Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697809897751.pdf (Mauritius)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions The monthly legal update Newsletter MARCH 2013 To No One Will We Sell To No One Deny Or Delay Justice Chapter 40, Magna Carta 1215 1 Issue 22 Editorial Dear Readers, It is with great enthusiasm that I am writing this editorial as we are celebrating the second anni- versary of this newsletter.

First of all, on behalf of the editorial team, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to you for having been with us for the past two years.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this newsletter through articles or support or simply by reading it each month.

In this issue, you will read about the ‘Rule against Duplicity’ by the Deputy DPP, Mr Iqbal Maghooa.

The article gives a comprehensive overview of the subject and refers to a number of interest- ing cases.
On 11th February last, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions welcomed a delega- tion from Uganda comprising of Members of Parliament and officials from the Bank of Uganda to dis- cuss matters relating to anti-money laundering and asset recovery.

A highlight of that meeting is includ- ed at page 7 of this issue.

At page 10, Inspector Rama explains the role of the police prosecutor and shares his experience with us in that field.
Mr Alvin Joypaul, State Counsel at the Office of the DPP, attended a one-week training course on Intellectual Property Rights at the International Law Enforcement Agency, Gaborone, Botswana.

His report can be read at page 11.

In February last, members of the legal profession paid trib- ute to late Sir Marc David QC and in March, the national law day has been celebrated.

An update of those events have been provided at page 12.

Also, a summary of the latest Supreme Court judgments has been given.
I wish you all a pleasant reading!

Zaynah Essop State Counsel 2 Issue 22 In this Issue 1.

The Rule Against Duplicity ………………………………………………….… Pgs 4-6 2.

Visit by the Uganda Delegation at the ODPP ……………………...………... Pg 7 3.

Summary of Supreme Court judgments ………………...………………..….. Pgs 8-9 4.

Interview of a police inspector - Inspector Rama …………………………….

Pg 10 5.

Intellectual Property Rights Seminar at the ILEA, Botswana ……………….

Pg 11 6.

Demise of Sir Marc David QC ………………………………………..……… Pg 12 7.
Law Day Celebration ……………………………………………………..…… Pg 12 Don't let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something stand in the way of your doing it.

The time will pass anyway; we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use.

Earl Nightingale 3 Issue 22 The Rule Against Duplicity By M. Iqbal Maghooa, Deputy DPP Duplicity usually exists where two separate offences are alleged in one charge.

The rule against duplicity is well established.


The reasons to quash a conviction based on such a defective charge was explained in Rex v Wells, Ex Parte Clifford (1904) 91 L.T.
98 Wills J. said, at page 99 – “……….. a conviction ought to specify the particular offence of which the man was convicted, otherwise ………….. if a man were charged again with one of the two alternative offences mentioned in his conviction it would be impossible to say that the plea of autrefois convict would be satisfied by producing the document which had been previously convict- ed.” The actual decision in Rex v Wells has long been followed.
It is difficult to reconcile all the cases, and at times impossible, as the analysis in Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice 2012 Edition, para 1-219, demon- strates.

This paper sets out the principle of the rule against duplicity on the basis of the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court namely in the cases of B. Seeboruth v State [1999 MR 98] and P. Ghoorah v State [2001 SCJ 263].
Both the cases of B. Seeboruth and P. Ghoorah refer to Blackstone’s Criminal Practice [1996] at page 1156 where the authors pointed out that - “the rule against duplicity is characterised by deceptive simplicity since the proposition that a Court must charge one and only one offence begs the more tricky question “what is an offence?” Similarly reference was also made to the case of Jemmisson v Priddle [1972] 1QB 489 at p. 495 where Lord Widg- ery CJ gave the following guidance on the question - “I agree ……….
that it will often be legitimate to bring a single charge in respect of what might be called one activity even though that activity may involve more than one act.
It must, of course, depend upon the circumstances.” Also, Lord Diplock said at p. 607C – “The rule against duplicity viz, that only one offence should be charged in any count of an indictment ……… has al- ways been applied in a practical, rather than in a strictly analytical, way for the purpose of determining what constitut- ed one offence.” 4 Issue 22 The Rule Against Duplicity By M. Iqbal Maghooa, Deputy DPP His Lordship continued and said at page 796 – “where a number of acts of similar nature committed by one or more defendants were connected with one another, in the time and place of their commission or by their common purpose, in such a way that they could fairly be regarded as forming part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise, it was the practice, as early as the eighteenth century, to charge than in a single count of an indictment.” Upon an analysis of the above dicta, the learned authors of Blackstone Criminal Practice 1996 write – “Thus the rule against duplicity rests ultimately on common sense and pragmatic considerations of what is fair in all the circumstances.
That being so, the rule is best understood in terms of past decisions on what is acceptable drafting prac- tice, rather than by applying an artificial concept of what is a single offence.” However, as pointed out in Crown Court Practice (1978) p. 49 – “It is only where two different offences arising from the same section relate precisely to the same piece of conduct that they may be joined in the same count.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to set out a digest of all the cases where the Appellate Court had considered whether an information is duplicitous or not – (the reader may refer to the New Mauritius Digest Venchard, Ange- lo, Glover Volume 2 at page 578 et seq).
Whether there is one activity or several will depend on the facts of each individual case.
Suffice it to refer to the case of DPP v Teencouree [1976 MR 236] where the Supreme Court ap- plied the reasoning in the case of Jemmisson (supra) and held that – “Two separate acts of disturbance committed within a very short space of time constitute one transaction amenable to prosecution as one single offence.” This principle was illustrated in Iaquaniello [2005] EWCA Crim 2029 where the accused was charged on an in- dictment containing a count of doing an act or series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.
The Court of Appeal held that it was not duplicitous for a count to state, in this context, ‘act or acts’.

Where the particulars of offence alleged that the accused did an act or series of acts tending, and intended, to pervert the course of justice, it was not duplicitous to particularise the acts within one count on the indictment.
5 Issue 22 The Rule Against Duplicity By M. Iqbal Maghooa, Deputy DPP In Ghoorah (supra) the Court concluded that the - “sum total of the authorities is that the quest of what is an offence is more a matter of facts and degree than technicality, depending on the circumstances of each case.
The role of the Court is to find out whether the information as drafted had caused any embarrassment or prejudice to the accused which resulted in a substantial miscarriage, thus a denial to a fair hearing.” An important issue that may arise when the question of duplicity is under consideration is whether the stat- utory provision in question creates a single offence or more than one offence.

This is a matter of statutory interpre- tation.


Thus, for example, in the case of V.D Ramsoondar v State [2011 SCJ 389] the Court concluded, upon an analysis of section 158(1)(a) of the Customs Act, that this section creates three distinct offences and that by com- bining the three alternative modes of commission of the offence, the information was bad for duplicity or, more precisely, for multiplicity of offences.
However, in the case of R. Seewoosungkur v The State & Anor [2013 SCJ 82] the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, analysed this section taking into account its legislative history, the scheme of the enactment and held that section 158(1)(a) of the Customs Act creates only one offence and for that offence there is only one mens rea.

The Court accordingly held that there was no duplicity in the information lodged against the appellant.
To conclude, whilst duplicity in a count is a matter of form and not a matter relating to the evidence called in support to the count, a distinction should be made between an allegation that the accused has committed a num- ber of distinct offences, which must always be put in separate counts, and an allegation merely that he committed a number of distinct criminal acts which formed part of one activity or transaction, which can go into a single count.
In the first category, the motion to quash the information should be determined solely by considering the wording of the indictment, without reference to the evidence.

However, in the second category which can become apparent only after the evidence has been called, the defence should wait until the close of the prosecution case.
6 Issue 22 Visit of the Uganda Delegation at the ODPP By Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel The DPP highlighted that Mauritius, having a booming financial services sector, it is very important to have in place relevant information to combat money laundering and terrorism financing and on that line the ODPP works with the various stakeholders such as the FSC, the FIU and the Customs while prosecuting such cases.
The DPP also stressed on the essence of the Asset Recovery Act, by laying emphasis on non-conviction based asset forfei- ture, in cases where evidence would fall short of estab- lishing a particular offence in court.

Uganda is currently putting in place an Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting the Financing of Terror- ism (AML/CFT) regime.
In this connection, the Bank of Uganda, in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development of Uganda had, in February 2013, sent a delegation comprising Members of Parliament and officials from the Bank of Uganda to learn from the experience of Mauritius in the establishment of its AML/CFT framework.
The delegation had met various stakeholders con- cerned with the AML/CFT framework, such as the Financial services Commission (FSC), the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and the police.
On 11th February 2013, the Uganda delegation visited the Of- fice of the DPP (‘ODPP’) where a forum of discus- sion on the following issues took palce: the legislative framework governing AML/CFT in Mauritius cases prosecuted in this field the Asset Recovery Act and its challenges co-operation among the various stakeholders in- volved the financial services sector in Mauritius      7 The forum of discussion proved to be very successful in- asmuch as several challenges in the area of AML/CFT were addressed such as identification of the source of funds by investors investing in Mauritius, ability to se- cure a non-conviction based asset forfeiture as well as compensation made to aggrieved parties under the Asset Recovery Act.
Issue 22 Summary of Supreme Court Cases February 2013 Mugon v The State [2013 SCJ 61] JJ.

Matadeen & Hajee Abdoula Date in jurat of information; Inops consilii – explanation of vari- ous options available Bonne v State [2013 SCJ 80] JJ.

Caunhye & Domah Amendment – Duty of magistrate – Plead anew to fresh infor- mation Date in jurat of information As a general rule, an omission of the date in the jurat of an information is a defect which does not vitiate the information.
In the present case, however, in view of the time-limit im- posed by section 53 (5) of the Act to institute proceedings on a charge under section 53 (1)(4)(b), such an omission renders that charge invalid.

[Procureur Général v District Magistrate of Port Louis and Pyneeandee [1896 MR 73] and Moorban- noo v The State [1995 SCJ 411].
Inops consilii – explanation of various options available Indeed there is no indication that at the close of the case for the prosecution the appellant was explained the different op- tions that were open to him or that he was expressly informed that he could effectively call evidence to bring any mitigating circumstances to the notice of the court.

In the present case, this was of particular significance as the learned Magistrate was contemplating a custodial sentence.
Vide Moholy v State [2010 SCJ 289], Manuel v State [2011 SCJ 275] and M.R.

Cader v State [2011 SCJ 384].

The Appellant was convicted by the Intermediate Court on a charge of embezzlement in breach of s133(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

She was sentenced to a term of one year im- prisonment.

During the trial before the lower court, an amendment was brought to the original charge and the Appel- lant did not plead anew to the amended charge.
The amend- ment brought was of a substantial nature as the original charge averred that the money allegedly embezzled was deliv- ered to her ‘in pursuance of a contract of agency’ whereas the amended charge averred that it was delivered to her ‘for a work with a promise of remuneration with a condition that it be used for a specific purpose.’ Both counsel joined motion that the matter be remitted back to the lower court for a retrial: see Ponen V R [1985 MR 39]; Venkiah V R [1984 MR 62]; Shanto V State [1997 SCJ 223]; Yadally V State [2010 SCJ 162]; Ackbarally V State [2001 SCJ 176].
By virtue of s96(5) of the District and Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, the Appellate Court de- clared the trial to be a nullity and ordered a fresh hearing.

State v Jean Clifford Pitchee & Anor [2013 SCJ 79] Fekna J. Manslaughter Under count 1, accused No 1 stood charged with having wil- fully and criminally killed one Sumangal Rye Jaulim.

Under count 2, accused No 2 stood charged with aiding and abetting the author of a crime in the means of facilitating such crime.
Both accused parties pleaded guilty.

The Learned Judge took into account their guilty pleas, the fact that accused No 2 had a clean record and the fact that they expressed remorse.

However he bore in mind the seri- ousness of the offence and the heinous way in which the of- fence was committed.

He referred to the following cases: (a) The State V Hemraj Ramsurrun [2012 SCJ 34]; (b) The State V Dhaneshwar Shibdeen [2012 SCJ 112]; and (c) The State v Dig Dig [2008 SCJ 80].
He sentenced both accused No 1 and No 2 to undergo 17 years’ penal servitude.

He further ordered that two-thirds of the time spent on remand be deducted from the term of penal servitude imposed on them.

State v Razafimanantsoa [2013 SCJ 66] Marie Joseph J.

Drug trafficking The Accused pleaded guilty for having unlawfully and know- ingly imported 451.42 grams of heroin into Mauritius, with an averment of trafficking.

She begged for excuse and main- tained that she is poor.
She said that she was forced by some persons to bring the drugs and that she had a child of 3 with her in prison.

After taking consideration the mitigating fac- tors, the Learned Judge sentenced her to undergo 20 years’ penal servitude, from which shall be deducted half of the time spent on remand and to pay a fine of Rs 100,000.

State v Nunhoo [2013 SCJ 69] Marie Joseph J.

Sentence – Manslaughter The Accused was convicted of manslaughter.

He did not ex- press any remorse.


After his conviction, his counsel referred to his young age and the period of 7 months he had spent on remand.

Whilst giving due consideration to the seriousness of the offence, the Accused was accordingly sentenced to under- go 18 years’ penal servitude and Rs 2000 as costs.

8 Issue 22 Summary of Supreme Court Cases February 2013 Jean Baptiste v The State & Anor [2013 SCJ 85] SPJ.
Matadeen & J. Bhaukaurally Application for review of sentence The Applicant, a Seychelles national, was arrested in 2004 with 283.7 grams of heroin.

In 2007, she was prosecuted be- fore the Supreme Court on a charge of unlawful importation of heroin with an averment of trafficking.

When the case came for trial, after the averment of trafficking was dropped, she pleaded guilty to the charge.
The learned trial Judge sentenced her to undergo 7 years’ pe- nal servitude and to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 after having taken into account the following mitigating factors: (a) applicant’s cooperation with the police which led to the arrest of other persons; (b) her plea of guilty; and (c) the period of remand of 34 months.
The applicant prayed that the period of ’34 months spent….on pre-trial remand be deducted from the sentence.’ Reference were made to the cases of Callachand v State [2008 UKPC 49] and Dookee v State [2012 UKPC 21].
The Supreme Court made the following observations: (1) the only issue relates to pre-trial custody and not, as in the case of Dookee, custody pending appeal; (2) The present is a drug dealing case for which the legislator in his wisdom provided that there would be no remission; and (3) Unlike in the case of Callachand, the learned trial Judge had already taken into consideration the period of 34 months spent on remand.

Application set aside with costs.

Nundalalee v State [2013 SCJ 77] JJ.


Hajee Abdoula & Fekna Previous conviction – Right of accused – section 211 of Criminal Procedure Act The Appellant was prosecuted before the District Court for driving a motor vehicle on a road having consumed alcohol in quantity exceeding the permissible limit and failing to produce driving licence on demand in breach of the Road Traffic Act.

The Appellant was sentenced to undergo 6 months’ imprison- ment under count 1 and to pay a fine of Rs 500 under count 2.
His licence was cancelled for all types of motor vehicles.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that a serious irregularity had occurred as the content of document X (containing the previous conviction) was not explained to the Appellant and the latter was not asked whether he admit- ted or denied the previous charge.

It was conceded by learned counsel for the State that a serious irregularity had indeed occurred.
The Appellate Court referred to the case of Diouman v R [1990 MR 312] whereby the relevant procedure to be adopted in such a case was explained.

Reference was also made to section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act in that respect.

By virtue of s96 of DICA, the Learned Judges quashed the sen- tence and remitted the case back to the lower court for a fresh hearing in relation to the sentence.

For a similar reasoning, see also: Mamarot v The State [2013 SCJ 89] Premchand v The State [2013 SCJ 71] CJ.
Yeung Sik Yuen & Devat J.

Duty of Magistrate - Defective Information The Appellant, a provisional licence holder, was found guilty of the following offences: (a) taking and driving autocyle with- out owner’s authority; (b) riding an autocycle without an in- surance policy; and (c) riding autocyle on NTR Road Beau Plan in breach of conditions attached.

He was sentenced to a fine of Rs 700 each in respect of counts 1 and 3 and a fine of Rs 2000 in respect of count 2.
He was also disqualified from holding and obtaining a driving licence for all types of vehi- cles for a period of 8 months and his licence was further can- celled and endorsed.

On appeal, the Learned Judges were of the considered view that since the court record was silent as to whether the appel- lant had been explained his constitutional rights, the Learned Magistrate had failed to perform her duty, the moreso that he was inops consilii.
She was accordingly unaware of any miti- gating circumstances which could have invoked and which could have had a bearing on the length of the disqualification imposed.

The Learned Judges also agreed with the Appellant on the fact that the information disclosed no offence known to the law in as much as Beau Plan did not fall within the 5th Sched- ule of the Road Traffic Regulations.

Under count 2, case remitted to lower court for sentencing after hearing evidence in mitigation by the Appellant.
Con- viction and sentence quashed under count 3.

9 Issue 22 Interview of a police prosecutor - Inspector Rama By Anusha Rawoah, State Counsel Prosecutors in District Courts.

Police Officers of the rank of Chief Inspectors and above are called to act as Police Prosecutors at the Intermediate Criminal Court.

So, as per the Standing Orders of the Mauritius Force the first require- ment to become a Police Prosecutor is that you should rank Sergeant and above up to Superintendent of Police.
A Police Prosecutor should know the laws of evi- dence, the elements of the charge, and possess an excellent knowledge of the rules of Examination in Chief, Cross – Examination and re-Examination.

He should be able to handle a difficult wit- ness and deal with him accordingly in Court and be able to react at any time when questions are put by the defence, which can spoil his case and should be always alert.
A good Police Prosecutor should know the sequence he has to adopt when conducting his case before a Court.

The good sequence will help him to conduct his case in a positive manner.

According to you what sort of people would suit this role?
As I have said, any Police Officer from the rank of Sergeant and above up to Superintendent of Police can suit the role of a Police Prosecutor, but should, according to me, have at least the follow- ing qualities:  An excellent knowledge of the law;  Master the technique of Examina- tion in Chief, Cross Examination and Re Examination;  Ability to deal with difficult witness- es and know the sequence to pro- ceed with them in court during ex- amination in chief;  Good communication skills;  Ability to stand and rebut, at any moment, what the defence is adduc- ing;  A good personality and impartiality.
Can you share with us your experience in an interesting case you conducted in Court?

I was conducting a case of Drug Dealing - Possession of Heroin for the purpose of Distribution before the IC.

The Accused was a government employee.

He was arrested during his hours of duties.

Po- lice arrested him after a long persuit in the yard of an industrial Company in presence of a Security Officer in his 4x4 vehicle.
The Security Officer who wit- nessed the scene gave a statement to the Police but his name did not appear on the list of witnesses.

After all the Police witnesses were heard and went through a very long cross Examination, I was of the opinion that I should call the Securi- ty Officer to strengthen my case.

I made a motion to add the name of that witness on the list.

After some debate the motion was granted.

I was granted a postpone- ment and the Security Officer came and deposed.
After having heard that wit- ness, the Magistrate concluded the guilt of the accused on his corroborative evi- dence and sentenced the accused to five years penal servitude.

The accused ap- pealed against the judgment but same was dismissed and the accused went to jail for five years.

Are you equipped with the necessary tools and materials when conducting cases?

We can say yes, but sometimes we have to return cases for lack of evidence.

I am of the view that we should be given more training.
We are getting many judgments every day on criminal law and we should be apprised of same.

We sincere- ly need equipment and internet facilities to enable us to be more effective.

I must say that whenever we have any difficul- ty, we contact the State Law Officer con- cerned at the DPP’S Office and we do obtain the support needed.

Which part of the role of Police Prose- cutors fascinates you the most?

When accused parties come to depose in the witness box.
Issue 22 Police prosecutors play a very important role in our criminal justice system.

Being police officers, they are also called upon to conduct criminal cases before the Dis- trict Courts and the Intermediate Court (‘IC’).

An interview has been conducted with Inspector Rama to enlighten our readers on the role and duties of police prosecutors.

What is the Role of a Police Prosecutor in a criminal case?
When a Police Prosecutor receives a criminal case to conduct before a Court, he must peruse the file and ascertain that all the evidence are available according to the charge preferred against the ac- cused.

He must also see to it that all the needed witnesses are duly summoned and are present in Court, all the exhibits and documents are in order and ready to be produced during the proceedings.
He should Swear or Solemnly Affirm and sustain the charge and ensure that all evidence is put before the Court mag- nanimously, that is, he must produce all evidence available, even in favour of the accused parties, if any.

What are the requirements to become a Police Prosecutor in Mauritius?

The duties of the Police Prosecutors are laid down in S.O 55 of the Standing Or- ders of the Mauritius Police Force.
Any Police Officer from the rank of Sergeant to Superintendent of Police can act as 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS SEMINAR AT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (ILEA) By Alvin Joypaul, State Counsel From the 28th January to the 1st of February 2013 a Course on Intellectual Property Rights (’IPR’) was held at the International Law Enforcement Agency (ILEA) Gaborone, Botswana.
On that occasion, law enforcement organizations and federal agencies from various African countries like South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Ghana, Nigeria, Mauritius and Seychelles participat- ed in that program.

The representatives were investigators, Prosecutors and Customs Officers.

The IPR course was conducted under the aegis of the United States National IPR Coordination Center, the U.S Customs and Border Protection and the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In a nutshell, the U.S National IPR Coordination Center is the U.S Government’s most important institution in the legal framework responsible for investigations into counterfeiting and crimes that endanger public health, public safety and fair competition.

It aims at mitigating vulnerabilities which threaten internation- al trade.

The Center also focuses on enforcement in order to protect public health.
The presentations from those various stake- holders included case studies, evidence gathering and investigation techniques and the legal provisions that are in force in the United States regarding counterfeit and breach of copyright; namely the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, which is the cornerstone for enforcing Intellectual Property Rights.
This seminar also saw the participation of the Interpol which emphasised the importance of international cooperation among national law enforcement agencies in order to effective- ly counteract and fight against counterfeit and international ‘fake products’ smuggling.

During the seminar discussions focussed essentially on the various problems that were affecting many countries in Africa con- cerning Intellectual Property Crimes and counterfeit problems.
Some countries even admitted that nearly eighty percent of their imported products were counterfeited!

The general consensus on the closing day of the Seminar was that for an effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and to prevent counterfeit, it is primordial that the members of the public be sensitised about the difference between genuine products and counterfeit ones.

Moreover, the campaign ought to explain as well the dangers of buying counterfeit goods.
The U.S agencies strongly recommended that law enforcement agencies need to be adequately trained and properly equipped in order to successfully detect and prosecute a potential suspect and accused.

Finally, it was generally agreed that to better fight against this international plague, all relevant agencies need to work together in a coordinated manner and have a good com- munication channel.
11 Issue 22 Demise of Sir Marc David 8th February 2013 Supreme Court of Mauritius Law Day Celebration 4th March 2013 On 8th February 2013 at the Supreme Court, members of the For the second consecutive year, the Law Day has been cele- legal profession came together to pay a heartfelt tribute to the brated on 4th March 2013.

To mark this event, Honourable memory of late Sir Marc David QC.
The speeches of Hon- Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen gave an inaugural lecture at ourable Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen, Honourable Attorney the Harilall Vaghjee Hall, Port-Louis on ‘Democracy and the General Yatin Varma and of Senior Counsel Ivan Collenda- Rule of Law.’ The event was attended by President of the velloo for the Bar Association, reminded the audience of how Republic Rajkeswur Purryag G.O.S.K., the Vice-President of remarkable a person Sir Marc David QC had been throughout the Republic Monique Ohsan-Bellepeau, the Attorney Gen- his legal career, be it as a barrister and as a human being.
He eral Yatin Varma and a great number of persons from the le- was known as the ‘doyen du barreau mauricien.’ He was man gal profession.

with a profound sense of ethics and with an acute intelligence.

Sir Marc David QC was always kind, considerate and courte- In his speech, the Chief Justice was of the view that, ous to his seniors as well as his juniors.
‘democracy and the rule of law is a problem of concept and applica- tion as much today as in the time of Plato and before.’ However, he Sir Marc David QC was a former student at the Royal College went on to say that, ‘Mauritius has been fortunate that, all along of Curepipe.

He won the State Scholarship in 1942 and went its constitutional history as an independent and sovereign nation, the for tertiary studies at the London School of Economics.
He legal fraternity, including judges and lawyers present in various was called to the Bar at the Honourable Society of the Middle spheres , fully assumed its role of nation building along democratic Temple in 1949.

He came to Mauritius and he joined the principles and with due respect to the rule of law.’ He reiterated Crown Law Office.

He took silk some 10 years later.


Sir the importance for the Judiciary to be alive to the dynamism Marc was called upon to preside the Mauritius Bar Associa- of change and to keep pace with it as there is a perpetual pro- tion in 1969.

From 1965 to 1971, he served as member of the cess of change in human affairs.

This can certainly be Provisional Council at the University of Mauritius.
He car- achieved as ‘our Constitution is framed in a language that allows ried out a visitorial enquiry in 1980 following student unrest for the dynamics of the law to vision the future with a strong anchor- in 1979.

He had also served as Chairperson of the Electoral age on the present and the past, whether in principles, doctrines or Supervisory Commission and as Commissioner of the Mauri- fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen.’ tius Turf Club.
He presided over the affairs of the Bar Coun- cil in 2001.

Sir Marc had appeared in a number of leading As part of the Law Day celebrations, free legal advice was cases before the Supreme Court as well as before the Judicial provided by barristers and attorneys around the island on 2nd Committee of the Privy Council.

His meticulous legal analy- March 2013. sis can be read from the landmark judgment of United Docks V Union of Campement Sites.
Sir Marc passed away on 24th The 4th of March is also the date on which our Constitution January 2013 at the age of 87 and he left behind him a legacy was adopted in 1968. which shall be remembered always.

Zaynah Essop State Counsel 12 Issue 22