Supreme Court of Mauritius, 31 juillet 2023, 2023 BRC 76 — Boodoo v Police

1

Boodoo v Police

2023 BRC 76

IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT

BRC CN: 3195/2023 Original District Court (Rose-Hill) CN: 1332/2023

In the matter of:

Ravi Boodoo Applicant v.

Police Respondent

RULING

Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of drug dealing, to wit, possession of synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose of distribution in breach of sections 30(1)(f)(ii) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act [“DDA”].

Applicant was not assisted by Counsel. PS Appadoo conducted the case for Respondent. Proceedings were held in Creole.

Respondent contended that Applicant should not be admitted to bail because he may reoffend.

Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Bail Act 1999 (Act 32/1999) [“the Bail Act”] provides that a Court may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee, if released, is likely to commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine.

The Supreme Court in Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and others [2005 SCJ 215] underlined that the risk of offending must be a real one and there must be adequate reasons to explain its existence. The Supreme Court also cited with approval the case of Clooth v Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) where it was said that the danger of a serious offence being committed by an applicant whilst on bail should be a plausible one.

In the present case, the enquiry officer, PS 7962 Kangalia, testified under solemn affirmation that on 01.07.23 at 07.30 hours the officers of the Anti-Drug and Smuggling Unit (ADSU) secured from Applicant a plastic sachet containing 50 aluminium foil wrappings each containing leaf matter suspected to be synthetic cannabinoids, and the value is estimated to Rs.5,000/-. He added that Applicant confessed to the charge. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Deelchand (supra), the nature of the evidence is to be related to the risk of reoffending where, having regard to its type and to factors affecting its quality, it is either so patently strong or weak as to have a bearing on that risk. If the evidence against Applicant appears strong, he is more likely to think that he has nothing to lose by reoffending; and if the evidence appears weak to him, he will be less likely to take the risk of detection upon reoffending. Here, the nature of the evidence, consisting essentially of real evidence, appears to be strong.

In addition, the enquiry officer produced a PF 15. Same was marked as Doc X. It shows that Applicant was convicted on various occasions for possession and consumption of drugs. As such, the risk of offending exists.

Nevertheless, the enquiry officer conceded that Applicant has a fixed place of abode, he is in detention since 01.07.2023. and the enquiry is short of the forensic science laboratory report. As such, there is no indication when the enquiry will be over and when he will stand trial.

The rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage as explained in Maloupe v District Magistrate of Grand Port i.p.o. Director of Public Prosecutions [2000 SCJ 223] is of relevance. The Supreme Court observed that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance; and when the imposition of the conditions is considered to be unlikely to make any of the risks negligible, then bail is to be refused.

Here, the Court is of view that the risk of offending can be reduced by the imposition of conditions such that it becomes negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence would carry in the balance. The imposition of a surety, a recognisance, and the obligation to report to the nearest Police Station, to have a fixed place of residence and to be permanently equipped with a mobile phone would be an incentive for Applicant not to offend whilst on bail.

In the circumstances, the Court orders that Applicant be released on bail subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions by him:

i. to provide a surety in the sum of Rs.5,000/- by bank cheque or in cash; ii. to enter into a recognisance in the sum of Rs.50,000/-; iii. to be permanently equipped with a mobile phone, the number of which be communicated in advance to one or more Police officers nominated for that purpose, and to ensure that the said mobile phone is in good working condition and open for communication at all times; iv. to reside at a fixed place of residence indicated by him to the Police; and v. to report to the Police Station nearest to his place of residence every Tuesday and Saturday between 6.00a.m and 6p.m.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. District Magistrate 31.07.2023