Mungroo v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Mauritius - Constitution - Fundamental rights and freedoms - Fair hearing within reasonable time - Four years' delay between arrest and trial - Whether infringement of defendant's right to fair hearing within reasonable time -
In July 1981 the defendant was arrested and provisionally charged with forgery. The information was not laid until May 1983 and in September those proceedings were discontinued, the magistrate and the defendant being informed that a new charge would be brought. In relation to the same matter he was charged in February 1985 with swindling by employing fraudulent pretences, and in March he pleaded not guilty to that charge. Defence counsel applied for a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that the delay between July 1981 and March 1985 constituted an infringement of the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable time afforded by section 10(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius.F1 The magistrate held that the delay had stemmed from the complex nature of the inquiry conducted by the police and dismissed the motion. The defendant was convicted and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against conviction, holding that the delay had resulted from the complexity of the investigations and that the prosecution of the defendant was not unconstitutional.
On the defendant's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, that in determining whether the defendant had been denied his right under section 10(1) of the Constitution to a fair hearing within a reasonable time the court had to have regard to the period of delay between his arrest in July 1981 and the commencement of his trial in March 1985 and to the reasons for that delay and the consequences thereof; that, while that delay had to be considered in the context of the prevailing system of legal administration and economic, social and cultural conditions, the provisions of section 10(1) required that a person charged with a criminal offence should be prosecuted with urgency and efficiency, and demanded that adequate resources for the administration of justice be provided as far as possible within the constraints of that context; but that, in all the circumstances, since the delay had been caused by the complexity of the problems confronted by the prosecuting authorities and had occasioned the defendant no prejudice apart from the uncertainty and anxiety of having to wait nearly four years before being tried for a serious criminal offence, his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed (post, pp. 1353H, 1354F–H, 1355A–B, D, G).
Per curiam. In any future case in which excessive delay is alleged, the prosecution should place before the court an affidavit which sets out the history of the case and the reasons (if any) for the relevant periods of delay (post, p. 1355D–E).
Semble. In some cases, in considering whether a reasonable time has elapsed before the conclusion of the hearing of criminal proceedings, it might be proper to take into account the period before the accused was arrested (post, p. 1354E).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Barker v. Wingo (
Bell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
Police v. Labat [
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Mohur v. The Queen (unreported), 22 June 1990, Supreme Court of Mauritius
APPEAL (No. 22 of 1990) with leave of the Supreme Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
[1] Henry Liu [2] Feng Huang Appellants v [1] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] DPP [3] Comptroller of Customs Respondents [ECSC]
...placed at the mercy of the Government's inefficiency. (See Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions [186] LR CONST 329, 401i to 402e and Mungroo v The Queen [1991] 1 WLR 1351, 1354f to 1355c)." Dicta from Nazereus Andrew v Attorney General SLUHCV 2005/0090 delivered on 17 th June 2005 applied......
-
[1] Henry Liu [2] Feng Huang Appellants v [1] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] DPP [3] Comptroller of Customs Respondents [ECSC]
...placed at the mercy of the Government's inefficiency. (See Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions [186] LR CONST 329, 401i to 402e and Mungroo v The Queen [1991] 1 WLR 1351, 1354f to 1355c)." Dicta from Nazereus Andrew v Attorney General SLUHCV 2005/0090 delivered on 17 th June 2005 applied......
-
Smith v Statutory Authorities Service Commission
...in 2003 and 2004 as it did in the early 1980's and 1990's in Jamaica in Pratt v Morgan [ (1993) 43 W.I.R. 340] or in Mauritius in Mungroo v The Queen [[1991] 1 W.L.R. 1351 at 1355. In Sookermany, de la Bastide, C.J., delivering his judgment in the Court of Appeal in 1996, cited Bell and Mun......
-
Liu and Haung v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Director or Public Prosecutions and Comptroller of Customs
...at the mercy of the Government's inefficiency. (See Bell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [186] LR CONST 329, 401i to 402e and Mungroo v. The Queen [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1351, 1354f to 1355c).” Dicta from Nazereus Andrew v. Attorney General SLUHCV 2005/0090 delivered on 17th June 2005 applied. ......