Supreme Court of Mauritius, 11 mai 2026, 2026 ROD 19 – Police v Jean Davidson Collet

1

Police v Jean Davidson Collet

2026 ROD 19

IN THE COURT OF RODRIGUES CN: 649/2026

Police v/s Jean Davidson Collet

Sentence

The accused stands convicted under each three counts in an information for the offence of “rape” in breach of section 249 (1) (1A) of the Criminal Code.

As per the particulars of the information, the following have been averred namely; under count I, on a first occasion in the year 2021, the accused wilfully and unlawfully committed a rape upon his mother, Mrs A. Collet, under count II, on a second occasion in the year 2021, the accused wilfully and unlawfully committed a rape upon his mother and under count III on or about in the month of July 2022, the accused wilfully and unlawfully committed a rape upon his mother.

It is borne on record that on the 14 th of April 2026, the accused pleaded guilty to all three counts in the information and after he was explained of his right to legal aid, the Court appointed Mr Greedharry, learned counsel who thereafter appeared for the accused during the hearing. The prosecution was represented by learned counsel, Mr Bissessur and he was assisted by WPS Gébert.

In the course of the hearing, the following documents were produced by the prosecution namely; the birth certificate of the accused stipulating the mother’s name, the medical examination reports of the accused and the complainant, two booklets containing photographs of the locus where the offences took place, an explanatory statement explaining the photographs, a plan including the reference table and the out

of court statements of the accused. The prosecution produced certified copies of these documents since the original documents were produced in another case involving the accused.

PC Edouard deposed under oath and he produced two defence statements of the accused dated the 19 th of August 2022 and 22 nd of August 2022. Under cross examination, the officer confirmed that the accused cooperated with the police during the investigation. PS Felicité produced further out of court statements of the accused to the Court.

During the hearing, from the dock, the accused begged for excuse for the acts he committed upon his mother. He stated that he was under the influence of alcohol when he raped his mother and he expressed remorse for the offences he committed. Furthermore, in mitigation, he conveyed to the Court that he has two children aged 5 and 7 years old. He stated that he is a stonemason by profession and is the sole breadwinner of the family. He prayed for leniency and invited the Court to take into account the days he has already spent on remand.

It is borne on record that the accused has no cognate offence as per the record of convictions, “Doc X” and he has already spent 1330 days on remand as per the remand certificate produced to the Court.

In respect of his submission, Mr Greedharry stated that the accused was 23 years old at the time of the offences and he invited the Court to consider his guilty plea, the fact that he has no cognate offence and the remorse he shown in Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the case of Agathe v The State [2022 MR 70] as regards to the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in terms of the sentencing exercise. On the other hand, Mr Bissessur laid much emphasis on the seriousness of the offences the accused committed, in particular upon his mother. It was submitted that the accused raped his mother on three different occasions and he prayed for the Court to impose a heavy custodial sentence.

In the out of court statement dated the 19 th of August 2022, the accused explained that he was living together with his mother and his father in a house located in “Dans Bébé”. He stated that his father was disabled and bed ridden. Three years ago, he was informed by people that his mother was having an extra-conjugal affair with one “Yiaz” and thereafter he personally saw the latter having sexual intercourse with his mother outside their house. He explained that his mother neglected his father’s care and the

latter was not being looked after properly due to the relationship she was sharing with the said “Yiaz”.

As such, he built up a sense of rage towards his mother because she was being unfaithful to his father. He further explained that since his mother was maintaining an extra-conjugal relationship, he decided to have sexual intercourse with her as well. He made his mother aware that he knew of her extra-conjugal affair and he thereafter forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. He further informed his mother that if she would refuse to have intercourse with him, he would report her act of infidelity to his father.

His version contained in the statement further revealed that his mother was not agreeable to engage in any act of sexual intercourse with him, but he insisted that he would relate her extra-conjugal affair to his father. He admitted in the said statements dated the 19 th of August 2022 and the 22 nd of August 2022 that he had sexual intercourse with his mother on two occasions in the year 2020, firstly in the room of the house they stayed and secondly at the back of the house. On both occasions which occurred within a week, he was under the influence of alcohol, which he claimed triggered and or gave him more “toupé” to commit the acts upon his mother. He begged for excuse in the statement for having forced his mother to have sexual intercourse with him. In his further statements, he denied the offence which took place in July 2022 under count III of the information. He however pleaded guilty to the charge under count III of the information.

Under counts I and II, as per the version of the complainant put to the accused in the defence statements, the offences occurred in the year 2021. In the said statements, the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with his mother on two occasions in the year 2020 rather than in 2021, the said year which has been averred in the information. However, when the charges were first read to him in creole on the 14 th of April 2026 and subsequently anew in the presence of his counsel on the 29 th of April 2026, he voluntarily pleaded guilty to counts I, II and III. Furthermore, learned defence counsel did not raise any objection pertaining to the dates of the commission of the offences under counts I and II. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the offences under counts I and II occurred in the year 2021 as averred in the information.

As explained in the case of Labonne v The State [2023 SCJ 108] the two elements of rape are the evidence of penetration and the absence of consent on the part of the victim. The accused has explained the sequence of events as how he had sexual

intercourse with his mother namely in the room and at the back of the house. He further forced her to have intercourse with him by emotionally blackmailing her that he would relate her extra-conjugal affair to his father in the event she refused. Therefore, the acts described by the accused bring him within the elements for the offence of rape in the present matter. He admitted the acts of sexual intercourse with his mother in his statements and as per the case of Boodhoo v The State of Mauritius [2016 SCJ 258], it was held that care ought to be taken in assessing the reliability of a confession. Adverting to the matter at hand, there is no evidence on record that the out of court statements were recorded under threat or inducement and as a consequence thereof, the unchallenged confession made by the accused is voluntary. Considering the guidelines explained in the cases of R v Hayter [2005 UKHL 6] and DPP v Aumont [1989 SCJ 338] full weight can be given to the confession made by the accused in his out of court statements.

The applicable legal provisions of the Criminal Code in the present matter are as follows;

‘‘249. Rape, attempt upon chastity and illegal sexual intercourse

(1) Any person who is guilty of the crime of rape, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term which shall not be less than 10 years.

(1A) Notwithstanding any other enactment, where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the Intermediate Court shall have –

(a) jurisdiction to inflict penal servitude for a term not exceeding 40 years;

(b) power to order sentences of penal servitude to be served consecutively, provided that the terms of such sentences shall not in the aggregate exceed 40 years.’’

In the case of State v Nampoongah & Ors [2011 SCJ 365] involving a rape made by more than two in number, following a guilty plea, though the accused parties were of a young age, they were sentenced to undergo from 21 to 24 years’ penal servitude as there were aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon and threats conveyed to the victim.

In the case of DPP v Marianne [2023 SCJ 87], following an appeal from the DPP, the sentence imposed by the trial court was increased from 12 to 18 years’ penal servitude. Though the respondent pleaded guilty to the said charge at the lower court, the aggravating factors present were the use of a knife, the victim was forced to

perform oral sex and the victim suffered injuries when she refused to hand over her belongings.

For sentencing purposes, the Court has considered the approach explained in the cases of Mansing v The State [2020 SCJ 248], Agathe v The State [2022 SCJ 258] and State v Mhango [2024 SCJ 197]. Furthermore, in the case of Eddie Ratcliffe v Rex [2024 EWCA Crim 1498], the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales stressed upon the requirement in identifying the aggravating and mitigating factors for the sentencing process.

The aggravating factors in the present matter are as follows;

(i) the rape committed by the accused on the three occasions was upon his own mother. The relationship between the accused and the complainant is evidenced by the birth certificate of the accused on record;

(ii) the element of trust between the mother and the son was breached in light of the latter’s acts. The case of R v Forbes and others [2016 EWCA Crim 1388] refers to the element of abuse of trust; (iii) the accused consumed alcohol for him to muster “toupé” to rape his mother, the intake of alcohol was seen as an aggravating factor in the case of AHA, Re [2023] EWCA Crim 1001 (28 July 2023); (iv) the accused raped his mother in the room in her own house. In the judgment of J R W, R v [2018] EWCA Crim 510 (13 March 2018), the following was held, ‘‘The judge found that there were several aggravating factors: she was vulnerable; the offences took place in her own home, where she was entitled to feel safe’’. This aggravating factor was recently reiterated in the case of Rex v Kishor Patel [2026 EWCA Crim 246]; (v) the mother was raped over a span of time ranging from the year 2021 till July 2022. This was seen as an aggravating factor in the case of R v DP [2022 EWCA Crim 57]; (vi) the emotional blackmail and manipulation the mother experienced from the accused. These elements of harm were considered as aggravating factors in the case of Channer & Anor, Re (Rev 1) [2012 EWCA Crim 1119]. The Court has further examined the guidelines explained in the case of State v Edouard JJ and Ors [2008 SCJ 285].

On the other hand, the mitigating factors on record in favour of the accused are his timely guilty plea, the confession he made in his statements, his cooperation with the police during the inquiry, he has no cognate offence and the remorse he expressed in Court. It is also borne on record that the accused has already spent 1330 days on remand. In that respect, the Court has considered the cases of State v Mootien [2009 SCJ 28] and Goolfee Sheik Nizam v The State [1996 SCJ 144].

In the present matter, the aggravating factors mentioned above clearly outweigh the mitigating circumstances of the accused. As held in the case of State v Nampoongah & Ors [supra], the accused cannot benefit from much leniency in view of the seriousness and gravity of the offences. In addition to the physical acts he committed upon his mother, the latter was also subject to emotional blackmail and manipulation which have certainly brought much fear together with the element of degradation including humiliation to her. It was stated in the case of Rex v Mark Makeri [2022 EWCA Crim 1299] that,‘‘16. Every offence of rape is serious because it involves the violation of a person's bodily integrity, autonomy and dignity’’.

Regardless of the strong sense of anger he culminated towards his mother for her having an extra-conjugal affair, he had no right to commit the acts of sexual intercourse upon her, which he committed not once but on three different occasions. His behaviour shows the pattern of sexual conduct he deliberately embarked upon. Since he had no hesitation to rape his own mother on three different occasions, he stands as a serious and potential sexual threat to society. Such acts cannot be condoned in society and it is the duty of the Court to send the appropriate and strong signal to such would-be offenders and at the same time to protect the public.

Therefore, for the above given reasons and in light of the principle of proportionality as explained in the cases of Aubeeluck v The State [2010 UKPC 13] and Lin Ho Wah v The State [2012 SCJ 70], I order the accused to undergo 25 years’ penal servitude under each count of the information, from which the time he spent on remand is to be deducted. The sentence under each count is to be served concurrently.

The accused is to pay Rs 500 as costs. The prohibition order is to lapse after the satisfaction of judgment and sentence.

Devinash Oozageer District Magistrate

11 th May 2026