Monday 10 April 1989

S. Lotun v The Queen

S. Lotun

Appellant

v.

The Queen

Respondent

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius

Composition of the Board:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Oral Judgment delivered on the 10th April 1989

by Lord Bridge of Harwich

______________________________________________________________

Public law - Criminal law - Incorrect procedure in the court of fact - Modification in the composition of the court - Fair trial

___________

Case referred to in judgment

Pierre Simon André Sip Heng Wong Ng (alias Wong) and Another v. The Queen [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1356

The following judgment was delivered by the Board:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Mauritius whereby they, on 23rd March 1987, dismissed an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of certain criminal offences in the Intermediate Court of Mauritius on 30th May 1985. This is another unfortunate case where an incorrect procedure followed in the Mauritius Intermediate Court has led to a conviction which cannot be sustained. What was done in this case was that the criminal proceedings were commenced before a court constituted in one way and then, following one or more adjournments, the case was continued before a court constituted in a different way. The result was that the findings of guilt against the appellant, on which the convictions were based, were reached by magistrates who had not heard the whole of the evidence and the argument.

It is right to say that when this appeal was before the Supreme Court of Mauritius it had not had the advantage of having read the judgment of their Lordships' Board in the case of Pierre Simon André Sip Heng Wong Ng (alias Wong) and Another v. The Queen [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1356. It is unequivocally stated in that judgment that a procedure leading to findings of guilt being reached by a court so constituted that it has not heard the whole of the evidence is a procedure which cannot be sustained. It must follow therefore, as is very properly conceded by the Solicitor-General, that the convictions in this case cannot stand and their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be allowed and the convictions set aside. The respondent must pay the appellant's costs before their Lordships' Board and in the Courts below.

*

* *

Micheline Moutou v The Governement of Mauritius

Mrs. Micheline Moutou

Appellant

v.

(1) The Government of Mauritius

(2) The Minister of Health and

(3) The District Council of Pamplemousses Rivière du Rempart

Respondents

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius

Composition of the Board:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Oral Judgment delivered on the 10 April 1989

by Lord Bridge of Harwich

______________________________________________________________

Oral judgment

___________

The following judgment was delivered by the Board:

For the reasons intimated by counsel their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed.

*

* *