The Maigrot Trial: Lessons from 24 Years of Justice

Qs & As

‘ Police investigations, especially in complex cases, often lack adequate guidance, and while some investigators are resourceful, many are not’

* ‘There was no direct evidence linking Maigrot to the crime; everything was circumstantial’

By Lex

The nearly 24-year saga of the Vanessa Lagesse murder case and the protracted legal proceedings against Bernard Maigrot have gripped the Mauritian public consciousness for decades. Beyond its high-profile nature and the shocking circumstances of the crime, the case has come to symbolise the broader challenges facing our criminal justice system — delays that stretch over decades, the complexities of evidence, the rights of the accused, and the public’s wavering trust in institutions meant to deliver justice. As the Supreme Court’s Full Bench overturned the earlier conviction, and as the Director of Public Prosecutions weighs a possible appeal to the Privy Council, the time is ripe to reflect critically on the systemic lessons this case offers — not only for the police and judiciary but for society at large. Lex explores the deeper legal, institutional, and societal lessons to be drawn from one of Mauritius’s most enduring and controversial criminal trials.

 * Considering the nearly 24-year duration of the legal proceedings surrounding the murder of Vanessa Lagesse and the trial of Bernard Maigrot, what critical lessons can be drawn by all stakeholders — including the police, the judiciary, and the general public — regarding this case?

When a criminal case lasts that long, one may wonder whether an accused person is getting a fair trial. A long delay in determining a case may have an impact on a conviction or a sentence. Section 10(1) of the Constitution provides that “Where any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”

What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the circumstances, such as the complexity of the case; the conduct of the accused and their lawyers, who may have contributed to the delay; and the conduct of the authorities. There are decided cases where the sentence has been reduced on account of the delay, or the conviction simply quashed, as maintaining the conviction would be unjust. An accused person must be protected against oppressively lengthy proceedings when they are not responsible for the duration of those proceedings.

* Is there a risk that the long duration of a case like the Bernard Maigrot trial could affect the reliability of witness statements and forensic evidence? If so, what measures can be taken to reduce such risks in complex, lengthy investigations?

Of course. The longer the proceedings, the higher the risk of memory failure by witnesses. There is no such risk with forensic evidence, as the conclusions are contained in a report that can be read in court. Even if the scientific officer who prepared the report is unavailable, their report can be admitted in court if no injustice would occur.

* Protracted legal proceedings, like the Bernard Maigrot trial, impose immense personal and financial burdens on the accused, severely impacting their professional life, businesses, and family. For individuals without substantial resources, such lengthy legal battles can be financially ruinous and devastating to their lives. What are your thoughts on these serious issues within the justice system?

The longer a case takes, the more an accused person is affected both mentally and physically. On the other hand, if an individual has a business to run and is detained pending the determination of their case, their financial loss may be substantial. If they are ultimately acquitted, they may claim damages from the State, but they will have to prove the fault of the State, which is not easy.

* Confessions obtained under duress or torture, misdirection of the jury, significant procedural errors, and compelling new evidence are common grounds for appeal in many criminal cases. In the Bernard Maigrot case, which of these factors, if any, carried the most weight in the decision of the Full Bench to overturn the trial judge’s judgment?

Bernard Maigrot denied the charges. The prosecution attempted to connect him to the murder of Vanessa Lagesse by presenting his DNA as evidence. While the presence of a person’s DNA at a crime scene proves they were there, it proves nothing more than that. Further evidence is needed to connect them to the crime itself.

Additionally, Maigrot invoked an alibi, stating he was not at the crime scene when Vanessa Lagesse was killed, and he called witnesses to establish that fact. When an alibi is raised by an accused, it is for the prosecution to rebut it. There was no direct evidence linking him to the crime; everything was circumstantial.

* Do you believe the Full Bench made the right decision in overturning the trial judge’s verdict, given the circumstances?

Yes. In a trial before the Assizes, the judge and jury have distinct roles to play. The jury is the sole judge of the facts presented at the trial, while the judge must provide clear directions to the jury on points of law. This is done in the summing up of the case to the jury.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found the summing up lacking, as the presiding judge failed to adequately address the DNA evidence, the defence of alibi, the circumstantial evidence, and the lies of the accused when he initially denied having an affair with Vanessa Lagesse.

* What considerations will likely influence the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to appeal the Full Bench of the Supreme Court’s judgment?

The only recourse for the DPP is to file an appeal to the Privy Council. Appeals on factual matters rarely succeed before the Privy Council; therefore, the appeal will have to be based on points of law. The DPP will need to consider whether the presiding judge’s summing up on those points was adequate and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal was incorrect in reaching a contrary view.

* If the DPP were to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Assizes Court’s judgment to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which generally does not function as a retrial court, what could be expected from the Law Lords? Additionally, would the Privy Council’s ruling in this case contribute significantly to our criminal law jurisprudence?

The Law Lords will not intervene on factual issues unless they find that the findings are perverse. Regarding the points of law that may be raised, they will either find that the directions of the presiding judge were correct and reverse the acquittal, or they will affirm that the Court of Criminal Appeal was correct.

A judgment from this appeal could significantly contribute to our criminal law jurisprudence, shedding more light on various aspects including the investigation process, the probative value of DNA evidence, the implications of delay in case determination, and the standards for judicial summing up.

* As regards the lessons that can be drawn from the Maigrot case, how can police investigations be improved to ensure efficiency, fairness, and the integrity of evidence, particularly in long-running or complex cases?

Some cases can be complex. In the Maigrot case, the police were quick to attribute the crime to Maigrot. Yet, there were other footprints at the scene that might suggest the presence of another person. Did the police investigate this aspect? It would appear they did not.

An investigation falls within the sole purview of the police. Some investigators may be experienced and resourceful, others less so. The police are often left to themselves to investigate complex cases without adequate guidance. This issue warrants further examination.

* Considering the lessons learned from the Maigrot case, what specific legislative reforms or amendments to existing laws should be prioritized in Mauritius to establish stricter timelines for criminal investigations and trials, without compromising due process?

It is difficult to set rigid guidelines and time limits. What is needed are more human and logistical resources to make criminal cases run more fluidly.

* As regards the judicial processes, what reforms are necessary within the judiciary to expedite trials, maintain public confidence, and address issues of prolonged legal proceedings?

Public confidence in the justice system relies heavily on the decisions made by the courts. In the Maigrot case, a common sentiment expressed by many is that his wealth played a role in his acquittal, implying he “bought his way out.

I believe former Judge Vinod Boolell was right to point out in his article in L’Express last Sunday that such notions are without merit. I quote:

‘Now that Bertrand Maigrot has been released comments are being made that he had the means to retain expensive lawyers to fight his case unlike a person who has no means to do so.
‘It is a fact that that wealth can influence access to legal representation. But it must be made clear that our legal system, as other legal systems in free democratic countries, are impartial and treat all persons equally and according to law. It is not correct to say that only the rich get justice. The justice system functions and treats different groups equally.‘

Whatever reforms the authorities implement, some members of the public will never be satisfied, and criticism will always persist. Nevertheless, the system must continue to function.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 6 June 2025