption of certain drugs, like any other vice one may think of, is never likely to disappear completely from the face of the planet and that, at times, it may not be reasonable to insist on the detention of suspects of a certain type. But when, on the contrary, we are faced with a proliferation of drug consumption, or a resurgence of this scourge which can only result in the corruption and degradation of the country\u2019s youth in particular, then the Courts have the duty and the responsibility to protect the public against every person who is involved in any activity that is likely to facilitate or encourage the drug trade\u201d.<\/p>\n

22. Having found that both grounds of objection have been substantiated, this Court has an inherent duty to assess whether conditions can be imposed to adequately curb the risks identified, so as to render such risks negligible as expounded in the case of Maloupe (Supra). In Deelchand (Supra), it was held that \u201cSecurity appears applicable to all the risks as it may be an incentive to the applicant to appear for trial, to behave whilst on bail and to refrain from interfering with witnesses, or tampering with evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

23. In the case of Rangasamy M.N. v The D.P.P & Anor 2005 SCJ 249, the Court stated the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe consider that judicial officers in Mauritius who have first-hand knowledge of the prevailing local conditions regarding law and order and organized crime should have a margin of appreciation in exercising their discretion and deciding on the need for a detainee to be admitted to bail, taking into account all the public interest grounds for refusing bail listed in section 4 of the Act\u201d.<\/p>\n

24. The circumstances of the present case are such that no conditions can be imposed to reduce the risks that have been identified. As such, this Court declines to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant and finds that his continued detention is warranted. The present application is, therefore, set aside.<\/p>\n

10 On the issue of delay 25. It cannot be overlooked that the Applicant has been on remand since July 2018 and that the EO confirmed, in cross examination, that the present case rests upon an allegation made by a co-Accused (page 7 of the court record refers).<\/p>\n

26. The European Court of Human Rights has held, in relation to cases involving pre-trial detention of a person accused of drug trafficking, that \u201csuch alleged offences were of a serious nature\u2026it emphasised, nonetheless, that the \u201cexistence of a strong suspicion of the involvement of the person concerned in a serious offence, while constituting a relevant factor, cannot alone justify a long period of pre-trial detention.\u201d [Eur. Court HR, case of Van Der Tang v Spain, judgment of 13 July 1995] \u2013 referred to by the Learned Judges in the case of Seewoochurn K M v The Commissioner of Police & Ors 2019 SCJ 189.<\/p>\n

27. In Hurnam v The State [2004 PRV 53], the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated the following: \u201cthe general right to be released on bail and the right to be released if not brought to trial within a reasonable time, which are both important rights but distinct and different rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

28. What is a long period of pre-detention depends upon individual jurisdictions. However, the Human Rights Commission has held that what constitutes \u201creasonable time\u201d is a matter of assessment for each particular case. [Re: Communication no. 336\/1988, N. Fillastre v Bolivia (view adopted on 5 November 1991), as referred to in the case of Seewoochurn (Supra).\u201d<\/p>\n

29. In Seewoochurn (supra), the Learned Judges held that \u201c\u2026a balance must be struck between, on the one hand, the need for the applicant\u2019s continued pre-trial detention and, on the other hand, his constitutional right to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence. Despite the applicant\u2019s prolonged pre-trial detention, the police have not given any serious and precise indication as to when they will complete the enquiry and intend to lodge the formal charge.\u201d<\/p>\n

30. The Applicant has been on remand for almost two years and it i s the Respondent\u2019s contention that three months are needed to complete the enquiry.<\/p>\n

31. Based on Section 5 (3) of the Constitution and the above authorities, I order<\/p>\n

11 that if a formal charge is not lodged against the Applicant by latest the 07 th<\/p>\n

September 2020, the Applicant shall be admitted to bail on the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(a) The Applicant shall furnish a first surety of Rs 500,000 by bank cheque;<\/p>\n

(b) The Applicant shall furnish a second surety of Rs 500,000 by bank cheque;<\/p>\n

(c) The Applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 2,000,000 (in his own name);<\/p>\n

(d) The Applicant shall reside at a fixed address, which he shall provide to the police. He shall not move to another address without the prior consent of the District Magistrate of the court concerned;<\/p>\n

(e) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station to his place of abode everyday, twice a day, that is, once between 06 00 hours and 10 00 hours and once between 15 00 hours and 19 00 hours;<\/p>\n

(f) The Applicant shall inform the police of his daily movements when he reports at the police station;<\/p>\n

(g) The Applicant shall endeavour not to be in communication with any person, other than the authorities, in connection with the present case either in person or by means of any technology such as phone, email, whatsapp, messenger, facebook, twitter or any other social media platform;<\/p>\n

(h) A curfew order is imposed on the Applicant. The Applicant shall stay at his residential address, as provided to the Police, from 21 00 hours to 05 00 hours on a daily basis; and<\/p>\n

(i) The Applicant shall:<\/p>\n

(1) be permanently equipped with a mobile phone, the number of which he shall communicate in advance to one or more ADSU officers nominated for that purpose;<\/p>\n

(2) ensure that the mobile phone is in good working condition and open for communication at all times and<\/p>\n

(3) ensure that the mobile number is available solely and exclusively for the present monitoring purposes to enable any ADSU officer at any time to ascertain his movements and location and if necessary to direct him to be in attendance at any indicated spot.<\/p>\n

32. The case is fixed Pro-Forma to the 07 th September 2020.<\/p>\n

Shavina Jugnauth (Miss) District Magistrate This 05 th June 2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1 JWC Ravat v Police 2020 BRC 204 Provisional Cause Number 5237\/18 (Port-Louis (Second Division)) BRC Cause Number 2691\/18 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Jean Christophe Wesley Ravat v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: delivering \u201cBuprenorphine (Subutex)\u201d with an averment of trafficking in breach of sections…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[127162],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[15757,8066,128263,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1056335","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-ms-shavina-jugnauth-district-magistrate","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-ravat","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1 JWC Ravat v Police 2020 BRC 204 Provisional Cause Number 5237\/18 (Port-Louis (Second Division)) BRC Cause Number 2691\/18 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Jean Christophe Wesley Ravat v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: delivering \u201cBuprenorphine (Subutex)\u201d with an averment of trafficking in breach of sections...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T17:44:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 – JWC Ravat v Police\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police","og_description":"1 JWC Ravat v Police 2020 BRC 204 Provisional Cause Number 5237\/18 (Port-Louis (Second Division)) BRC Cause Number 2691\/18 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Jean Christophe Wesley Ravat v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: delivering \u201cBuprenorphine (Subutex)\u201d with an averment of trafficking in breach of sections...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 - JWC Ravat v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T17:44:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-juin-2020-2020-brc-204-jwc-ravat-v-police\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 204 – JWC Ravat v Police"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1056335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1056335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1056335"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1056335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}