Supreme Court of Mauritius, 12 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 216 – CJM Carosin v police

1 CJM Carosin v police

2020 BRC 216

Provisional Cause Number 2149/20 (Port-Louis (Second Division)) BRC Cause Number – THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Cliff Jahan Michael Carosin v/s Police RULING

Introduction

1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of larceny violence in breach of sections 301 and 305 (c) of the Criminal Code. He has been on remand since the 14 th February 2020 and has moved that he be admitted to bail.

2. Facts and circumstances of the case

On the 11 th February 2020, at 14 30 hours, at Desbouches Street, Roche Bois, the Applicant dealt the victim fisticuff blows and kicks, before stealing her bag, containing the sum of Rs 2,000 and other documents. The victim suffered from injuries and the Applicant has confessed to the charge. The value of the stolen articles is Rs 5,000.

Case for Respondent

3. Inspector Bolah, of CID Metro North, has been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist bail in the present case on the following ground:

(i) Risk of reoffending

4. In support of the ground of objection, Inspector Bolah stated that the Applicant is borne on bail for one cognate offence (Doc A) and, as such, the Police believe that he will reoffend if granted bail. It was confirmed that the latter has a clean record.

5. It came out that the enquiry is short of a further statement from the Applicant and that one month is needed to complete the enquiry. The main EO was not cross examined by the Applicant.

Case for the Applicant

6. From the dock, the Applicant stated that he would abide to all conditions imposed if released on bail.

The Law

7. I bear in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence and the Constitutional rights of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and liberty. This Court is well aware of the rationale of bail expounded in the cases of Maloupe v/s The District Magistrate of Grand Port and Anor [2000 SCJ 223], Deelchand v/s The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others [2005 SCJ 215] and Islam v Senior District Magistrate Grand Port District Court [2006 SCJ 282].

Nature of the evidence 8. Given that the Applicant has confessed to the charge, bearing in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, this Court, without delving into the merits of the case, takes the view that there is strong evidence against the Applicant.

9. The ground of objection raised by the Police has been analysed as follows:

(a) Risk of reoffending

3 (i) Given the nature of the evidence against the Applicant and the fact that he is on bail for one cognate offence (Doc A), I find that the danger of re-offending, if granted bail, is “plausible” [Re: Deelchand v DPP & Anor 2005 SCJ 215 citing Clooth v Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) at para 40]

(ii) Having found that there is a plausible risk, this does not entail that bail should be refused to the Applicant. There is an inherent duty upon this Court to assess whether conditions can be imposed to adequately curb the risks, so as to render the risks negligible as expounded in the case of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port and Anor [2000 SCJ 223]. Conclusion 10. It was held in Deelchand v/s The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others [2005 SCJ 215] that : “Security 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.” 11. I find that stringent bail conditions can be imposed on the Applicant to minimise the risks identified by the Police. I therefore set aside the ground of objection and order that the Applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions:

(i) The Applicant shall furnish a surety of Rs 20,000 in cash;

(ii) The Applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 200,000 (own name);

(iii) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station to his place of abode everyday, once a day, between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours and

(iv) The Applicant shall reside at his mother’s place at R14, Cite Roche Bois; and

4 Miss Shavina Jugnauth District Magistrate This 12 th June 2020