Mohamad Jiaved Ruhumatally v The State and another (Mauritius)

On a criminal appeal, a conviction cannot be upheld where a combination of material misdirections on central issues creates a serious irregularity and substantial miscarriage of justice. A judge must accurately remind the jury of evidence bearing on intention and premeditation. In Mauritius, intention to cause the natural consequences of an act is an inference for the jury, not a presumption of law. Premeditation need not be lengthy, but requires a prior decision to kill formed after even a brief period of reflection. The judge must leave that question to the jury without suggesting that calm reflection is proved. An act that tightens a gag and accelerates death may materially contribute to causation. Where such errors infect the trial, the statutory proviso cannot cure the conviction; the proper remedy may be a nullity and fresh hearing.

The appellant was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Mauritius in December 2015 and sentenced to 42 years’ penal servitude. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his conviction appeal but reduced the sentence to 40 years for delay, in a judgment dated 6 December 2018.

Before the Board, the appellant challenged the evidence and directions on causation, intention to kill and premeditation, as well as the fairness and conduct of the trial. The central question was whether the judge’s errors, particularly concerning the position of the shirt and the direction on intention, amounted to a serious irregularity and substantial miscarriage of justice under the Criminal Appeal Act 1955, and what remedy should follow.

Disposition

The Board allowed the appeal, declared the trial a nullity and ordered a fresh hearing under section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1955.

1. Causation. The unchallenged medical evidence showed that tying the shirt over the mouth strengthened the gag, reduced the chance that the papers would be expelled and diminished the time the victim could survive. The jury were entitled to find that the appellant’s act materially contributed to and accelerated the death.
2. Evidence and intention. The judge seriously misstated central evidence by suggesting that the shirt had covered the nose as well as the mouth. The evidence showed that it covered only the mouth. The error was capable of affecting the jury’s assessment of both intention and premeditation, and was compounded when the judge repeated the misleading exchange without correcting it.
3. There was no presumption of law in Mauritius that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts. Intention was an inference for the tribunal of fact. The judge’s prescriptive direction that the law would assume the appellant intended those consequences removed an issue which only the jury could decide.
4. Premeditation. Premeditation need not be lengthy. The accused must, however, stop, think about what he is doing and decide in a calm state of mind to kill before performing the act. The judge wrongly suggested that the appellant had acted calmly and failed to identify evidence supporting his account that he acted on another robber’s instruction.
5. The combined errors concerned issues of central importance and amounted to a serious irregularity causing a substantial miscarriage of justice. The proviso in section 6(1)(b) could not cure the conviction. Following the generous construction of serious irregularity recognised in Dosoruth v Mauritius [2004] UKPC 51, the appropriate course was to use section 6(1)(c).
6. The remaining grounds failed. The separate prosecution of the appellant for murder was not unfair; the expert was not shown to be biased; the judge’s interventions did not establish apparent bias; jurors’ bank accounts did not objectively undermine impartiality; and the absence of a majority-verdict direction did not make the verdict unsafe where no deadlock message was received. The other complaints concerning the preliminary-enquiry record, witnesses’ oaths, prosecution speeches, the anonymous letter and sentence delay also disclosed no independent ground for relief.
7. The prosecution could choose to proceed on manslaughter at the fresh hearing, as it indicated it would do.

• Privy Council: Allowed the appeal, declared the trial a nullity and ordered a fresh hearing: [2024] UKPC 15.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius, Court of Criminal Appeal: On 6 December 2018 dismissed the appeal against conviction and reduced the sentence from 42 to 40 years’ penal servitude.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: Convicted the appellant of murder after trial before a judge and jury in December 2015 and sentenced him to 42 years’ penal servitude.