MARCH 2024 - FIRST ISSUE

Issue 1 - March 2024

JUDICIARY NEWSLETTER
QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
AN INITIATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS
 MARCH 2024 - FIRST ISSUE
Issue 1 - March 2024

IN THIS ISSUE
--------------------------

MESSAGE FROM THE HONOURABLE

CHIEF JUSTICE

--------------------------

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF WOMEN JUDGES

--------------------------

FRESH FROM THE BENCH

---------------------------

NEWS AND UPDATES

---------------------------

The aim of this newsletter is to bring to our readers updates within

the judiciary, including information on landmark cases, events, and
other initiatives.
 MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
HONOURABLE BIBI REHANA MUNGLY-GULBUL, G.O.S.K.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the

first issue of the Judiciary Newsletter.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius is

launching this Newsletter during the 300th
year of the origins of our justice system.
The Mauritian legal system is a legacy of
our rich history and although it is important
to remember the past, we must also look to
the future and consider our ability to shape
it.

To understand our current system, it is

interesting to trace its origins. In 1724, at
the time when Mauritius was a French
colony, or Ile de France as it was then
known, a Conseil Provincial was established and a decade later, a new Conseil Supérieur de l’Ile de France
was set up. In 1766, a new Conseil Supérieur was set up to administer both civil and criminal justice. In
December 1810, after the French surrendered the island to the British, it was agreed that the judicial
system established under French occupation would be preserved but that judgments would henceforth be
given in the name of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In addition, the right of the
inhabitants to appeal to the Cour de Cassation under the French occupation was shifted and transferred to
the Privy Council. A Cour d’Appel comprising three judges was later established in 1831. On 20 March
1850, the name Cour d’Appel was changed to Supreme Court of the Colony of Mauritius which would
comprise a Chief Judge and two other judges. Today, the Chief Justice, the Senior Puisne Judge, and 25
Puisne Judges constitute the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

It is the role of the Judiciary to uphold the Rule of Law – a key tenet of democracy. Socrates’s saying: “Four
things belong to a judge: to listen courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide
impartially,” though dating from the 4th Century BC, still remains relevant today. Yet, our judiciary also
needs to cater to the issues of modern society. In fact, over the next few years, new technologies, including
artificial intelligence, promise to bring new challenges and also exciting opportunities.

It is against this background that, for the first time in our history, we are launching a Newsletter so that the
country can be kept abreast of developments in the Judiciary. The scope of the Newsletter is to report on
key decisions, initiatives, events, and other topical issues within the Judiciary. Exclusively, and to launch
our first edition, this issue will also be available in print in limited numbers, but every issue thereafter will
only be published online for environmental considerations.

In this issue, you will find an article on women judges, recent landmark decisions of the Supreme Court of
Mauritius and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, updates on the use of technology by the
Courts, and the Children’s Court.

I wish all our readers a pleasant read.

Hon. Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul G.O.S.K.
The Chief Justice of Mauritius

Page 1 Issue 1 - March 2024

 MARCH 2024 - FIRST ISSUE

judges of the
supreme court of mauritius

The Honourable Chief Justice

with the Judges of
the Supreme Court of Mauritius

Page 2 Issue 1 - March 2024

 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF "Women belong in all places where

WOMEN JUDGES decisions are being made."

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The 8 of March marks the celebration of International Women’s Day. The

10 of March marks the International Day of Women Judges.

Historically, women were excluded from most decision-making spheres.

Even if this is no longer the case, as a result of the continued gender
inequality in the world, women often remain underrepresented in key
positions, including in the judiciary of many countries. In Mauritius, we can
be proud that two-thirds of our judges are women and that since 2021, our
The Supreme Court of Mauritius
Judiciary has had its first female Chief Justice.

As the world celebrates International Women's Day and International Day of Women Judges in March, it is an
opportune moment to focus on the remarkable contributions and achievements of women Judges in Mauritius and
beyond. The journey of these women has been one of resilience, determination, and perseverance.

In the rich legal history in Mauritius, one figure stands out prominently - the first female Chief Justice of Mauritius.
The appointment of Her Ladyship Honourable Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul, G.O.S.K. on 18 November 2021 as the
first female Chief Justice was a turning point in the history of Mauritius. In 1979, she secured a State Scholarship
and went to read law at University of Sussex in the United Kingdom. She was called to the Bar of England and
Wales at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in 1983. On her return to Mauritius, she practised at the
private bar until her appointment in 1984 to act as Crown counsel at the then Crown Law Office. In 1988, she was
appointed as District Magistrate and from then on, she served in various District Courts in Mauritius and in
Rodrigues Court. She served as Magistrate of the Intermediate Court then the Industrial Court and later became
the President of the Intermediate Court. In 2003, she was appointed Deputy Master and Registrar and
subsequently, Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court. She was appointed Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court
in 2008 and during that time, she presided over civil, criminal and mediation matters. She spent most of her term at
the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court where she delivered many landmark judgments. She was
appointed Senior Puisne Judge in June 2021, the second most important position in the Judiciary. On 18
November 2021, His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Mauritius appointed her Chief Justice of Mauritius
and she became the first woman to occupy that post. In October 2022, Honourable Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul
G.O.S.K was elected Bencher of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.

We also honour other women who have been pioneers in Mauritius in their respective roles in the legal profession.
In 1955, Ms Laure Pillay became the first female Barrister-at-law in Mauritius, and 12 years later, she became the
first female Magistrate of the country. In 1974, Ms Swaleha Mohabeer became the first Attorney-at-law in Mauritius.
Ms Chidambaram Rajalutchemee was the first female Notary of Mauritius. Thirty-one years ago, on 11 January
1993, Ms. Rookmeenee Narainamah Narayen made history by assuming office as the first woman judge of the
Supreme Court. Ms Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra was the first woman Attorney-General of Mauritius. The rise of
female leaders in the legal field across the world marks a significant stride towards gender equality and diversity in
the legal profession. From various corners of the world, these women have left an indelible mark on their
professions, inspiring future generations of women to pursue careers in law and aspire for leadership roles. Let us
delve into the profiles of a few notable female Chief Justices and female pioneers in the legal profession around the
world who have made history with their remarkable achievements.

Page 3 Issue 1 - March 2024

 Dame Sue Carr, England and Wales

Six months ago, on 1st October 2023, Dame Sue Carr became the first ever Lady Chief Justice of England and
Wales. Since the inception of the role in the 13th century, no woman has held the position of Chief Justice. It is
worth noting that just before her appointment, Dame Sue Carr was one of the Law Lords who heard the Mauritian
appeal case of Surendra Dayal v Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and 5 others [2023] UKPC 37, in which she gave the
judgment on behalf of the Board. She is the 98th judge to hold the position and the first woman in a history dating
back almost 800 years. Her appointment comes a century after women first became barristers in the UK and amid
efforts to diversify the judiciary.

Lady Hale of Richmond, Supreme Court of England and Wales

On 2nd October 2017, Lady Hale of Richmond became the first female President of the Supreme Court of
England and Wales. She was appointed as a Law Lord in 2004. Lady Hale’s elevation to President of the
Supreme Court is the pinnacle of a successful legal career in which she has become one of the most forthright
influences. Whilst sitting at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, she heard several appeals from Mauritius,
including Peerthum (Appellant) v The Independent Commission against Corruption and another (Respondents)
[2014] UKPC 42, and Dhooharika (Appellant) v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2014] UKPC
11.

The Right Honourable Dame Siobhan Keegan, Northern Ireland

In September 2021, the Right Honourable Dame Siobhan Keegan was appointed Lady Chief Justice in Northern
Ireland, the first woman ever to hold this post. Dame Siobhan Keegan has been a High Court Judge, served as
Vice Chair of the Bar of Northern Ireland, Chair of the Young Bar, Chair of the Family Bar Association, Chair of
the Bar Charity Committee and a member of the Bar Professional Conduct Committee. In 2015, Dame Siobhan
Keegan made history by becoming one of Northern Ireland's first female High Court judges and was presiding
coroner for Northern Ireland from 2017 until 2020.

Hon. Justice Beverley McLachlin, Canada

Serving as the Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to 2017, Hon. Beverley McLachlin became the first woman to
hold this esteemed position in Canadian history. During her tenure, Hon. McLachlin left an enduring legacy
characterized by her commitment to judicial independence, human rights, and constitutional principles. Her
judicious reasoning and unwavering dedication to the rule of law earned her widespread acclaim, solidifying her
status as one of the most influential legal figures in Canada and beyond.

Dame Sian Elias, New Zealand

Dame Sian Elias made history when she became the first female Chief Justice of New Zealand in 1999.
Throughout her tenure, she earned widespread respect for advancing the principles of fairness and equity. As the
highest judicial officer in New Zealand, Dame Elias played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of the
country, leaving an indelible legacy that continues to inspire future generations of legal professionals.

Page 4 Issue 1 - March 2024

 The Hon. Mrs Justice Susan Denham

Hon. Susan Denham was appointed the eleventh Chief Justice of Ireland in July 2011 and is the first woman to hold
that position in the history of Ireland. She delivered some of the most significant judicial decisions in the history of
Ireland. Her work in relation to the court system led to the establishment of the Court of Appeal, and she played a
significant role in the establishment of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. She was the second-
ever woman to be a judge in the Irish superior courts, the first woman to be a Supreme Court judge and the first
woman to be Chief Justice.

President Mary Robinson, Ireland

On 3rd December 1990, Mrs Mary Robinson was inaugurated as the seventh President of Ireland. Mrs Mary
Robinson was elected as Ireland's first female President from 1990 to 1997 and was a founding member of the
Council of Women World Leaders. She has been credited with transforming the role with a presidency of
inclusiveness, equality and peace building, and with creating an important dialogue at home and overseas about
Ireland and the Irish Diaspora. As a barrister advocating human rights and women’s equality in the Irish and
European Courts, an academic and as a member of the Irish Senate representing the University of Dublin (Trinity
College) constituency from 1969 to 1989, Mrs Mary Robinson’s work played a pivotal role in shaping modern
Ireland.

Similarly, several African countries have marked judicial history by appointing their first female Chief Justices. In
2021, Kenya appointed Lady Justice Koome as its first female Chief Justice. That same year, Hon. Justice Nemat
Abdullah Khair became the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sudan, serving as the Head of the
Sudanese Judiciary. In 2012, Lady Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar became the first woman to have held the
position of Chief Justice in Nigeria. In 2008, Lady Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh was appointed Sierra Leone’s
first female Chief Justice after the House of Parliament unanimously voted in favour of her nomination.

These remarkable women exemplify the rise of female leadership in the judiciary, challenging stereotypes,
breaking glass ceilings, and paving the way for a more inclusive and equitable legal system. As they continue to
inspire future generations of judiciary professionals, their legacy serves as a testament to the enduring impact of
women in positions of leadership and authority. In the pursuit of justice and equality, their contributions will
undoubtedly resonate for years to come, shaping the future of the judiciary and society at large.

"By their mere presence, women judges enhance the legitimacy of courts,
sending a powerful signal that they are open and accessible
to those who seek recourse to justice."
Judge Vanessa Ruiz
Senior Judge, Court of Appeals, District of Columbia ,USA,
President of the International Association of Women Judges

Page 5 Issue 1 - March 2024

 FRESH FROM THE
BENCH
From the Supreme Court of Mauritius
ENL Limited & Anor v Independent Commission
Against Corruption [2023] SCJ 19
Hon. B.R Mungly-Gulbul CJ,
Hon. N. F Oh San-Bellepeau J,
Hon. K.D Gunesh-Balaghee J
19 May 2023
Following an application for the discharge of an ex
parte order, the applicants made an application for
tierce opposition pursuant to Article 474 of the Code
de Procédure Civile. The ICAC raised a preliminary
objection with respect to the representation of the
applicants. The Full Bench held as follows: firstly,
subject to any restriction in the constitution of a
company, the Board of a company may lawfully
delegate and authorise a person to represent the
company and to give evidence on behalf of the
company in the course of any civil proceedings;
secondly, such authorisation must normally emanate
from the Board in conformity with its constitution
and the relevant legislation; thirdly, the lack of a
formal resolution does not render the proceedings
void as it is open to a properly constituted Board of
directors to subsequently ratify the authority to
represent the company and to give evidence on behalf
of the company. In the present matter, the conditions
were met for a valid ratification of all the acts and
doings of the representatives of the companies.
Lacaze JJ v Lacaze D [2022] SCJ 52
Hon. B.R. Mungly-Gulbul CJ,
Hon. C. Green-Jokhoo J
8 November 2021
The appellant appealed against an order refusing the
application for an exequatur to render executory the
Convention de Divorce which had been entered into
between the parties and which was executory in
France.
Page 6
THIS SECTION COVERS SELECTED RECENT JUDGMENTS
FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS AND THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
The Supreme Court found that, in the circumstances,
the following conditions for an exequatur were
satisfied in that: (1) the officier étranger had the
requisite compétence; (2) la loi compétente (Article
229 of the French Civil Code) was applied; (3) there
had been no infringement of les droits de la défense;
and (4) there was no question whatsoever of any
fraud in the matter and (5) given the lower threshold
which was applicable as a result of l’effet attenué de
l’ordre public, the difference between the provisions
of the French law and Mauritian law regarding
divorce by mutual consent would not, per se, act as a
bar to the enforcement of a foreign divorce in
Mauritius. Since all the requisite conditions for an
exequatur were fulfilled, the learned Judge’s decision
in refusing the application for an exequatur was
quashed and was substituted by an order declaring
executory in Mauritius the Convention de Divorce
which had already been executory in France since 19
September 2019.
The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Gender
Equality and Family Welfare v Hurnaum
[2021] SCJ 326
Hon. B.R Mungly-Gulbul Ag.CJ,
Hon. N. F Oh San-Bellepeau J
27 September 2021
The appellant made an application pursuant to Article
12 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction on behalf of Mr SC, the
father of minor, JPC, for the return of JPC to the
Republic of Ireland. The respondent, who is of dual
Mauritian and Irish nationality, began a relationship
with Mr SC in Ireland where they were both domiciled
and where they also worked. On 19 November 2014,
minor JPC was born in Ireland from their relationship.
The parties subsequently separated and Mr SC
moved out of the family home and the child remained
with the mother. Both parties gave sworn
undertakings to the Irish Court that neither of them
would take the child out of the country without the
other’s consent. In breach of the undertaking, the
mother took JPC to Mauritius.
Issue 1 - March 2024
Article 12 provides for the return of a child who has
been wrongfully removed or retained in a State other
than his habitual residence. The rule is subject to the
exception set out in Article 13(b), which provides that
the party invoking the defence bears the burden of
establishing that the return to the requesting State
would expose the particular child to an intolerable
situation which he should not be expected to tolerate
and to which he should not be returned. The Court of
Civil Appeal concluded that, in the absence of any
clear and compelling evidence establishing that the
child would be placed in an “intolerable situation,”
the learned Judge ought to have issued the order for
JPC’s return forthwith to Ireland, the State of the
child’s habitual residence. The Court therefore
quashed the judgment of the trial court, setting aside
the application, and ordering that JPC be returned to
the Ireland.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Commission on
the Prerogative of Mercy [2024] SCJ 89
Hon. M. I Maghooa J,
Hon. P. Harrah J
28 February 2024
The Applicant challenged, by way of judicial review,
the Respondent’s decision to commute a sentence of
one year imprisonment into a fine of Rs 100,000. The
grounds in support of the application were that firstly,
error in law inasmuch as the sentence had been
stayed pending an appeal lodged by the Co-
Respondent and secondly, that no reasonable
authority would have come to such a decision. The
Respondent and Co-Respondent resisted the
application on the ground that firstly that the applicant
had no locus standi; secondly, the application was not
entered promptly; thirdly, the application is
misconceived and fourthly, it did not disclose an
arguable case. The Court held that the powers of the
DPP are set out in section 72(3) of the Constitution.
These powers enable the DPP to do any act or thing
that is reasonably necessary in the exercise of his
constitutional powers.
The Court found that the judicial review application
was entered promptly.
Page 7
It also found that the application did not disclose an
arguable case for the following reasons: [i] It was not
the Court’s function to direct the way in which the
Respondent exercises its powers; [ii] At the time the
Respondent took its decision, there was no pending
appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, and both the conviction and sentence had
become final against the Co-Respondent; [iii] In an
application before the Respondent, the matters to be
taken into account go beyond, or are different from,
those relevant to guilt or sentence; [iv] Ex facie
applicant’s affidavit, there was no evidence to
indicate, or from which it may be inferred, that the
respondent had not performed its functions in
accordance with the Constitution or any other law.
Leave was therefore refused by the Court.
Ah Seek v The State of Mauritius
[2023] SCJ 399
Hon. D. Chan Kan Cheong J,
Hon. K.D. Gunesh-Balaghee J
4 October 2023
The plaintiff sought constitutional redress under
section 17 of the Constitution, contending that
section 250(1) of the Criminal Code which provides
for the offence of sodomy and criminalises anal sex
between consenting male adults in private is
unconstitutional inasmuch as it breaches sections
3,5,7,9,12,13 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court
assessed whether section 250(1) of the Criminal
Code violated section 16 of the Constitution. The
Court concluded that the word “sex” in section 16 of
the Constitution should be interpreted as including
“sexual orientation.” The Court held that section
250(1) of the Criminal Code, which criminalises anal
intercourse, is ostensibly neutral as it is not
exclusively directed against homosexual men. The
Court concluded that section 250(1) of the Criminal
Code is discriminatory in its effect against the
plaintiff. It accordingly, declared the said section
unconstitutional as it violates section 16 of the
Constitution in so far as it prohibits consensual acts
of sodomy between consenting male adults in
private. The Court declared that section 250(1) of the
Criminal Code should be read so as to exclude such
consensual acts from its ambit.
Issue 1 - March 2024
 From the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Stanford Asset Holdings Ltd and another
(Appellants) v AfrAsia Bank Ltd (Respondent)
(Mauritius)
[2023] UKPC 35
Stanford Asset Holding Limited claimed that
fraudulent transfer of USD 11,145 million had been
effected from its account held at AfrAsia Bank Ltd (the
Bank) to another company’s account, which also had
an account with the Bank. The recipients of the illegal
funds were unknown.
The applicant had applied to the Supreme Court for a
disclosure order to trace the funds which had allegedly
been fraudulently transferred from their bank account
and so that they could ascertain the identity of the
recipients to initiate proceedings in Mauritius, or
abroad, to recover the funds.
The applicant relied on the provisions of the Banking
Act (the Act) to obtain the order and, in the alternative,
relied on Norwich Pharmacal principles. The Bank did
not object to this. The Financial Services Commission
and the Financial Intelligence Unit were abiding by the
decision of the Court. The Supreme Court found that
ss.64(9) and 64(10) of the Act were not applicable to
the facts of the case inasmuch as the applicants did
not fall within the categories of any of the designated
authorities entitled to apply for a disclosure order. The
Supreme Court also held that s.64(3)(h) only applies to
those referred to in s.64(1). Therefore, it could not be
relied upon to obtain the disclosure order.
The Court further held that the particular circumstances
of the case did not justify the granting of the Norwich
Pharmacal order. The Judicial Committee agreed with
the decision of the Supreme Court that ss.64(9) and
64(10) should be read together. s.64(9) provides an
exhaustive list of the investigative authorities who may
apply to a Judge in Chambers for the disclosure of
information relating to the transactions and accounts of
a bank customer. s.64(10) sets out the conditions
which must be satisfied before such an order may be
given.
Page 8
The Judicial Committee held that the Supreme Court of
Mauritius has -
(i) the same jurisdiction as the High Court of England
and Wales to grant equitable remedies and this,
a according to the same principles; and
(ii) therefore, also jurisdiction to make interim orders for
disclosure, in accordance with Norwich Pharmacal
principles, both when it is the sole relief sought or in
cases where it is adjunct to freezing orders.
At paragraph 34, the Judicial Committee stated: “The
starting-point is that section 64 does not impose a duty
of confidentiality on banks themselves (as opposed to
on individual employees and agents): … That duty
arises, rather, at common law and there is accordingly
no difficulty about giving effect to a common law (or,
strictly, equitable) exception to it of the kind recognised
in Norwich Pharmacal. It is true that it would be wrong to
make an order for disclosure if compliance could only be
achieved by requiring an individual employee or agent to
break their duty of confidentiality under section 64(2): ....
But in the Board’s view such a case is covered by the
exception in subsection (3) (d), since a Norwich
Pharmacal application clearly constitutes “civil
proceedings involving the financial institution and the
customer or his account”. Counsel suggested that
exception only applied to proceedings between a bank
and its customer, …However, the statutory language
contains no such limitation. It is true that as drafted the
scope of the exception is apparently very wide, and it
may be necessary to imply some limitations to it; but the
Board is satisfied that it must at least extend to a
situation where the disclosure in question has been
ordered by the court...”
Further, at paragraph 38, it held that: “The reason why
the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is referred to as
exceptional is that it involves an innocent third party
being required to supply (typically confidential)
information to an apparent victim of wrongdoing to
whom they would otherwise owe no duty. But it does not
follow from the fact that the jurisdiction itself is in that
sense exceptional that it will only exceptionally be
Issue 1 - March 2024
 appropriate or proportionate to grant relief in a case
where the first three conditions are satisfied; nor, more
particularly, does the Board believe that there is some
specially high hurdle to be surmounted before a Norwich
Pharmacal order can be made against a bank.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, such relief
may well be appropriate and proportionate, and it is
regularly ordered in the Business and Property Courts in
London, either as free-standing relief or as an adjunct to
a freezing order.”
The Judicial Committee quashed the judgment of the
Supreme Court and concluded that, in the present case,
the disclosure order was an appropriate and
proportionate response. It ordered the Bank to disclose
the information sought.
The Attorney General (Appellant) v The Jamaican Bar
Association (Respondent) (Jamaica) and
The General Legal Council (Appellant) v The
Jamaican Bar Association (Respondent) (Jamaica)
[2023] UKPC 6
The appeal was concerned with the Jamaican legal
regime's approach to combating money laundering,
particularly as regards to attorneys. It raised mainly the
question as to whether certain aspects of the statutory
regime in Jamaica for combatting money laundering, in its
application to attorneys, violate without demonstrable
justification certain rights guaranteed by the Jamaican
Constitution so that they should be declared void. The
Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica (‘the Full Court’)
concluded that they did not, but the Court of Appeal
decided that they did. The Board agreed with the Full
Court that the regulatory supervision of attorneys under
the regime did not significantly derogate from legal
professional privilege in Jamaica. It emphasized the
attorney's role as the natural guardian of the client's legal
professional privilege and found that the regime, when
considered as a whole, provided sufficient protection for
privacy rights. The Board also concluded that the regime
did not infringe on the right to liberty or the protection
from search of property. Consequently, the appeals were
allowed and the order of the Full Court restored.
Page 9
James Miller (Appellant) v The King (Respondent)
(Bahamas)
[2023] UKPC 10
The appellant and a co-defendant were convicted of the
attempted murder of a police officer during a robbery.
The incident involved the shooting of the officer as the
perpetrators attempted to escape. The central issue in
the appeal was the jury's assessment of the defendant's
intention and the application of section 12 of the Penal
Code. The Court of Appeal in the Bahamas partially
allowed the appeal against conviction but affirmed most
charges. The appellant then appealed to the Privy
Council, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury
on the intent required for attempted murder. The Board
examined the relevant sections of the Penal Code and
criticized the complexity of the approach to proving
intention outlined in section 12(3). The Board held that
the trial judge provided directions to the jury regarding
the essential element of intention to kill required for the
offence of attempted murder whilst he misdirected them
on the following issues: (a) implying a specific inference
about the appellant's intent; (b) introducing irrelevant
considerations; and (c) suggesting a standard of proof
inconsistent with intentional conduct. The Board further
held that, in certain circumstances, similar sentences
could be imposed for both attempted murder and the
complete offence, thereby upholding the sentence of 40
years.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Issue 1 - March 2024
 NEWS & UPDATES
Latest appointments of Puisne Judges to the Supreme Court of Mauritius

The Judiciary welcomes the appointments of 3 new Puisne Judges since 3 May 2023, namely, Hon. Sulakshana
Beekarry-Sunassee, Hon. Pravin Harrah and Hon. Kesnaytee Bissoonauth. Also, since 5 January 2024, the following
Puisne Judges have been appointed: Hon. Mehdi Shakeel Manrakhan, Hon. Mohammad Azam Neerooa and Hon.
Raj Seebaluck.

Mauritius Reports for the years 2017-2021

We are pleased to announce that the Mauritius Reports for the years 2017-
2021 have recently been published.

The Mauritius Reports are authoritative publications of the judgments of the

Superior Courts of Mauritius that are prepared with the approval of the
Honourable Chief Justice and that can be cited before Courts of Law and in
other fora and publications as “(Year) MR (page).”

The Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies of Diamond Jubilee of the Supreme Court of India
Mauritius (IJLS) - New Composition of the Board

The Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies (IJLS) is
set up under the Institute for Judicial and Legal
Studies Act 2011. Since its inception, the IJLS has
organised a number of courses and workshops for
the Judiciary and for the three branches of the legal
profession in Mauritius. The courses are conducted
by members of the legal profession, judiciary,
experts, academia, foreign faculty invited by the
Institute. The affairs of the IJLS are administered and
managed by a Board, established under Section 7 of
the ILJS Act.
As from March 2024, the Board shall be chaired by
Honourable Judge Shameem B. A. Hamuth-Laulloo
and shall comprise the following Judges: Honourable
Judge Mary Jane Lau Yuk Poon, Honourable Judge
Luchmyparsad Aujayeb, and Honourable Sulakshana
Beekarry-Sunassee. The Board also comprises a
representative of the Solicitor-General, a
representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
a member of the academic staff of the Faculty of Law
of and Management of the University of Mauritius, 3
law practitioners to be appointed by the Attorney-
General, and a member of civil society, appointed by
the Attorney-General. The Hon. Master and Registrar
of the Supreme Court shall be a co-opted member.
On 28 January 2024, the Supreme Court of India
marked the commencement of its Diamond Jubilee
year since its inception on 28 January 1950. The
celebration was marked with the presence of the
Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi and
several guests, which included the Chief Justices of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Mauritius, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
As such the Hon. Chief Justice of Mauritius, Her
Ladyship Mrs Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul, G.O.S.K.
attended the said ceremony. On the occasion of the
seventy-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court of
India, the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud outlined the
progress of various e-courts initiatives, underscoring
the efforts to transform the Indian Judiciary into one
that is technology-enabled, efficient, and environment-
friendly.
The Supreme Court of India

Page 10 Issue 1 - March 2024

 NEWS & UPDATES

e-judiciary updates

An e-judiciary is an important aspect of administrating justice. The e-filing at the Commercial Division of the
Supreme Court and the remote hearings in place for Judges in Chambers were the first steps towards this process
- we discuss these below.

The Chief Justice, Honourable Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul, has had discussions at high levels with key
stakeholders for greater implementation throughout the justice system.

We are looking forward to bringing you updates as soon as possible.

Remote hearings for the Judges in Chambers

During the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, To ensure accountability, the Chief Justice requested
when the country was at standstill, and everyone the Rules Committee to draft the rules. The
was confined at home, the Supreme Court was Committee, consisting of a Judge and members of the
faced with the problem of how to deal with urgent legal profession, including a representative of the Law
matters, which are usually handled daily by the Society and a representative of the Bar Council, held
Judge in Chambers, in person. But as the country discussions with stakeholders to ensure that the final
was grappling with the uncertainty of how to version was agreeable to most practitioners. Issues of
regulate gatherings, all official buildings, including consent, fairness, order, privacy, accessibility, and
the courtrooms were also closed. compliance with legal standards were the key
considerations during the drafting of the rules.
The Chief Justice at the time, together with other
Judges, devised ad hoc procedures for the Remote hearings are now a reality for urgent cases
purposes of handling urgent Chambers cases during before the Judge in Chambers. All interactions
the lockdown period. These procedures worked well between lawyers and the Bench, as well as lawyers’
and, in fact, were so successful that even after in- submissions take place on live video. The hearings are
person gatherings were allowed again, it was framed by a faithful instant automatic transcript of the
deemed important to have rules which would allow proceedings, only necessitating some human
for Chambers cases to be heard remotely, without intervention for correction where the need arises,
the need for legal representatives to be physically which adds to the speediness of providing the
present at the Supreme Court building. transcripts to the Judge in Chambers.

The Judges in Chambers (Remote Hearing) The Judiciary would encourage every eligible user to
Rules 2022 were thus made in response to the make use of the remote hearing technology.
Covid-19 pandemic to allow a Judge in Chambers to
carry out remote hearings. The Rules were designed
by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the
Rules Committee, to provide an innovative way to
hear cases.

Page 11 Issue 1 - March 2024

 THE CHILDREN'S COURT

Pursuant to the coming into operation of the Children’s Act 2020 and the Children’s Court Act 2020, the Children’s
Court (CC) came into operation on 24 January 2022. The CC which consists of the Protection Division and the
Criminal Division, has brought along some novel features such as: (a) the best interests of the child; (b) child-
friendly environment; (c) fair and equitable conduct of proceedings, especially in a language which is simple and
comprehensible to the child having regard to the age and maturity of the child. The Protection Division is
empowered to issue upon application, where it is in the best interests of the Child, the following orders: an
Emergency Protection Order; an Ancillary Order authorising parenting aid, supervision, medical examination,
professional counselling, mediation, professional assessment, limited access and contact; a Long-term Care Order
exceeding three years; a Contact Order; a Preventive Intervention Order in case of serious behavioural concerns
including removal from usual household; a Mentoring Order under a “Child Mentoring Scheme.”

The Criminal Division of the CC has similar jurisdiction as the Intermediate Court. It hears cases involving (i) child
victim (ii) child witness and (iii) juvenile offenders. It is apt to highlight that the criminal division of the CC operates
in a child-friendly environment. There are facilities for a child witness or child victim to be heard through video
conferencing. Furthermore, there are dedicated waiting rooms and an outdoor play area at the disposal of children
attending Court.

There is also a separate access to the premises of the Court for both accused
parties and child witnesses. CDU officers, probation officers and a psychologist
are also attached to the CC and they provide necessary assistance to children
victims and witnesses, as and when required. All Magistrates from the initial
team of the CC have now moved on to other jurisdiction. The internal “Handbook
on Procedures” that they have prepared will bear testimony to their humble
contribution.

Child friendly video Conference room Children's waiting areas

Page 12 Issue 1 - March 2024

MARCH 2024 - FIRST ISSUE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE EDITORIAL TEAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon. Justice Mary Jane LAU YUK POON, Puisne Judge

Hon. Justice Mehdi Shakeel MANRAKHAN, Puisne Judge

HH. Ms Anusha D. RAWOAH, Magistrate, Intermediate Court

HH. Ms Zaynah ESSOP, Magistrate, Intermediate Court

HH. Rishi HARDOWAR, Senior District Magistrate

HH. Mrs Shaaheen DAWREEAWOO, Senior District Magistrate

HH. Gavin COOLEN, Magistrate, District Court

Issue 1 - March 2024

JUDICIARY NEWSLETTER
QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
AN INITIATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

For subsequent issues of the Judiciary Newsletter, please visit:

https://supremecourt.govmu.org/

Cover photo credit: Mr Y. Gunnoo