Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 90 – Police v Laurette

1

Police v Laurette

2026 RDR 90

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIÈRE DU REMPART (Criminal Jurisdiction) In the matter of: CN: 3498/23 Police v Jean Lucas Ryan LAURETTE

JUDGMENT Accused is charged with the offence of “breach of condition of release of bail” in breach of Section 22(a)(iv) and (d) of the Bail Act. He pleaded not guilty and was legally represented by Counsel Mr Mooroongapillay. Prosecution’s case was conducted by Police Prosecutor and proceedings were in creole. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION Prosecution moved to call Witness No.1 who produced the defence statement of Accused. He confirmed that Witness No.3 told him that Accused was going to report to Grand Gaube Police station as from 6am to 6pm. Witness was cross examined by Counsel and the following were elicited: – No document was put to Accused when his statement was recorded; – There was only a message which stated that Accused had to report to the police station; – There were two cases for which Accused was imposed reporting conditions but Witness could not confirm whether there were two breaches and he stated that he recorded only one defence statement;

– He put question to Accused based on the message received and he confirmed that no phone call was received from the Special Striking Team (SST) and that the message was sent by the Prosecutor’s office of Moka; – The message was from a computerised court system and he confirmed that the official letter is dated 22.11.2022; – Witness confirmed that Accused was in Court on the 21.11.2022 and Accused was at pope hennessy police station at around 17.00 hours to collect his belongings; – The reporting conditions does not specify if Accused had to report “as from today” and the official message for reporting is dated 22.11.2022; – He recorded only one defence statement from Accused for two cases with two cause numbers and he confirmed that there is nothing in the court record that should read the reporting conditions to start on the same day. Witness was not re-examined and Prosecution moved to call Witness No.2 Retired Inspector Juliette sworn that on the 22.11.2022 he was managing the Grand Gaube police station and Witness No.1 contacted him because he was doing shift at that time. He stated that Witness No.1 told him that Accused did not put his call between 6.00 am to 6.00 pm on the same day and then Witness No.2 instructed Witness No.1 to search for Accused and to question him as to his absence. Witness No.2 then stated that he was informed that Accused came to the police station at around 19.00 hours. Witness No.2 was cross examined by Counsel and he stated the following: – He was in charge of the Grand Gaube police station; – He talked to Witness No.1 before entering the court room to depone; – There is only one case for breach of conditions of release on bail for Accused; – He confirmed that as per his statement, only Witness No.1 talked to him regarding the absence of Accused at the police station; – Upon seeing the official memo from the prosecutors office which is dated 22.11.2022, Witness No.2 confirmed that the reporting is “everyday between 6am to 6pm” and that there is no mention of “as from today” in the memo; – He could not confirm whether there were two documents even if there were two cases;

– Accused should report as from the day and if it is every Monday then it is every Monday as per the official letter which would mean next Monday on 28.11.2022. Witness No.2 was not re-examined and Prosecution called Witness No. 4 on the following occasion. Witness No.4 produced the certified copy of the two provisional cases. He solemnly affirmed that Accused was released on bail and among other conditions, Accused had to report daily to the nearest police station from 6am to 6pm. Witness No.4 was cross examined by Counsel and he stated the following: – As per the file, the provisional case has been struck out against Accused; – He is not aware of any other case regarding Accused or his father and is only concerned with the files that he has been summoned to produce; – As per the file, Accused was granted bail on the 21.11.2022 and he is not aware if Accused remained in Court till late night; – He explained that in the Court file, the date for the bail is the 18.11.2022 and there is an entry later on the 22.11.2022 which rectifies the date of 18.11.2022 to be read as 21.11.2022; – There is no date or time in the conditions of bail as per the file. Witness No.4 was not re-examined and Prosecution moved to call Witness No.3. PC Kutwaroo solemnly affirmed that on the 21.11.2022 at 18.00 hours, he was acting as station orderly at the Grand Gaube Police Station. He stated under oath that he received a message from Prosecutor’s office of Moka that Accused should report daily from 6am to 6pm. A copy of the message was produced and marked as Document D. Witness No.3 then stated that he waited for Accused and when Accused did not turn up, he called the Inspector in Charge of the station. Witness No.3 also stated that Accused did come later on that day. It was after 18.00 hours. Witness No.3 was cross examined by Counsel and the following were elicited: – He received a call from PS Adriane telling him that someone will send a message for the reporting; – Document D was shown to him again and he confirmed that the message was sent from “police de l’environnement”. He went on to explain that each police

officer is issued with a code and if a person is posted somewhere else, the old posting may appear; – When Counsel put it to him that the name of PS Adriane does not appear on Document D, he stated that it is systematically programmed such that the name will not appear; – Witness No.3 denied that the SST called him instead of the Moka Prosecutors office; – He stated that he received a phone call from PS Adriane and then he received a message then only he lodged the case for breach of condition of release; – He could not remember when he received the message; – Witness No.3 was shown the official letter from the Prosecutor’s office dated 22.11.2022 and he agreed that there is no PS Adriane on the letter; – He denied lying in Court and stated that he waited till 6pm for Accused to come and when he did not show up, Witness No.3 put an entry; – Counsel showed Witness No.3 his code on his entry and his code on the Document D. Witness No.3 agreed that there is a discrepancy in the code; – He agreed that the DPP struck out the provisional charge against Accused; – He denied inconsistencies in his testimony except for the code. Witness No.3 was not re-examined and case was closed for the Prosecution. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE Accused gave a statement from the dock. He stated that he has recently got married and he works as a supervisor. This case is causing him inconvenience and will impact his good character. He stated that the provisional case of drug has been struck out and the SST has been dismantled. He further stated that on the 21.11.2022 he was released on bail and the Court did not state whether he had to report on the same day. He further stated that there was his father’s case on the same day and this delayed his payment for bail. He explained that he changed his address and he had to take some clothes and then he went to Pope Hennessy police station at around 17.50 hours. Even if the Court did not specify any time and date, Accused stated that he went to grand Gaube police station in all good faith so as to avoid any procedural delay on the next day. He stated

that he reached the police station before 19.00 hours and all the inconsistencies by witnesses for the prosecution is causing him prejudice and is unfair. SUBMISSIONS Learned Counsel for the Accused submitted that the test for bail is for Accused to appear in Court as and when required. Accused was already in Court on the material day that is on the 21.11.2022. he submitted that Accused was released at around 16.30 hours and the police officer (Witness No.1) confirmed that Accused was at Pope Hennessy police station. Counsel further stated that Learned Magistrate had the discretion to impose specific time and date and Accused was not told to report to police “as from today”. Counsel submitted that this is a clear case of victimisation of the SST and evidence shows that the letter from the Prosecutor’s office of Moka was sent on the 22.11.2022. He further submitted that there has been an abuse of police authority. In fact, Prosecutor’s office never sent message to Grand Gaube police station. He submitted that Court has been able to assess the demeanour of witnesses and the chronology. The message was sent on the 22.11.2022 by the Prosecutor’s office and everything had been done to harass the Accused who is a young supervisor at the bank. He submitted that witnesses have been inconsistent. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. ANALYSIS I have considered all the evidence on record. Accused stands charge with the offence of breach of condition of release on bail namely his failure to report to the nearest police station everyday as from 6am to 6pm and every Monday call within the same period. Witnesses deponed and it is undisputed that (i) there are two cases for which Accused was granted bail and the conditions for reporting vary in both cases; (ii) although Accused did not report within the prescribed hours, he was present at Grand Gaube police station at around 19.00 hours; (iii) there is no specific mention in the court file as to whether Accused had to report as from the day of release that is whether the conditions of reporting would be applicable on the day of release itself.

Witness No.2 confirmed under cross examination that the Accused has to report on the next Monday which would be the 28.11.2022. Witness No.4 maintained that there is no mention of any specific time or day in the bail ruling. The testimony of Witness No.3 is of interest to the Court. His credibility was shaken in Court and discrepancies were noted. He explained that he received a message that Accused was supposed to report everyday and on the same day, he waited till 6pm and after that he made an entry. It is also not in dispute that Accused was admitted to bail on that very same day that is on the 21.11.2022. He was before the District Court of Moka and he was granted bail. The explanation of Accused remains unshaken. He explained that he was granted bail late on that day and he had to travel to the north. Court notes that Accused further stated that he was under the impression that his obligation to report would commence on the following day that is on the 22.11.2022. In fact the official letter from the prosecutor’s office was received on the 22.11.2022 as has been confirmed by the witnesses for the Prosecution. It is further not disputed that Accused did go to then Pope Hennessy police station at around 17.55 hours and then at around 19.00 hours he was present at the Grand Gaube police station to do all procedures so that he can easily insert his call on the next day. This conduct, in Court’s view tends to support Accused’s contention that he did not have the intention to miss a reporting condition. Moreover, Court notes that there is nothing in the Court file that would tend to show that the reporting condition would be applicable immediately. Should that be the case, it is also ambiguous that since Accused was already in Court, would that not amount to the reporting condition being fulfilled for the day, and that Accused ought to actually report as from the next day? And in the case where he had to report every Monday, it is also unclear whether the reporting would be the Monday where he was granted bail or the next Monday as confirmed by witness for the Prosecution. The Court Manager testified to that effect but could not provide for any explanation as to the exact day and time on which Accused had to start his reporting. I have also witnessed the demeanour of Witness No.3. He testified that he received a message regarding reporting condition. When questioned by Counsel, he could not answer regarding the discrepancy in his code. His testimony casts serious doubts as to the whole administration of the present offence. Court also considers the fact that

Accused has been previously provisionally charged with the offence related to drugs in respect of which Accused’s defence was that it was planting. Provisional charge was struck out. Counsel put questions to witnesses to the effect that it was in fact the SST who called the police and unfairly made an entry for non-compliance of the reporting conditions imposed on the same day. Court also notes that there has been extensive media coverage surrounding the provisional charge of which bail conditions have been allegedly breached by Accused. Same has caused significant prejudice to Accused both personally and professional as he stated from the dock. Therefore, having regards to the fact that (i) there is no document or no witness who have been able to confirm that the Accused had to start to report on the very same day on which he was granted bail despite the fact that he was already in Court on that day; (ii) the fact that Accused did attend the police station albeit after 6pm; (iii) defence statement was taken on the very same day but the official letter for reporting conditions sent to Grand Gaube police station is dated the next day that is the 22.11.202; (iv) the demeanour of Witness No.3 and the fact that the offence dates back to 2022 but lodged in 2023, the Court is of the view that it would not be fair and in the spirit of justice to convict Accused. After anxious consideration, Court finds that there is a doubt as to the time and date for the reporting condition to start and having regard to the totality of the circumstances including the prejudice already suffered by Accused, Court is not satisfied that the breach was in fact an offence and if so, there is no evidence that the breach was wilful and deliberate, Courts gives Accused the benefit of doubt. CONCLUSION In light of all the above, I find Accused not guilty. Case is dismissed against Accused. All conditions lapse.

Ms O.LUCHOO Temporary District Magistrate 15.04.2026