Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) v Jenathan Couronne (Respondent) (Mauritius)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0056

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mauritius

Respondent(s)

Jenathan Couronne

Issue

Was a sentence of one year imprisonment for causing a child to be sexually abused unduly lenient?

Facts

The respondent was at the material time a 28-year-old bus driver. On 21 May 2016 he had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old student ("the victim"), in his bus with force and without her consent whilst she was returning home in the late afternoon after tuition. He forced her to drink beer and subsequently threatened that if she disclosed what took place, he would kidnap her. After the incident the victim attended medical treatment and reported the matter to the police. The Medico Legal Report confirmed injuries consistent with what she had described. On 25 January 2021, the respondent was arraigned for the offence of causing child to be sexually abused in breach of section 14(1)(a) and section 18(5)(b) of the then Child Protection Act (“CPA”). The respondent pleaded not guilty. The trial started in August 2021 and the process continued up to May 2024. On 13 May 2024, there was a change in the magistrate hearing the case. The trial started anew and the respondent entered a guilty plea. On 12 June 2024, the Magistrate of the Intermediate Court sentenced the respondent to a conditional discharge upon his entering into a recognizance and furnishing a surety of Rs 100,000 within a delay of 3 months and to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years failing which he would undergo 12 months imprisonment. A recognizance with a surety is a formal undertaking to comply with bail conditions secured by a financial obligation. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the sentence is wrong in law and unduly lenient, arguing that the CPA s18(5A) expressly excluded the imposition of a sentence of condition discharge for offences under CPA s14. On 27 June 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of conditional discharge with a one year imprisonment sentence. The appellant appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the ground that the Supreme Court imposed a sentence which was manifestly inadequate and disproportionate in the circumstances.