Supreme Court of Mauritius, 18 mai 2020, 2020 ROD 19 – POLICE V SPEVILLE JOSEPH

POLICE V SPEVILLE JOSEPH

2020 ROD 19

Cause No: 1594/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

JOSEPH SPEVILLE JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. Accused, Joseph Speville, stands charged with the offence of selling fish without a fishmonger’s licence in breach of section 21 (1) (a) and 70 (1) (b) of the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act 2007. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by counsel at trial. The prosecution case 2. Police Constable Speville (“W2”) and Police Sergeant Raphael (“W3”), two police officers posted at the National Coast Guard deponed that on 19 July 2019, at 16.35 hours, they were dressed in uniform and were on mobile patrol. Upon reaching Grand La Fouche Mangue, they saw Accused who they knew as a fishmonger and who had fish being displayed and Accused was selling fish to the public which were gathered around

him. The police officers approached Accused and requested him to produced his fishmonger’s licence and in reply, Accused said that he left his licence at home. Accused was informed that he was being contravened for failing to produce his licence. However, through enquiry, the police were made aware that Accused’s licence has not been renewed.

The defence case

3. For the defence, Accused testified that he was not selling any fish at the material time. He stated that he was going to the place of his wife at Petit Gabriel and that the scale was to weight the potatoes which was at the place of his wife.

The Law

4. As regards to the law in relation to the present charge, section 21 (1) (a) of the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act 27 of 2007 provides :

Subject to subsection (2), no person shall sell or have in his possession for sale any fish unless he holds a fishmonger's licence.

5. For the sake of clarity, subsection (2) of section 21 of the of the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act 27 of 2007 provides that:

Subsection (1) shall not apply to a fisherman who sells fish at a fish landing station.

Assessment of facts

6. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 7. In the present case, Accused denies that he was selling fish at the material time. 8. The case for the prosecution rests on the evidence adduced by W2 and W3. The two police officers testified that they saw Accused selling fish relying on the fact that there

was a group of persons around Accused at a time where there was fish being displayed and there was also an exchange of money taking place. Both police officers deponed that Accused had a scale and also a horn in his possession. 9. As regards to Accused, he does not dispute the fact that he was on his motorcycle and that he was asked to produce his fishmonger’s licence by W2. He did not challenge the fact that he said to W2 that he left his fishmonger’s licence at home. To that, I fail to see as to why Accused had to lie to those police officers when he alleged that he was not selling any fish. Furthermore, I find that the scale which Accused had in his possession was to weight the fish which he was selling at the material time and I disregard the version put forward by Accused to the fact that he was proceeding to the place of his wife to weight potatoes as Accused came up with this version only in court without making reference to that in his statement and without calling any witness to support his version. 10. Now, this being so and taking into consideration the present circumstances, it is logical that the police officers did not seize the fish and equipment which were in Accused’s possession. This is being said because the two police officers were under that misconception that Accused had been delivered a licence for fishmonger. 11. Hence from the above I find for the version put forward by the prosecution witnesses which is to the effect that Accused was selling fish without being the holder of a fishmonger’s licence at the material time and I find the version put forward by Accused has failed to cast doubt in the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

12. Therefore, for the reasons as referred above, I find that the Prosecution has indeed proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and I, accordingly, find the Accused guilty as charged.

Daniel Dangeot

Senior District Magistrate Delivered this 18 May 2020