Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 6 – Yoan Jonathan Attiow

Yoan Jonathan Attiow

2026 PMP 6

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 2613/20 In the matter of:- Police v Yoan Jonathan Atthiow JUGMENT

A. Introduction

1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Assaulting an agent of the civil authority in breach of Section 158 and 159 of the Criminal Code.

2. The information avers that on or about the 20th day of May 2017, at M3 Terre Rouge Verdun Link Road, the Accused did wilfully and unlawfully assault an agent of civil authority whilst such officer was performing his public duty, to wit: PC 11127 Furreed.

3. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was legally represented throughout the trial.

4. The case for the prosecution was conducted by police prosecutor.

B. The case for the prosecution

5. A memo regarding the official status of witness no.2 signed by witness no.9, dated 20.07.18, was produced and marked as DOC A.

6. A memo regarding the official status of witness no.4 signed by witness no.9, dated 20.07.18, was produced and marked as DOC B.

7. Witness no.1 (PS Hurhendee) produced the defence statement of Accused, marked as DOC C.

8. In cross-examination, the witness no.1 confirmed being the main enquiring officer and according to the Accused’s version, he denied the charge. He confirmed having tried to contact PC Furreed on several occasions to get his shirt and details of his injuries following incident on 20.05.17. PC Furreed was uncooperative and refused to give details. The shirt was needed for enquiry and same had to be confronted to the Accused, but PC Furreed refused. Only PC Furreed’s shirt was torn. He confirmed having put an entry at Trou aux Biches station on 06.12.18 at 11:30 and he positively identified his covering statement to that effect. He even left a message at Terre Rouge station for PC Furreed and PC Dookarran but they never reached out to him. Without their cooperation, it was difficult to conduct the enquiry.

9. Witness no.2 (PC Furreed) testified that on 20.05.17, he was posted at Terre Rouge police station. On 20.05.17 at about 23:05hrs, a request was received to attend to illegal rallies along Verdun Link Road near the flyover. In company of PC Jokhoo, PC Dookarran, PC Ramawta and PS Reedoye, they proceeded thereat where there were several motorcycles. As soon as the motorcyclists saw the police, most of them left. There was a male person, whom he identified to be the Accused in the dock, sitting on the wall of the flyover and there was a motorcycle near him. Because the Accused was suspicious, they approached him. PS Reedoye questioned him as to his presence but he did not reply. PC Ramawta then informed him that he will have to be brought to the station to have his name. He could not remember what was the Accused’s reply. He continued to explained that PC Ramawta tried to put the Accused in the van but the Accused pushed PC Ramawta and started running away. Him and PC Dookarran ran after the Accused and when he approached the Accused, the latter pushed him. He fell and the Accused continued to run away. He then got up and continued to run after the Accused and the latter went in the direction of M2, towards the north. Upon approaching the Accused along M2, he was punched to the left elbow and the left eye. The Accused also ripped his left pocket. PC Dookarran came to him to help immobilise the Accused. The ERS then arrived following the same request they received. The Accused was put in the ERS van and brought to Terre Rouge police station. As for him, he went to the hospital and took a pf 58. He was injured to the left eye and felt pain at his left elbow.

10. In cross-examination, witness no.2 stated that he was at the station prior to getting the request. When it was put to him that he previously stated having seen two people on the bridge, he replied that there were several people and when the police got there, most of them already left. It was further put to him that he had previously stated having also seen the Accused’s partner, he replied not knowing but confirmed that there was a woman with the Accused. Part of his statement was put to him to the effect that “several people gathered and several motorcycles. On seeing police, the crowd started bolting away. But we saw…”. By “we”, he meant him and his colleagues (witnesses no.3, 4, 5 and 6). Part of his statement was further put to him: “we saw a male and female persons which appeared to be suspicious” and he confirmed same. He agreed that he had the intention to approach them. PS Reedoye and PC Ramawta asked the Accused for his details, i.e., his name, address and driving licence, in his presence. At this stage, the Accused’s driving licence and registration book details for his motorcycle was shown to him and he stated not remembering or even seeing those documents. When it was put to him that the Accused had shown his colleagues those documents, he replied that he could not remember. He agreed that they interrogated the Accused and PC Reedoye asked the Accused questions regarding his motorcycle. Everything happened in presence of Mrs Attiow. When it was then put to him that there was no reason to bring the Accused to the station being given that he had shown his documents, he replied that he could not remember whether the Accused produced any documents but he saw the Accused pushing PC Ramawta and then bolting away. PC Ramawta told the Accused that he will be brought to the station to ascertain his name and address. The Accused was arrested so that his name and address could be ascertained. PS Reedoye informed the Accused that he will be arrested because he was not giving his name and address. When it was put to him that there was no reason to arrest the Accused, the witness replied that they had to arrest the Accused upon the instructions of PS Reedoye. It was then put to the witness that the Accused was never violent towards him or his colleagues. He did not agree and stated that the Accused was violent. Having stated that the Accused pushed PC Ramawta, it was put to him that his entry makes mention of the fact that the Accused had punched PC Ramawta, hence there are two different versions. He replied not remembering and stated that it was either one or the other. It was then put to him that he had previously stated that at some point he managed to immobilise the Accused but that the Accused pushed him and he got back up. He confirmed that the Accused pushed him and continued to run away. Him and PC Dookarran ran after the Accused who was going in the direction of M2. They successfully arrested the Accused. They did not handcuff him. At that point, his other colleagues were on the Verdun flyover, at a distance of about 300 metres. He did not know what they were

doing. He could not state whether his colleagues saw what happened. It was only him and PC Dookarran who immobilised the Accused. Despite being two, the Accused managed to punched him on the eye and ripped his shirt. When it was put to him that he had previously mentioned that it was PC Dookarran who had the left pocket of his shirt ripped, he replied that he made a mistake and that it was his shirt. It was then put to him that the Accused never did that but he maintained his version. The main enquiring officer was PS Hurhendee. He confirmed that the latter contacted him to get details of the incident. He did not give him any details as he had already given his statement and had already left the shirt at Terre Rouge station. It was then put to him that he was lying as PS Hurhendee stated that no shirt was left at Terre Rouge station. He maintained that he left the shirt at Terre Rouge station. Being given that he already gave his statement, there was nothing left to be done. He had nothing to hide. He denied that him and his colleagues assaulted the Accused; they only tried to arrest him. He denied levelling a false charge against the Accused. At this stage, 6 photographs were shown to him. He could not state whether it was the Accused on the photos. He denied that him and his colleagues assaulted the Accused to the point that he was disfigured. When it was put to him that the Accused had put an entry on 22.05.17 to the effect that he was assaulted by him on 21.05.17, he replied that he was aware that the Accused made a complaint at IPCC and that he was also aware that the Accused lodged a case before the Supreme Court. He was not aware of the declaration made by the Accused against him and his colleagues on 21.05.17. When the complaint was shown to him, he still maintained not being aware of same. PC Aza brought the Accused to the station on the material date. He confirmed having mentioned that the Accused assaulted PC Ramawta, then him and then pushed PC Dookarran. Despite being 5, the Accused managed to assault them as they were separated.

11. Witness no.6 (PS Reedoye) testified that on 20.05.17, he was posted at Terre Rouge police station and was in charge of 2nd shift. On that date at about 23hrs, a request was received from Ops room concerning illegal rallies along Calebasse Road Terre Rouge Verdun. A team proceeded thereat where along the bridge of Terre Rouge Verdun, they noticed several auto mobilists, who, upon seeing the police, bolted away in all directions. His team consisted of PC Ramawta, PC Jokhoo, PC Furreed and PC Dookarran. They went on the bridge and saw a motorcycle. There were two persons near the motorcycle; a woman and a man, whom he later identified to be the Accused in the dock. They alighted from their van and approached the two persons and asked them what they were doing at such a time and place. They asked who the motorcycle belonged to and the Accused replied that it was his. They did not give a plausible explanation as to why they were there. He then asked the Accused for his driving licence and ID. The latter grew vexed and his tone

changed. He did not give his ID or his licence. They then and there informed the Accused that failing to give his name and address was an offence and he will thus have to be brought to the station. The Accused refused. The Accused was informed that his refusal meant that they would have to use force to bring him to the police station. They also informed the Accused of his rights and cautioned him, and tried to arrest him. He was not cooperating. Him and PC Ramawta tried to get a hold of the Accused; the Accused was bigger than them. The Accused was violent and hit PC Ramawta on the elbow when they were effecting arrest. They managed to put the Accused at the back of the van but the latter managed to open the back door and ran away to the direction of NTR Calebasses. PC Furreed and PC Dookarran ran after the Accused and managed to arrest him with the help of ERS. The Accused was brought at Terre Rouge. Witness no.6, PC Ramawta and PC Jokhoo then embarked the Accused’s motorcycle, make Honda of colour red. It was the ERS together with PC Furreed and PC Dookarran who brought the Accused to Terre Rouge station. Witness no.6 and PC Jokhoo brought the motorcycle to the station. Witness no.6 was informed of the incident from PC Furreed and PC Dookarran. The Accused was informed of his right. Witness no.6 put all entries in the Diary Book and also called on thr SP to take instructions. The Accused was released on parole. He stated that he was allowed to arrest the Accused as the latter failed to give his name and address.

12. In cross-examination, witness no.6 confirmed having approached the Accused and Mrs Attiow. When it was put to him that they were both eating takeaways, the witness replied that they were not eating. It was then put to him that they were eating and were sitting quietly on the side of the road and the police approached them without valid reasons. The witness did not agree. At this stage, the witness no.6 was shown the Accused’s driving licence and the registration book of his motorcycle. It was put to him that those documents were shown to him. He replied in the negative. According to him, Mrs Attiow must have seen what had happened as she was present. When what he stated in examination-in- chief was put to him, i.e., that the Accused had to be arrested because he did not provide and address, he replied in the negative and stated that the Accused had to be arrested because he was aggressive, non-cooperative and unwilling to accompany the police. The witness was again confronted with the same conflicting version and he replied that the offence was that the Accused did not provide for name and address; he was arrested because of this failure to give his name and address but then they had to use force to arrest him as he was aggressive. He was the one who explained this to the Accused. He then stated that it was both him and PC Ramawta who explained this to the Accused. He confirmed that the Accused punched PC Furreed. He denied that they assaulted the Accused. At this stage, 6 photographs were shown to witness no.6 and he could not

confirm whether it was the Accused on the photographs although he stated that it seemed to be the Accused. He denied that this was the result of the assault. He was aware of the declaration made by the Accused at Line Barracks on 21.05.17. He confirmed that all of his colleagues were also aware of same. According to him, all of them are aware that there was an enquiry being carried at IPCC. He was not aware what PC Furreed stated. He did not see PC Furreed being assaulted and he could not confirm whether this actually occurred.

13. Witness no.7 testified that on 20.05.17, he was posted at Terre Rouge police station and was the 2nd in charge. He confirmed that on 20.05.17, PC Ramawta was posted at Terre Rouge and was working on that date; the latter was working 2nd shift which started at 15:15hrs and ended at 23:30hrs. PC Furreed was also working 2nd shift.

14. In cross-examination, the witness no.7 stated that he did not know what happened whilst the officers were on shift.

15. Witness no.4 (PC Dookarran) testified that on 20.05.17 at 23:05hrs, he was posted at Terre Rouge station and on that date, a request was received from Ops Room Northern about illegal rallies. When they proceeded to NTR Terre Rouge, there were several motorcycles and they started to disperse. A woman and a man, whom he later identified to be the Accused in the dock, stayed on the highway with a motorcycle. Being given that it was not a place to sit, or even to stay, the police approached them and questioned them about their presence. They did not have any positive reply. They also asked them to whom the motorcycle belonged to, and asked the Accused for his name, address and licence. He refused. When he was reproached of same and informed that he will be brought to the station to confirm his name and address, he became violent. It was PS Reedoye who asked him for his name and address. When the Accused was told to accompany police to Terre Rouge station, he started to become violent. PS Reedoye and PC Ramawta took him to the van and he tried to escape. The Accused then punched PC Ramawta and escaped towards Calebasses. PC Furreed ran after the Accused, was pushed and fell. PC Furreed continued to chase the Accused; it was difficult. He intervened when PC Furreed fell after having ran almost 120 metres. The Accused was still trying to escape at this point and PC Furreed was still trying to stop him and was punched in the left shoulder. When PC Furreed and witness no.4 approached him, he struggled and they had to use reasonable force. One person was not enough to stop him. They had to tackle him to the ground as he was too violent. During the struggle, he noticed that his pocket was torn

(meaning witness no.4’s pocket). The ERS team then came to help them arrest the Accused and to bring him to Terre Rouge station.

16. In cross-examination, witness no.4 stated that the highway was a dangerous spot and not a place to eat. They were a team of 5 police officers. He maintained that the Accused did not show his licence or registration book. Both the Accused and the woman did not give their names and address. He could not say whether the Accused shown the documents to his colleagues. The woman, Mrs Attiow, was at all times present. He could not state whether she saw what had happened as the area was dim. The Accused’s motorcycle was brought to Terre Rouge station to ascertain ownership and to verify whether it was stolen. The Accused was arrested because he refused to give his name and address. He was also not cooperative with police. They had to immobilise the Accused. Witness no.4 held the Accused’s hand and the latter was tackled to the ground. When the photographs were shown to him, he could not state whether it was the Accused, although he stated that the man looked like him. He could not say whether there was a tattoo on the man’s neck next to his left ear. He denied that this was the result of the assault perpetrated on the Accused by him and his team. When it was put to him that the injuries sustained as shown in the photographs were not a result of reasonable force used, he maintained that they used reasonable force to arrest the Accused. They did not put handcuffs on the Accused. They managed to immobilise the Accused and bring him to the station. He cannot say whether the ERS used handcuffs on the Accused. When it was put to him that he would not be able to confirm whether it was the Accused who tore his shirt being given that he had noticed same only afterwards, he replied that it must have been the Accused as the latter was very agitated. He did not see the Accused tear his shirt but during the struggle with the Accused, he felt his pocket getting torn. He stated that the Accused pushed PC Furreed and when he intervened, the Accused punched PC Furreed. He did not agree that PC Furreed fell by his own fault. He denied having assaulted the Accused. He denied levelling a false charge against the Accused. He denied having been contacted by Hurhendee (witness no.1). When it was put to him that he did not cooperate with the latter, he stated having already given his shirt to the clerk of Terre Rouge station.

17. Witness no.5 (PC Jokhoo) testified that on 20.05.17, he was on duty at Terre Rouge police station when a request was received for the police to attend to illegal rallies along Link Road Verdun. Together with his team, i.e., PS Reedoye, PC Ramawta, PC Furreed and PC Dookarran, they proceeded thereat where there were a lot of people and motorcycles on the bridge. Upon seeing the police, they all dispersed. There was a motorcycle on the bridge, and a male and female person. The male person was the Accused. They

approached them. PS Reedoye and PC Furreed asked them what they were doing. The Accused replied arrogantly. When PS Reedoye asked him for his ID and licence, he refused. All of them then asked for the Accused’s licence, but he refused. PS Reedoye then informed him that he had to accompany them to Terre Rouge station to ascertain his name and address. The Accused became violent and started speaking loudly, refusing to accompany the police. PS Reedoye and PC Ramawta took him to the van. He punched PC Ramawta and ran away towards NTR Calebasses. Then witness no.5 saw the ERS van. Witness no.5, PS Reedoye and PC Ramawta then brought the motorcycle to the station. At the station, PC Dookarran reported that his pocket was torn. PC Furreed reported that he got punched in the eye. PS Reedoye thus informed the Accused of the offence and his constitutional rights. He saw PC Dookarran’s torn pocket. When the Accused was being arrested, he was on the bridge near the motorcycle, at about 200 metres away. He did not chase the Accused; he was too far from him. He did not see PC Furreed getting punched. He only saw that PC Furreed’s eye was red at the station. He could not remember which eye.

18. In cross-examination, witness no.5 confirmed that the Accused’s wife was present. He stated that the Accused was arrested because he refused to give his name and as per the Police Act, the police can ask the Accused to come to the station to ascertain his name and address. He only saw what happened with PC Ramawta but did not witness what happened with PC Furreed and PC Dookarran. He did not have handcuffs with him. They all did not have handcuffs. He confirmed that PC Furreed’s eye was red at the station; that was the only thing he saw. Upon being shown the 6 photographs, he stated that maybe it was the Accused. He denied that him and his colleagues beat up the Accused and that the photographs show the result of their beating. He was aware that the Accused reported a case at Line Barracks. He was aware of the OB entry. He denied lying.

19. Witness no.8 (the doctor) testified that on 21.05.17 at 12:15am, he was in service at SSRN Hospital. He examined PC Furreed and he put up a medical certificate to explain the injuries. He positively identified his medical certificate. He explained that PC Furreed told him that he sustained trauma to the left shoulder and was having pain to the left shoulder whereby his range of movement was decreased. PC Furreed also told him that he sustained trauma to the left eye. He thus carried out some tests to the left eye and there was no tear in the conjunctiva or to the cornea. He also did an x-ray to the left shoulder and there was no bone injury or fracture. It was a soft tissue injury and PC Furreed was discharged afterwards. PC Furreed had minor injuries and did not need admission. The

medical certificate was produced at this stage and marked as DOC D. The minor injuries looked fresh. His left eye was a bit red. According to PC Furreed, it was an assault.

20. In cross-examination, when it was put to him that his testimony was based on what PC Furreed told him, he replied that the latter told him that he was assaulted and based on that, he had examined him. He would not be able to say how the injuries were sustained. The injury to the left shoulder could have been caused by a fall or it could have happened in any circumstances. When it was suggested to him that his red eye could have been caused by tear gas, he replied that it was possible but questioned why it was only one eye.

C. The case for the defence

21. The Accused testified that on 20.05.17, at about 20hrs, he was with his girlfriend who is now his wife. They had been to Grand Baie La Croisette and at about 09:48hrs, on their way to La Tour Koenig on his motorcycle registration number 2905T, reaching Valton Calebasses, there was a group of motorcycles on the bridge. His girlfriend wanted to go see what was up there. On the bridge, there was a group of motorbikes. Him and his girlfriend went to sit on the other side where they ate their takeaways. Then a police 4×4 came, stopped a motorcyclist and the rest of them got dispersed. The police took the motorcyclist and put him in the ‘boot’ of the 4×4. They discussed and then the police let him off. The police did not say anything to him or his girlfriend. After 10-15 minutes, another 4×4 of police de l’environnement passed by, filmed them and did not say anything to him. After a few minutes, another 4×4 of Terre Rouge police station came and 5 police officers alighted from it. One of them was fat, the other one had a ‘figir a poi’, there was PS Reedoye and PC Furreed, and another one he could not recognise. The fat officer asked whether the motorcycle was his and he replied in the affirmative. The police with the ‘figir a poi’ asked for his licence which he showed to him but the latter did not even check. He showed them his licence and he produced a copy of his licence at this stage, marked as DOC D. He also produced a copy of his registration book, marked as DOC E. The police with the ‘figir a poi’ told him that he needed to put his motorcycle in the boot of the 4×4. When he asked why, all of the police officers became aggressive and annoyed. The fat officer swore at him and told him to put his motorcycle in the boot. Then another police officer, PS Reedoye, using foul language, stated to him that the motorcycle had to go into the boot. At this point, he had asked his girlfriend to film and he could not understand what had happened. The fat officer was yelling and swearing at him and he told him that he (the fat officer) was smelling of liquor. The Accused explained that he started getting slapped,

kicked and punched. He fell and they all continued to assault him. His girlfriend screaming and he was not aware what was happening to her. Two officers then lifted him and put him at the back of the 4×4 whilst continuing to assault him. He managed to open the right door and alighted from the 4×4. When he looked back, he saw two officers putting his motorcycle in the boot. He ran towards the direction of Verdun and the two officers ran after him. When they officers approached him, he dodged and they both fell. He continued running towards the north. At that point, he was very far from his girlfriend. He was on the fast lane going in the north direction. The two officers continued to chase him. He got tired, stopped and rested on the guardrails. Then one of the officers sprayed something on his face and they both continued to assault him. He was then put in a 4×4 and at this point he was not aware of where he was. He overheard them saying that he was not beaten enough and to continue to beat him up at Jin Fei. He was seated in the middle of the police officers. He could not tell who were seated beside him as his eyes were sore. He was not handcuffed. He denied having assaulted PC Furreed. He explained that the latter fell and when he got up, he walked through the spray. At the station, PS Reedoye tore his shirt and accused him of having done that. He identified the 6 photographs and stated that the man in the photographs is him. His brother-in-law, Jean Marie Anna took these photos. He was beaten. His tattoo behind his ear can be seen on the photos. He went on to say that this was the first time that something like this happened to him. His brother-in-law took the photos at the hospital on 21.05, a Sunday. He was at the hospital between the hours of 1am to 3am. He was assaulted to the head, ears, back and tummy. He stated that his wife can confirm his version. He stated that the police had nothing on him and he believed that they got vexed because he had told them that they smelled of alcohol. He produced 3 medical cards at this stage, marked as DOC F-F1-F2. He went to see a psychologist as he had been nervous since he was beaten. He was not like that before.

22. In cross-examination, the Accused stated that he lives in La Tour Koenig and does not usually go the north. He was not aware that Verdun Link Road is a dangerous area. When it was put to him that he put his life and that of his girlfriend in danger when he went on the bridge, he replied that there was a group of motorcyclists on the bridge and that his girlfriend wanted to go see what was up there. He was of opinion that at that time, the road was not as dangerous as it is now. He explained that there was no sign post that said that people were not allowed to sit there. When it was put to him that it raised suspicion for someone to sit on the bridge, he replied that it was not dangerous and that if that was the case, the police would have told them. He did not agree that he was suspicious. He stated that when the police asked for his licence and details, he gave to them. He did not agree that his refusal to give those documents raised their suspicion even more. He also did not

agree having stated to PC Furreed the following: “mo pas pou alle station, aine gogot nanien zot pas pou kav faire”. He did not agree that he was asked to accompany police because he refused to give his details. He denied assaulting the police. He stated that PC Furreed fell flat on his stomach. He was not aware how the latter was injured to the eye. He only heard him screamed that his eyes were burning. There is no video recording of the incident. He stated that the fat police officer reformatted his girlfriend’s phone; same was done at the station; he stated that it’s his wife who would be able to explain. He made a complaint on 21.05.17 at Line Barracks and he also went to Human Rights Commission. He could not remember when he made the complaint to the Human Rights Commission. He did not hear anything and did not follow up because the police put up the incident in the newspaper and lied about what happened. He did not know these police officers before that. He believed that the police had nothing against him and that was probably why they reported the case against him. He stated that PC Reedoye even told him at the station: “ta sinoi to en regle toi, to pena oken case”. He was told to just accept that he tore his pocket or they would report other cases against him. He maintained his denial of the charge. He was getting beaten and explained that he would have obviously not remained still.

23. Mr Jean Marie Desire Ananumthoo was called to testify for the Accused. He stated being the Accused’s brother-in-law. He related that on 20.05.17, between 1am to 2am, he received a phone call. His mother-in-law called him and informed him that Nathan, the Accused, was beaten by the police. When he asked her questions as to his whereabouts and the latter told him that the Accused was at Marie Michelle, now his wife. He thus went to her place where there were the Accused, Marie Michelle, Marie Michelle’s brother and his wife. They all seemed traumatised and shocked. When he saw the state in which the Accused was, he told him to go to the hospital but he refused. After 15-20 mins, he managed to convince the Accused to go to the hospital. The Accused stated to him that the police told him that they would report him for drug related cases if he went to the Jeetoo hospital. He brought the Accused to the hospital by car. He stated having taken photos and videos of the Accused. He positively identified the photos which he took and produced same, marked as DOC G(G1-G5). The Accused had black eyes and were closed. His face was swollen. He had several red marks on his head. He was scared.

24. In cross-examination, the said Jean Marie stated that he was not present when the incident happened. He did not know who assaulted the Accused. He agreed that there were no dates or days mentioned on the photos. He took the photos on his mobile phone. Upon being asked the make of his phone, he replied not knowing and he does not have it. He did not have the original photos anymore.

25. Mrs Marie Michelle Attiow was called as witness for the defence. She is the Accused’s wife. She related that on 20.05.17, they both went to La Croisette and were going back home on motorcycle registration make Honda 150 CBR. It was night time. Reaching a certain point on the road, she saw several motorcycles and told the Accused she wanted to go and see. They went left, engaged a roundabout, went straight, stopped, alighted and watched the motorcycles. They were on a bridge on the motorway and were watching motorcycles. Then a 4×4 police van came and several motorcyclists rushed to leave the spot. The said 4×4 stopped and a motorcycle was put in the truck. The police were talking to the rider and after some time, they removed the motorcycle from their truck. Then, a second 4×4 came, which she thought were the environmental police, and they were filming with their phones but they did not stop. Then a third 4×4 came and stopped at their level. They looked at the Accused and asked him to whom their motorcycle belong to. There wer PC Reedoye, a fat Geerish Ramawta, one with ‘figir a poi akoz so bane boutons’ and one Furreed, and another person. They were all in police uniform. The Accused told her that the police had asked for his papers and he took his papers from his motorcycle and gave them. She overheard one of the police officers talked a bit aggressively. She stayed on the side and was filming. She overheard them saying: “prend sa moto la met lor caisson”. She then heard the Accused telling them “mo moto en regle, kifr bizin faire sa”. At this point, the police officers started being more aggressive and the Accused told her to film. She told him that this was what she was doing. The fat police officer then reached for her phone and took it. She then overheard the Accused telling them that they smelled of alcohol and she explained: “c’est a partir de la qui tou in commence deraper, zot in commence tap Jonathan”. When she went to defend, the fat police officer pushed her and her head hit the 4×4’s truck. She heard kicks and insults. The police officers were dragging the Accused onto the left backseat of the 4×4. She then saw the right door opened and the Accused started running. Two police officers chased him. She then saw the Accused falling down and covering his face with his hands. The police grabbed him and took his motorcycle. She was alone. A man stopped and saw her, and brought her to Terre Rouge police station. The Accused was not there yet. She was standing at the gas station and saw the 4×4. She crossed the road to the police station. She saw several police officers pulling the Accused from the 4×4 and they continued to assault him. She told them to stop assaulting him and they told her off. She got kicked to her stomach. The man who dropped to the station saw that she was kicked. She then called her brother who came with his wife and daughter. The police officers were still assaulting the Accused. Her brother brought him home and then to the hospital. She then called the Accused’s mom to tell her what happened. She then stated that her brother then came and stated that the Accused needed to be brought

to the hospital. The photographs were then shown to her and she stated that the photos show the injuries the Accused sustained. The Accused was very affected by the incident. He had to follow psychiatric treatment at Jeetoo hospital. She went with him each time. They reported the case to the Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court.

26. In cross-examination, Mrs Attiow stated that she was on the bridge when the incident happened. She was filming on her mobile online but Mr Geerish snatched her phone. When he returned her the phone, everything was deleted. The police reset her phone. She did not see them reset her phone but when she got her phone back, everything was deleted on it. She did not lock her phone. She did not report about being pushed as she was only thinking of the Accused. Her focus was only on the Accused. She did not give any statement at Terre Rouge police station as she did not want to have her statement recorded by the same police officers who assaulted the Accused. She gave her statement at Pamplemousses. She did not know who would have taken her statement at Terre Rouge. When she saw the 4×4 reaching the police station, she ran from the gas station and cross the road to the police station. It was a matter of seconds. The Accused did not assault anyone. He was the one being assaulted by the police. She did not know the police officers before. She had no animosity with them before. She denied making up a story.

27. Written submissions were filed by defence counsel at the close of the defence case. I do not propose to reproduce them here.

D. Analysis

28. I have carefully assessed the evidence on record.

29. It is undisputed that the five police officers, namely PC Furreed (witness no.2), PC Ramawta (witness no.3), PC Dookarran (witness no.4), PC Jokhoo (witness no.5) and PS Reedoye (witness no.6), who proceeded to the bridge along Terre Rouge Verdun Link Road on the material date and time were on official duty.

30. As per the present information lodged against the Accused, he is being reproached of having assaulted one of them, i.e., PC Furreed. However, based on the testimony of the respective witnesses, it is clear that two other police officers, namely PC Ramawta and PC Dookarran, were also allegedly assaulted by the Accused during the incident. According to PC Furreed, the Accused had also pushed PC Ramawta before running

away. Both PS Reedoye and PC Dookarran also stated that the Accused assaulted PC Ramawta; PS Reedoye saw the Accused pushed PC Ramawta and PC Dookarran saw the Accused punched PC Ramawta on the left shoulder. As for PC Dookarran, he had his pocket torn during the struggle with the Accused. I note that PC Ramawta had consistently been absent from court and thus the police prosecutor did not have the opportunity to call him to testify. Regardless, I find that the evidence presented by the prosecution shows a significant mismatch between the accusation in the information and the evidence. Given this material variance, I have doubts as to the reliability and truthfulness of the entire accusation laid by PC Furreed.

31. Moreover, having listened to the testimony of witness no.2, 4, 5 and 6, it is not clear how the alleged incident unfolded that night. I am not clear on the reason why they had approached the Accused and his girlfriend in the first place, and eventually arrested the Accused. Whilst the police do have powers under the Police Act 1974 to stop, approach and ask for information, they may only do so if they believe that a person has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence. PC Furreed was the only who stated that the Accused looked suspicious. I am in the dark as to why he thought the Accused was suspicious. If he suspected that the Accused had participated in the illegal rallies, he would have undoubtedly said so. PS Reedoye and PC Dookarran both seemed to be of the view that the bridge was not a place for people to hang out at night and that was why they had approached the Accused and his girlfriend to question them about their presence. None of them stated that the Accused bolted away on seeing the police, as opposed to the other auto mobilists. Anyhow, I have not been enlightened as to why they thought it was not a place to be. PC Dookarran was the only who stated that the place was dangerous, yet he did not say why he thought it was a dangerous place. The question remained as to whether they had any reasonable suspicion that the Accused had committed an offence or was about to commit an offence and what offence that was. They all then also stated that the Accused refused to give his name and identification documents upon being asked. The Accused has however all the while maintained that he did show his ID and licence.

32. Additionally, PS Hurhendee (witness no.1) confirmed that he was the main enquiring officer. PS Furreed also confirmed that witness no.1 was the main enquiring officer. On the one hand, it was the PS Hurhendee’s contention that PC Furreed did not cooperate during the enquiry as he did not produce his torn shirt nor did he give any details of the incident. He had tried to contact PC Furreed several times but the latter never reverted. On the other hand, PC Furreed, whilst confirming that he did not give PS Hurhendee any information, he explained that it was because he had already given his statement and had

already left his torn shirt at Terre Rouge station. I am of the view that if the latter’s version was the truth, the prosecution would have undoubtedly produce the shirt, or evidence of it by way of photographs, to bolster its case. However, no such material was produced and I am in the dark as to why this was not done.

33. At this stage, I have not been convinced at all of the accusation laid by PC Furreed.

E. Conclusion

34. I find that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismissed the charge against him.

Mrs. M. D. Chung Kow Cheong District Magistrate 14.05.26