“Without honest and impartial investigators, achieving justice remains a challenge”

From Courtroom to Appeal: Understanding the Legal Dynamics of the Maigrot v The State Case

Qs & As

* ‘The DPP’s decision to seek advice from a reputable London chambers is commendable and helps protect him from unfounded insinuations’

By Lex

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of Maigrot v The State, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has taken the unusual step of publicly explaining why he will not appeal the quashing of the conviction to the Privy Council. To shed light on the legal nuances behind this decision, Lex, a seasoned legal professional, provides insight into the implications for trial advocacy, jury directions, the role of scientific evidence, and the broader challenges facing Mauritius’ justice system.

* From your perspective as a legal professional, what were your initial thoughts on the DPP’s press release following the Supreme Court’s decision in Maigrot v The State? Did anything in particular stand out to you?

It is to the credit of DPP Ahmine that he explained the reasons for not appealing the quashing of the conviction to the Privy Council. He agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Criminal Appeal that the trial judge’s summing up was lacking in key aspects of the case — namely the DNA evidence, the alibi defence, the circumstantial evidence, and the lies told by the accused when he initially denied having an affair with Vanessa Lagesse.

* The press release cites “inadequate or inaccurate” jury directions as the key reason the conviction was quashed, noting that the trial judge failed to tailor directions to crucial issues or identify supporting evidence beyond the DNA. How difficult is it for a trial judge to craft precise and effective jury directions in complex cases involving circumstantial evidence?

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

The more complex a case is, the greater the responsibility on the judge to ensure that all aspects, including the defence’s arguments, are clearly and fairly presented to the jury. Minor omissions may not lead to a conviction being quashed if no injustice results. This is why, in England, it is recommended that judges discuss all relevant matters with counsel from both sides prior to delivering their summing up — a point the DPP rightly highlighted in his communiqué

* The DPP also recommended that judges share draft jury directions with counsel before delivering them. What is your view of this proposal, and what practical advantages or difficulties might it pose for barristers on both sides?

While the trial judge is ultimately responsible for drafting the summing-up, the practice in England encourages judges to raise, in the absence of the jury, specific legal issues that have emerged during the trial and that require reference in the summing-up.
Judges are expected to discuss the proposed content with counsel from both sides before delivering it to the jury. This approach allows counsel to raise any concerns or offer suggestions, helping to ensure the summing-up accurately reflects the case and minimises the risk of error.
However, the responsibility for the final summing-up rests solely with the trial judge and cannot be delegated to the parties. That said, the judge is fully entitled to seek detailed input from the parties regarding the correct presentation of the law, the evidence, and the key matters in dispute.

* What are the key skills needed to effectively persuade a jury, especially when presenting complex evidence like DNA or intricate timelines?

A good mastery of the facts is essential in any case. A barrister addressing a jury — whether for the prosecution or defence — must possess strong verbal communication skills, using clear, concise, and persuasive language. He must listen attentively to his opponent’s arguments, think logically, and adapt his approach accordingly. Persuasiveness and psychological insight are also critical, particularly in gauging the composition and temperament of the jury being addressed.

* How has the growing reliance on scientific evidence, such as DNA, changed trial advocacy, and to what extent must barristers now understand scientific principles to argue their cases effectively?

Scientific evidence plays a crucial role in trial courts by helping judges and juries understand complex issues and make informed decisions. It is typically presented by experts in the relevant field but may also include physical or digital evidence.
The admissibility of such evidence is governed by established rules of evidence, and it is up to the court to assess its reliability and relevance — often with the assistance of expert testimony to clarify the underlying science.
A barrister dealing with scientific evidence must be thoroughly prepared by studying the relevant scientific literature and legal principles before appearing in court.

* How do you approach cases where public sentiment runs high but the legal issues are complex or ambiguous?

A case is adjudicated in a court of law based on the established rules of evidence and procedure — not on public opinion or outcry.

In Mauritius, there is an increasing tendency for trials by the media or by public opinion. This is absolutely unacceptable.

 * What is the most challenging aspect of preparing and arguing an appeal before a higher court, particularly when the grounds focus on procedural fairness rather than factual disputes?

To mount a successful appeal, a lawyer must thoroughly prepare a case brief and carefully craft the grounds of appeal to convincingly demonstrate that errors occurred — either in fact, in law, or both. Appeals based on factual errors are particularly challenging to argue.

* In your view, what constitutes a “serious risk of substantial miscarriage of justice” in a criminal trial? Could you share an example where this threshold was clearly met?

There are many examples of serious miscarriages of justice. For instance, if a judge gives a fundamentally flawed direction in law — such as instructing the jury that it is for the defence to prove its case rather than for the prosecution to disprove it — that constitutes a grave error. Similarly, denying an accused person their legal rights would amount to a miscarriage of justice. These are just a few examples.

* The ODPP stated that, “in view of the special nature of this case and after having formed an opinion,” it sought independent advice from a reputable but unnamed Barristers’ Chambers in London on a potential appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. What is your reaction to that decision?

Law is a field that always demands discussion and consultation.
It is commendable that the DPP sought advice from a reputable chambers in London to assess whether an appeal would be worthwhile.
At least this approach shields him from the usual unfounded insinuations often made in Mauritius.

* In what circumstances would you advise a client to seek independent legal opinions from barristers in other jurisdictions? What factors justify going beyond local counsel?
A client is always free to consult other lawyers, whether locally or internationally, provided they inform their current lawyer that they are seeking additional advice.
Seeking opinions from other jurisdictions may be justified when specialized expertise is required, when local counsel lacks experience in a particular area of law, or when the case involves cross-border legal issues.

* The DPP has also recommended involving the prosecution from the outset of criminal investigations. What are the pros and cons of this approach, from both the prosecution and defence perspectives?

This is an idea the current DPP has been advocating for some time. In practice, the DPP is consulted during ongoing investigations when cases are complex. However, under the previous regime, this practice came to a halt for unclear reasons. At present, the police do consult the DPP.
If the DPP is to be involved in investigations, questions arise regarding the nature of that involvement. Under the Police Act, the responsibility for investigations lies with the police. How the DPP and the police would coordinate and coexist in investigative matters remains a key consideration.

* From a legal standpoint, what are the main considerations and obstacles in reopening a cold case, especially when a conviction has already been overturned?

Reopening a cold case requires the emergence of solid, credible new evidence that was not available during the original trial. Without such evidence, it is difficult to justify revisiting the case, as courts are generally reluctant to retry matters that have been conclusively decided.

* Nearly 24 years later, the Vanessa Lagesse case remains unresolved and appears to be back at square one. What more can the police realistically do, even with foreign assistance? Are there other avenues worth exploring to finally uncover the truth?

When a criminal case extends over such a long period, questions arise about whether the accused is receiving a fair trial. Prolonged delays can impact the outcome of a conviction or sentence, as the reliability of witness memories tends to diminish over time.

Additionally, investigations may be compromised if police officers act dishonestly or are influenced by political or other external pressures. Unfortunately, Mauritius has seen examples of such issues. Without honest and impartial investigators, achieving justice remains a challenge.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 27 June 2025