Mahen Ramnauth (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius (Respondent) (Mauritius)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0025

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Mahen Ramnauth

Respondent(s)

The State of Mauritius represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions

Issue

Was there a breach of the Appellant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing guaranteed under section 10(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius in the way that criminal proceedings concerning the Appellant were conducted?

Facts

In 2017, Mahen Ramnauth, the Appellant, was subject to a trial in the District Court of Flacq concerning a criminal charge of unlawfully driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The Appellant originally pleaded ‘not guilty’ but changed his plea to ‘guilty’ during the trial. His counsel was late to this hearing and the Appellant stated he no longer required his services. The Appellant was found guilty at the hearing, and the case was then postponed for sentencing. However, during the intervening period, the trial judge re-opened the case and allowed the prosecution, the Respondent, to call a further witness as it was considered that there was insufficient evidence in the first hearing. The case was then re-closed following cross-examination of this new witness. Subsequently, the Appellant was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with a fine and was disqualified from driving for 8 months. The circumstances which led to the Appellant changing his plea to ‘guilty’ and whether the Appellant wished for the assistance of his counsel remained debated by the Appellant and were not expressly noted in the record of the court proceedings. Further, the Appellant sought to challenge the ability for the District Court of Flacq to re-open the case to allow the introduction of the further witness evidence. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, however, the appeal documents were in a different person’s name. The Supreme Court of Mauritius accordingly dismissed the appeal for this reason. The Appellant was successful in securing leave from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to appeal that decision. The Respondent stated it would not challenge this appeal so agreed with the Appellant by means of a consent order from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dated 12 June 2023 that the case should be remitted to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for (i) the heading of the notice to be amended to reflect the proper name of the Appellant and, importantly, (ii) for the Supreme Court of Mauritius to determine the merits of two grounds of appeal which were requested by the Appellant and included in the consent order. The two grounds were that it was it was wrong and a breach of the Appellant’s constitutional rights to allow the proceedings to proceed without legal counsel and that the sentence was manifestly harsh. In February 2024, judgment was given the by Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissing the appeal. The Appellant sought leave from the Supreme Court of Mauritius to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but was denied. The Appellant now seeks leave from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to appeal.