Moustass Leaks’ and the Law: Evidence, Authenticity, and Alleged Police Misconduct

Adrien Duval on Trial: The Role of Unauthenticated Social Media Evidence

Qs & As

By Lex

On September 21, 2022, a car driven by Adrien Duval collided in Ébène with a vehicle operated by a 56-year-old woman, who was seriously injured and hospitalized. Although there was early uncertainty about whether Duval or his friend, William Martin, had been driving, Duval later told police he was at the wheel.

The case became a national controversy after the release of the “Moustass Leaks,” clandestine recordings purportedly involving senior officials. The recordings are said to indicate discussions about fabricating a case, influencing the victim’s testimony, and pressuring medical staff at Wellkin Hospital to secure a conviction.

This is one of the first major cases where unauthenticated social media leaks have been officially viewed and transcribed in a court of law. The court’s eventual decision on whether to admit these as evidence of “Abuse of Process” will set a precedent for how digital leaks interact with the justice system.

* In a landmark moment on Friday, January 16, 2026, excerpts from the “Moustass Leaks” were screened in court during the trial of Adrien Duval regarding his September 2022 car accident. These recordings, which first emerged in the digital public domain, were projected before the magistrates under the intense scrutiny of both the prosecution and the defence. This case raises a fundamental legal question: on what basis can recordings, arguably obtained through illegal interception, be admitted as evidence?

The interceptions were carried out without any apparent legal authorization. The law requires prior judicial approval before any such recording may be intercepted, and even then, clear and specific justification must be established.

* If these recordings are the product of illegal wiretapping — as suggested by the Prime Minister’s statement in the Hansard on 4 February 2025 — does the public interest in exposing an alleged police conspiracy outweigh the judicial principle of excluding illegally obtained evidence?

Whether the public interest in exposing a police conspiracy outweighs the judicial principle of excluding illegally obtained evidence is a subject of intense legal debate. This involves balancing the necessity of using reliable evidence against the need to deter police misconduct and maintain the integrity of the justice system.

While some jurisdictions apply a strict exclusionary rule to protect constitutional rights, others adopt a balancing approach that weighs the gravity of the misconduct.

* Under Mauritian law, if the source of the leaks remains anonymous and cannot be cross-examined, can the recordings be admitted as substantive evidence, or do they remain mere allegations without a legal foundation?

In the landmark 1996 case of The State v. Bacha, Justice Sik Yuen delivered a comprehensive judgment outlining the strict criteria for establishing the authenticity of tape recordings and the protocols for the reliable identification of voices.

The court held that recordings may be admitted as substantive evidence only if strict conditions are satisfied. First, the recording must be proven original and unaltered — something difficult to establish where anonymous leaks lack a clear chain of custody. Second, the voices must be reliably identified, either by persons familiar with them or through expert analysis. Third, the accused has a constitutional right to challenge the evidence; if the maker or source of the recording cannot testify, the material risks being ruled inadmissible hearsay.

* Since the private transcriber, Lindsay Luckhoo, admitted he cannot certify the origin of the videos or identify the voices, how can the defence satisfy the court that these recordings are authentic and have not been digitally altered or deepfaked?

The voices on the recording must be formally identified to establish a clear link to the parties involved. Furthermore, their admissibility remains legally precarious if the recordings were obtained without proper authorization or in violation of privacy protocols.

* Without a forensic voice analysis expert, can the court legally recognize the voice of the former Commissioner of Police, or must the defence provide a higher standard of proof to link the audio to specific officials?

Yes, a court may legally recognize a voice on an illegally recorded, non-expertly analysed, or “covert” recording, but its admissibility and evidential weight depend heavily on the jurisdiction and the applicable foundational requirements. While forensic analysis is preferable, the law often permits lay opinion testimony for the purpose of voice identification.

* To what extent can an anonymous recording override a formal police investigation? Must the defence prove the recordings are 100% authentic, or only that they create reasonable doubt about the investigation’s integrity?

Anonymous tips or recordings can serve as a starting point, but in many jurisdictions, they cannot by themselves justify arrests or searches without independent, corroborating evidence.

While an anonymous recording rarely “overrides” a formal police investigation, it can still influence, challenge, or even disrupt it depending on its quality and content. Such recordings may be admitted as evidence, but they are subject to strict scrutiny concerning both authenticity and legality.

 * How does producing the Hansard from February 2025 regarding phone tapping help the defence’s case? Is it intended to prove that the state knew about surveillance, or is it merely to create reasonable doubt about the integrity of the police?

Based on parliamentary debates from February 2025 (specifically in the Mauritius National Assembly), producing the Hansard record on phone tapping can help the defence by providing official, documented evidence that high-level state surveillance occurred, potentially in violation of privacy rights and legal procedures. This can support arguments that the State was aware of or complicit in the surveillance, or it can be used to raise reasonable doubt about the integrity of the police.

* If the court accepts the recordings as credible, is the alleged police misconduct (fabricating a case) sufficient to grant a permanent stay of proceedings, or can the trial continue based on objective evidence, like the breathalyzer refusal, as the prosecution claims?

If the court finds the recordings credible and shows the police deliberately fabricated the case, it is a serious “abuse of process” and can justify permanently halting the trial.

Although a permanent stay is an exceptional remedy applied with caution, the fabrication of evidence strikes at the very core of the administration of justice, rendering a fair trial virtually impossible.

*If the police investigation was indeed shaped by the instructions — allegedly given by the former CP Dip — heard in the recordings, would all subsequent evidence be considered tainted and therefore inadmissible?

If a police investigation was influenced by improper instructions, later evidence may be considered “tainted” and could be inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule. However, not all evidence is automatically excluded — the court will decide whether it came directly from the unlawful instructions or was gathered independently and lawfully.

* This is one of the first major cases where unauthenticated social-media leaks have been officially viewed and transcribed in a court of law. If such leaks are admitted as evidence of an abuse of process, does this open the door for any future defendant to halt a trial by producing anonymous digital recordings?

Admitting anonymously produced, leaked digital recordings as evidence of abuse of process does not automatically allow defendants to halt trials, but it can increase the likelihood of pre-trial challenges.

Courts generally balance the relevance of evidence against its reliability and the manner in which it was obtained. While relevant, illegally obtained evidence may be excluded if its admission would create unfair prejudice, though in extreme cases of abuse, a trial may be halted.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 20 February 2026