First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill (No. XVII of 2025) was read a first time. Second Reading THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CRIMINAL REVIEW BILL (NO. XVII OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (3.55 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): Madam Speaker, I move that the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill (No. XVII of 2025) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, this Bill may appear, at first glance, to be rather technical in nature. But it speaks, in fact, to something fundamental: the right to a fair trial and, more specifically, the right to a meaningful appeal. It reflects this Government’s commitment to ensure that our judicial system is further protected and improved. It is our goal to ensure that the delivery of justice in our Courts becomes more coherent, accessible and fair. Madam Speaker, let me begin by outlining the broad aims of this Bill. At present, process governing appeals in criminal matters is fragmented and inconsistent. Procedures are scattered across the Criminal Appeal Act and its Rules, the Courts Act, and the District and Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act. This has led to confusion for litigants, unnecessary procedural points being raised and argued, leading to delays in the administration of justice. This Government’s promise to make justice more accessible includes making it easier for laypersons to understand the law. True it is, we abide by the maxim that «nul n’est censé ignorer la loi.» This makes sense. We abide by the maxim because you cannot have someone asking to be exonerated from a legal obligation simply because it is argued that he or she did not know what the law said. It is a basic principle of the rule of law. But we cannot be blind to the fact that, in this day and age, the combined volume of all applicable Acts of Parliament in a country like Mauritius is simply enormous. Even the most seasoned law practitioner cannot claim to know all of our laws. So, the question arises: how can we be fair to our citizens? The least we can do, Madam Speaker, is to make it easier for people to get access to the law, that is, dans le concret and physically. This is why my Office is launching in the coming weeks a website where all the updated statutes in force in Mauritius will be freely available, without complex sign-in procedures and without uncertainties about past versions and amendments. The Regulations will be uploaded shortly after, given the sheer number of regulations which, we must admit, evolve continuously. The next step, and which I readily admit is less straightforward, is to make our laws easier to understand. There are times when this will not be possible, because of situations where legal drafting simply needs the technical language that allows precision and finality. But there are, on the other hand, many instances where we can be clearer. Where procedures are complex simply because of historical weight, rooted in reasons which are no longer relevant. In such situations, we must endeavour to make things simpler and more straightforward. The Bill before the House, today, Madam Speaker, aims to start this process for criminal law. It does so by consolidating all criminal appeal and review procedures under a single legislative framework. It simplifies the steps required to lodge and prosecute appeals; and it ensures uniformity of treatment, whether the appeal arises from the Supreme Court sitting in original jurisdiction or from subordinate courts. We are also introducing changes that will substantially improve the fairness of treatment of accused persons. For example, henceforth, there cannot be more than 28 days between the moment a person is found guilty of an offence and the delivery of his sentence by the court. We do not often realise, Madam Speaker, that there are today dozens and dozens of individuals who wait for months, and may I even dare to say, years in prison before learning about their sentence! With the risk that they could end up spending more time inside than what justice has decided or will decide for them. This is an intolerable situation which must be done away with forthwith. So, Madam Speaker, this Bill may look to be simply a technical reform, but its effect will be felt. The more so when combined with all the other aspects of judicial reform which we intend to tackle; which is what we have promised in the Government Programme 2025-2029, that is to reinforce public trust in the justice system. Madam Speaker, allow me now to guide the House through the main elements of the Bill. Part I deals with preliminary matters. Clause 3 imposes an important new obligation: all courts must now notify a convicted person of their right to appeal immediately after delivering judgement. It seems obvious, but this step is not currently mandatory. And its absence has, at times, led to injustice. Often when someone is not represented at first instance by a lawyer, by the time – 1) that he processes the fact that he has been found guilty, he starts telling people around him about his conviction and why he disagrees with it; 2) that he eventually learns that he can appeal and how he is to do that; 3) that he travels to Port Louis to try and meet counsel; 4) where he will be told that he has got to get a copy of the judgement from the Court in order for counsel to be able to advise him, and 5) then for counsel to draw up the grounds of appeal, not after having had to pay a fee to the registry of the court to obtain such a judgement, and 6) finally he needs to see an Attorney to actually lodge the notice of appeal,the 21-day limit for appeals has, more often than not, already passed. We simply must make this process easier and we start here by making sure he knows from day one that he can appeal. Part II of this Bill covers appeals and reviews before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Clauses 4 and 5 establish its composition and jurisdiction. Here, I should point out that the creation of a separate Court of Appeal in terms of composition and location is a reform that we are still working on, as set out in the Government Programme. I stress that this new Bill will work seamlessly whether in the new system to be proposed or in the current situation where the Court of Criminal Appeal is composed of judges of our Supreme Court, where it also sits. Another important note here is that clause 5(2) maintains that even acquittals following a jury verdict may be appealed by the DPP but only in limited circumstances: where, for example: the verdict is unreasonable, or a serious irregularity has tainted the trial. Clause 6 harmonises and clarifies the procedure to appeal. The rule is now simple: whether the appellant challenges conviction, sentence or both, the deadline is 21 days from sentence. This replaces the outdated two-stage system before the Assizes, where an accused party had to appeal against his conviction within ten days of conviction, and then await his sentence to challenge it: a source of confusion for lawyers and absurdity for all. This anachronism had to go too. Clause 9 introduces a clearer, better-defined route for criminal reviews. The DPP may apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a review of an acquittal or dismissal where fresh and compelling evidence has come to life. A convicted person may similarly request a review, but here it is via the Human Rights Division of the National Human Rights Commission, on the same grounds. That is fresh and compelling evidence. This is a safeguard, not a second bite at the cherry. It is not a political tool, nor an appeal in disguise. But where evidence surfaces that is both new and probative, justice demands a mechanism for correction. Clause 9 provides for it. The role given now exclusively to the Human Rights Division reflects the fact that one cannot expect a convicted person in prison to go and obtain statements from witnesses or other forms of fresh evidence all by himself, he will therefore have the help of the National Human Rights Commission through its Human Rights Division. Part III mirrors the process of the Court of Criminal Appeal for appeals from subordinate courts to the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Clauses 10 to 14 provide for composition, powers, procedures and rules for such appeals. The goal, again, is uniformity. An important addition is the provision for a third judge to be appointed, should the two judges having heard the appeal, have opposing views on the outcome. This will ensure the avoidance of deadlocks which too often these days just result in the decision being delayed until one side wears out. Part IV addresses interim matters pending appeal: stay of proceedings, restitution of property, bail, custody of exhibits. Of note, however is Clause 19 which rationalises timelines for skeleton arguments: 30 days before hearing for appellants, 15 days for respondents, as opposed to 45 and 30 days respectively now as the law stands. The new timeframe is more realistic than the current regime which is in fact rarely complied with and it will improve preparedness and judicial efficiency. Part V lays out the determination of appeals and reviews. Clauses 20 to 33 set out the powers of the Appellate Court, including the power to substitute verdicts, order retrials, amend sentences, or correct serious irregularities. Clause 34 deals with outcomes of criminal reviews: the Court of Criminal Appeal may quash an acquittal or conviction and order a retrial if it is satisfied that justice so requires and that a fair retrial is still possible. Clause 35 mandates credit for time spent in custody pending appeal or review, subject to specific rules. This codifies a principle already recognised in practice and jurisprudence. Part VI includes miscellaneous provisions. Clause 36 allows for extensions of time on applications made. Clause 37 enables the Chief Justice to grant legal aid even where no formal application is made, a small but important protection for unrepresented litigants. Clause 38 affirms the role of the DPP in representing the State in appeals and reviews. Clause 39, Madam Speaker, regulates ancillary matters like costs, clause 40 empowers the Chief Justice to make rules for implementation. Clause 41 repeals the Criminal Appeal Act and the Criminal Appeal Rules of 1954, and clause 42 introduces necessary amendments to five statutes, including the Children’s Court Act 2020, the Courts Act, and the Protection of Human Rights Act. Madam Speaker, what this Bill offers is not innovation for innovation’s sake. It is a codification of best practice, along with rationalisation; and here I should stress that it is the fruit of careful consultation with the Judiciary. This is the kind of legislative work that can make our system function more smoothly, more fairly, and with greater certainty. More such work will follow from my Office, driven by the impetus of this Government. Madam Speaker, before concluding, may I take this opportunity to say this: we have not included in this Bill mandatory time limits for judgements to be handed down by the Courts, but we are strongly considering this reform as well in the not-too-distant future, in a separate and comprehensive piece of legislation. We have already started consultations on this issue, and we will discuss more, particularly with the Judiciary. We will respect the views of all stakeholders and the constraints faced by them. But the time to make it happen will come, and we will not waver. Justice, Madam Speaker, cannot be achieved if the path to appeal is so entangled in procedural thicket that only the most sophisticated or well-represented litigants can find their way through. This Bill is part of our duty, as legislators, to prune those thorns and light that path. This Bill may not enthuse or incite great debate. But it is an important one nonetheless. I commend the Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Thank you. Yes, hon. A. Duval! (4.09 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port Louis North & Montagne Longue): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I would have liked to rise from the Opposition benches to fulfil our constitutional duty of rigorous oversight but that is simply impossible, given the indecent rush in which this Bill has been thrust upon the House. The Government has invoked Standing Order 65 (Urgent Bills) procedure granting barely 3 days’ notice and scheduling First, Second and Third Readings for today, even though, as you know, Standing Order 52 (2) a long-standing norm, not the exception, requires 15 days’ notice at least, being given to Members of Parliament, and of course, to civil society at large. And the statistics are stark, Madam Speaker. Out of the 19 Bills introduced in this session, 17 bear a Prime Ministerial Certificate of Urgency, eight of those including this Bill, have arrived with only three days’ notice. Such a haste, Madam Speaker, denies the members of Parliament the time required to properly scrutinise the legislation that will overhaul our entire criminal appellate framework. Worst, in fact, is the fact that there are only two of us here sitting in the Opposition, and we are now to shoulder that burden. In fact, you will note, two Members of the Opposition, the fewest since our Independence.

(Interruptions)

What is more, Madam Speaker, is that many on government side once condemned precisely this practice. The Deputy Prime Minister, without a portfolio, the hon. Paul Bérenger, when he sat…

Is he raising a point of order, Madam Speaker? What is he talking about?

Will you sit down? Let him…

Is he raising a point of order? He is not speaking on the Bill at all.

Koz lor Bill la ta!

You have given him the privilege of speaking in the second place; in the place of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not even present! And you give him ground to say anything like that, out of order!

No. Alright. Please talk on the Bill. We have got your first objection. Please speak on the Bill.

Madam Speaker, can’t I now not even lay some ground foundation to the speech?

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Pe koz nirport. Al dormi!

I was saying the manner this Bill, you like it or not, has been brought to the House under Standing Order 65. I am talking about the manner in which this Bill is being brought. And this was once said…

On a point of order!

Yes! Yes!

If the hon. Member wants to take a point of order, he is …

I am not!

Don’t interrupt me!

He does not even know what it is!

Don’t interrupt me! Learn from what I’ll say. Now, what I am trying to say is…

Bravo!

If he wants to….

Baba!

… come up with a point of order, he is free to do so.

And I will give a ruling.

Obviously. But then, again, if he is trying to use the backdoors, since he is used to using backdoors and he takes pleasure from using backdoors, if he wants to do so…

Make your point of order!

… by going to come and to talk about a point of order, instead of going from a main subject of a debate…

And insulting people!

… that is against Standing Orders. It is very simple. He is not being relevant. Now, the manner in which the Bill has come can be the subject matter of a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition could have seen you this morning; he could have delegated someone to see you. They did not bother to do so. Now if they haven’t bothered to do so, and they are right after the fact, we are not going to be listening here, wasting our time, and not even him talking about the debate!

Madam Speaker, …

For God’s sake!

…this is not a point of order.

You have to speak about the Bill.

Madam Speaker, …

Sit down!

Don’t forget that I have been …

Ki ou p exciter …

Don’t forget that I have been 15 years in this Assembly. I am used to what you are saying.

But, Madam Speaker, …

But you have to speak about the Bill.

(Interruptions)

You have to speak about the Bill.

(Interruptions)

This very document has been laid on the Table of the Assembly. What does it say? “Certificate of Urgency in respect of The Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill (No. XVII of 2025)” This Bill...

(Interruptions)

Li pan ecoute Speaker!

So, Madam Speaker, since when can I not talk about the manner in which a Bill is brought to the House? It is entirely relevant.

(Interruptions)

Entirely relevant!

On a right point of order!

And it was being said… It is not a point of order! Under which Standing Order?

It is!

Non! Non! Non!

You were bothered …

(Interruptions)

Do not try to intimidate me! I will do my speech!

Ayo!

Madam Speaker, …

By being irrelevant!

If the Speaker allows you!

She will!

You have to speak about the Bill, …

I am.

... otherwise, I will suspend the Sitting!

Madam Speaker, …

They didn’t have time to cut, edit and paste …

It was once said in the House that First, Second and Third Readings being brought …

Stop reading!

… is not acceptable!

Stop reading!

And that is not how good parliamentary work was done.

Standing Orders allow Certificates of Urgency…

Yes! I am talking about that precisely.

You should sit down!

I am not raising a Point of order, I am merely explaining how this Bill is being brought into the House!

That’s not the debate! An hon. Member: Talk on the Bill!

(Interruptions)

It is! It is about the Bill! Madam Speaker, ….

Now come on the Bill itself!

Madam Speaker, it sounds fishy, to say the least.

Now, come on the Bill itself!

In fact, this government …

(Interruptions)

I have said what I had to say…

Ki li pe koze!

I will say more outside if I am being precluded …

Yes, go outside!

… from saying it inside!

Yes, go outside!

Now, expert voices, Madam Speaker, have likewise been excluded. The Law Reform Commission, the Mauritius Bar Council, the Mauritius Law Society, have not been consulted nor have they had the courtesy of being sent a copy of this legislation, of this Bill. And that is very important. And, therefore, there has been no meaningful opportunity for them to offer their expertise and pronounce on the Bill. By compressing the debate, like I said, it is not the first time – the exception has become the rule – by compressing this debate into a three-day sprint, the government has deprived Parliament of the independent insight needed to grasp serious constitutional and procedural changes which are at stake.

Going on and on like that…

I will call it legislative ambush. The Bill, Madam Speaker, …

Now, come to the Bill.

Yes, it is all about the Bill.

Oune les li fer tousala. An hon. Member: Five minutes left!

It is all about the Bill, whether I bring it without consultation, the manner of bringing the Bill is all about the Bill. I am not talking about making political arguments here. I am talking about the respect that we have shown to this House.

Ayo!

Manman!

One of the cornerstones, and I will say, Madam Speaker, …

Then, it’s like the Attorney General!

… and that proves the point I have to say about the Bill. In fact, I don’t have that much to say about the Bill because we have been given so little time.

Oh, you have nothing to say!

(Interruptions)

Three days! One of the cornerstones of our legal system …

Enn la honte !

… and especially …

Hon. Mr A. Duval, please sit down!

I am talking about the various provisions, …

(Interruptions)

No, you are not! You are not. We will have to make a decision here. You have a Bill. As I said, I have been here for 15 years; we have had several Bills like this, which come on one day for the next day. If you cannot talk about the Bill, you have made your point about why you cannot, then we will stop here. Somebody else will speak. I have read the Bill. I have also got it at the last minute. I am also a lawyer like you. Now, either you can speak about the substance of the Bill or if you feel that you have not been given time, then you give up. You’ve made your point already.

That will be, I think, what many here would have wanted. But I will speak about the Bill. One of the cornerstones of our legal system, especially of criminal legislation, is the principle, Madam Speaker, of legal certainty, that is, that the need for the legislature to be abundantly clear in the drafting of the law to avoid any ambiguity or confusion in the interpretation of law by the Court. This Bill, in my opinion, will affect one of the most fundamental rights of the citizens –the right of appeal in its lack of clarity in certain aspects.

What!

I will explain. I find this even more worrying that important rights and principles which are beneficial to accused parties under the current legislation, are being done away with. Let me come to the specific provisions, under section 11 (2) (a), the right of appeal shall now lie where one – “[…]is sentenced to undergo penal servitude or imprisonment with or without payment of a fine, or to pay a fine of 1,000 rupees or more.” Therefore, as it is presently, when the fine is less than a thousand, you do not have the right of appeal but penal servitude, imprisonment and fines are not the only existing sentences which the Court can impose. What about suspended sentences and community service orders under the Community Service Order Act? What about conditional and absolute discharge under the Criminal Procedure Act? And this, I believe is for the legislator to clarify.

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Suspend the Sitting!

(Interruptions)

Are these now also going to fall under Section 11 (2)(a)? It is for – I hope – the Attorney General to explain.

Ayo baap! Ki pou explain?

It appears, therefore, Madam Speaker, that those people shall be deprived of the right to appeal. In any case, the object of the Bill was to clarify.

Kouyon ho gal ba!

And it has not done so. Under Section 22, a citizen shall henceforth be deprived of his right of appeal against a judgment where there is a variance between the information and the evidence, unless he has raised the point before the trial court. But the reality, Madam Speaker, is that in many cases, accused parties are simply not represented by counsel at trial stage, whether it is for lack of financial resources or for whatever reasons. But this is the reality. Of course, those persons cannot be expected to take objections in law in the course of their trial. So, this section will essentially deprive those persons of the protection against improprieties in their trial. Yet, this protection under the current law exists. I would like to quote Liew vs the State of Mauritius 2021 Supreme Court case. The accused was not represented at trial and found guilty. The appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court quashed the conviction precisely on the ground that there was variance between the information and the evidence, which point – you will no doubt understand –was raised only at appeal stage. I hope that the Attorney General can clarify whether now it will be the case for those persons who were Inops consilii and could not, therefore, raise that point in law. Section 9 and Section 34, Madam Speaker, put une épée de Damoclès on citizens by giving the right to the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply for review of sound appeal judgment and to have a retrial of the case which was properly tried, where there is evidence accordingly that comes to light. This is contrary to the very well settled principle of autrefois acquis…

Keep an eye on the time!

…and certainty…

Jamais!

…which guarantee that once a person has been acquitted…

Jamais!

…he should be protected from subsequent prosecution for the same facts. Moreover, Madam Speaker, it appears that there is no time limit under the Act for the DPP to apply for the said review. This will result in acquitted individuals to suffer lifelong stress and anxiety of having their case reopened precisely because of the lack of certainty. Of course, there are positives provisions in this Bill. The fact that the court must inform every convicted person of their right to appeal. The fact that now there is a clear set of days between the time the conviction is handed and the sentence must be handed – of 28 days. There is also time spent in custody shall automatically be credited against the final sentence. Madam Speaker, I will conclude with these remarks.

(Interruptions)

Chut! Yes!

More meaningful debate, in my opinion, can take place when we do not sideline the very stakeholders whose expertise is indispensable. The Law Reform Commission, the Mauritius Bar Council, the Mauritius Law Society are but a few of those who would have had, had they been given proper notice, something to say about this Bill. I will quote the Deputy Prime Minister, again, who said at the time – « Allons tirer une leçon de tout cela [Saying about the First, Second and Third Reading being brought on the same day.] à l’avenir, pour les autres projets de loi, selon lesquels il faudrait, dès qu’ils sont prêts, les circuler pour qu’on puisse avoir amplement le temps de les considérer à tête reposée. » Well, perhaps, Madam Speaker, it is indeed time for some of us to go and se reposer à la maison!

That was very, very bad! Very, very nasty!

Cheap!

Very nasty!

Cheap!

Shall we break so that we can all rest? Or do you want one more speech? One more speech?

One more! One more!

Pa donn li lokazion pou sove, li al dan so…

Okay, one more speech then! I wanted to break at five. Alright, let us have hon. Seeburn, please! (4.25 p.m.) Mr M. Seeburn (Second Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill, which is a reaffirmation of our rule of law. The Bill comes with a view to bring clarity and certainty in this area of the law so as to simplify the procedures in a deliberate and thoughtful consolidated legislation for appeal and review cases across all levels of our judiciary. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. Member of the Opposition stated that this Bill has been brought in only a few days. This is not correct as there was already an indication in the announcement of our Government Programme 2025-2029 that these legislations are in the pipeline. Madam Speaker, under the current system, the criminal appeals and criminal review cases are governed by a scattered set of statutes, case law and procedural rules. The courts are operating under different routes of appeal, under different legislations which has left the people, especially the vulnerable ones who wish to challenge a conviction or sentence often confused. This lack of uniformity risks undermining the very principles upon which our justice system is built, including fairness, accessibility and equal treatment under the law. This Bill is a transformative step forward of how justice is administered in our country. Madam Speaker, as the hon. Attorney General, at the very outset of his speech for this Bill, said that this will promote fair trial. This Bill unifies the appeal rights of all appeal cases in criminal matters that are made from the final decision of the Supreme Court and from the final decision of the District Court, the Intermediate Court and the Children’s Court in a single and coherent legislation. In doing so, the Bill will strengthen legal certainty and protect the rights of all parties involved in criminal proceedings. Madam Speaker, the Bill clearly imposes an obligation on any….

(Interruptions)

Ala li ale! Li ale!

To ti bizin ekoute, to ale!

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker, the Bill clearly imposes an obligation on any court…

Allow the hon. Member to speak! Allow the hon. Member to speak! Carry on, carry on.

Madam Speaker, the Bill clearly imposes an obligation on any court to immediately notify the convicted person of his right to appeal or the procedure to make an application to review the proceedings of the Supreme Court before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Part I of the Bill deals with the preliminary matters, including the short title, the interpretation and the notification of the right to appeal. Part II of the Bill outlines the composition, the jurisdiction and the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal and further outlines the procedures, the proceedings and the notice required to resist the appeal before the Criminal Court of Appeal. Section 10 of the Bill provides that an appeal before the Appellate Jurisdiction (Criminal) of the Supreme Court shall be heard by at least two judges and further provides that the Chief Justice may, upon receipt of an application, direct more than two judges to hear the appeal having regard to the magnitude of the case and the importance of the question of law, and the importance of the question of facts involved. Section 11 of the Bill provides that the Supreme Court shall have unlimited jurisdiction and powers to hear and determine appeal by a person against his conviction or sentence or hear the appeal by the DPP against any dismissal of a charge or conviction or sentence imposed on a person from the final decision of the subordinate court. Madam Speaker, Section 12 and Section 14 of the Bill deal with the procedure to appeal and the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court. Section 13 provides that a party upon whom a notice of appeal is served, that party may resist the appeal before the Supreme Court by filing a notice of his intention to resist the appeal within a maximum period of 28 days. Part IV of the Bill deals with the matters pending before the Court of Criminal Appeal, as provided under Section 15 and Section 16, with the stay of proceedings and the restitution of property pending trial. Section 17 provides that where a person who has been convicted and sentenced gives notice of appeal to the Court before which he is convicted and has been refused bail pending appeal, may apply to the Appellate jurisdiction of the Court to be admitted to bail pending the determination of his appeal. Sections 18 and 19 of Bill deal with the custody of exhibits and documents and the filing of skeleton arguments and submissions pending the criminal appeal. Madam Speaker, sections 22 to 33 under PART V of the Bill deals with the determination of the general powers of the Appellate Court including issues relating miscarriage of justice, defect in information, warrants and summons or omission and mistake, and further issues regarding evidence irregularity and lack of records in proper convictions and acquittal on account of insanity, and also, deals with the bar to subsequent prosecution and dismissal of a charge and other powers of the Supreme Court. Section 34 of the Bill provides specific general powers to the Court of Criminal Appeal on review. To call fresh and compelling evidence that is likely to quash the acquittal or conviction or order that person to be retried for the offence with which he was originally charged. The hon. Attorney General rightly said earlier that this is not a political tool but rather a safeguard. Madam Speaker, section 36 of the Bill provides that where a convicted person has not been notified of his right to appeal, may have good cause to apply for an extension of time to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Section 37 of the Bill emphasises on access to justice and empowers the Master and Registrar to report to the Chief Justice where legal aid should be granted for the purpose of an appeal or review although no applications were made. Section 38 of the Bill provides that the DPP shall appear for the State on every appeal to the Appellate Court unless it is a private prosecution and appear before the Court of Criminal Appeal on every application for review. Section 39 of the Bill goes on to say that no cost shall be allowed on either side on hearing any appeal or review by the Court of Criminal Appeal under this Act. Section 40 of the Bill empowers the Chief Justice to make such rules as maybe necessary for the purpose of this Act. Thus, upholding a fundamental principle of the rule of law. Madam Speaker, the Bill further intends to repeal the Criminal Appeal Act 1954 and revokes the Criminal Appeal Rules as a specified in section 41 of the Bill. The Bill addresses a major void in this area of the law by imposing an obligation on any Court to pass sentence on a convicted person within a maximum period of 28 days and not later. Madam Speaker, the Bill proposes to amend section 11 of the Children’s Court Act, under section 42 where now, an appeal against an order or the final judgement of the magistrate of the Criminal Division of the Children’s Court will be made to the Supreme Court in accordance with the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill. Clause 42 of the Bill also proposes to repeal sections 69 and 70 of the Courts Act and provide simplified provisions under this Bill to deal with criminal appeal cases. The Bill further proposes under clause 42 to amend section 132 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act which deals with hearing on sentence where now, after convicting an accused, the Court having regard, gives an opportunity to the accused to adduce evidence in mitigation and after hearing such other matters that is relevant to the facts and circumstances of the offence impose the sentence on the accused within 14 days. Madam Speaker, the Bill brings further amendments to the criminal jurisdiction of the District and Intermediate Court’s Act by repealing the entire provisions under Section 92 to Section 100 of the Act which has been a complex and confusing area of the law. This Bill has now simplified the procedures for a person who has been charged with an offence for the prosecution, for the Court and for the legal professionals. As Jeremy Bentham, a great English philosopher who continuously advocated for simplified legal system, says – “A law that is not clear is no law at all.” Madam Speaker, in fact, any person who cannot easily understand their rights to appeal or when the process to seek redress is unnecessarily complex or inconsistent, it is the integrity of our entire justice system that is called into question. As such complexity and inconsistent outcomes cause delays and uncertainty not only for the appellants but also for the victims and the law professionals, it is unacceptable that in matters of such gravity where the liberty and rights of individuals are at stake and that our justice system would tolerate ambiguity in the process. Madam Speaker, the Bill ensures that once a final decision has been delivered by the Supreme Court, District Court, Intermediate Court or Children’s Court, the party will have a clearly defined legally consistent pathway for appeal or review which will ensure confidence and fairness against arbitrary outcomes. The Bill further reinforces the Constitutional rights of individuals of section 10 of our Constitution which guarantees a fair trial. The Bill supports the independence of the Judiciary by offering a clear and predictable framework for criminal appeal cases and further protects the most vulnerable ones. Madam Speaker, the Bill also reflects our international obligations under human rights instruments to which Mauritius is a party including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which affirms the right of every person convicted of a crime to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. Hence, clause 42 of the Bill ensures that the proposed Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Act 2025 will continue to provide access to a convicted person or his representative to make application to the Human Rights Division for enquiry to be conducted in cases where there is sufficient fresh and compelling evidence that will satisfy the requirement to carry out investigation. Madam Speaker, the Judiciary as we know, is the cornerstone of our democratic society. By simplifying the criminal appeal and review cases, we are reducing unnecessary delays; we are alleviating the burdens of our courts. We are ensuring that judicial time and resources are focussed on the substance of justice. Today, this House is being asked not only to pass another legislation but rather to reshape the very system of justice for our country. We are being asked to bring clarity in an area of law that is complex and confusing for our system and for our people. We are being asked to ensure that the pathway to justice is a clear road that is accessible to all regardless of status, regardless of age and regardless of means. Madam Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to thank the hon. Attorney General and the State Law Office team for coming forward with this progressive piece of legislation that will reshape the criminal appeal and review cases, thus increasing public confidence in our institution. I therefore, urge all the party members to come together to give full support for this Bill as custodians of justice and delivery a framework that will serve the law and the people it is designed to protect. We are sending a strong message to the people of Mauritius that we believe in a justice system that is transparent, fair and equal for all. Thus, upholding a fundamental principle of the law, as one says – “Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done for everyone”, and the Bill aims to achieve that. Madam Speaker, with these words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. Yes, I think we have time for you, hon. Lobine! (4.39 p.m.) Mr K. Lobine (First Member for La Caverne & Phoenix): Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, first of all I am just flabbergasted by this despicable performance by the hon. Member from the Opposition side. Completely out of subject, he could not understand what the particular clauses of this Bill is all about and the more so, he is just cut off from the reality, from the debates. Debates with regard to criminal appeal and criminal review date way back in 2012. He is talking about the Law Reform Commission, way back when the then Guy Ollivry, Queen’s Counsel, was the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission. They have already worked on it because they got it from a Green Paper that was presented by the then Labour Government when Lord Mackay of Clashfern made a comprehensive report as to how we have to move on to reform the Judiciary. So, he is completely cut off from debates, from reality and it is not with the Certificate of Urgency that debates have started on this particular Bill with regard to review and also with regard to access to justice.

And what surprises me, Madam Speaker, is that lack of decorum, lack of elegance from the Member but what can we expect from somebody who came through the backdoor and entered the previous Government? Madam Speaker, he became Speaker through the backdoor. For the past ten years, the previous Government got all these reports already worked in their drawers. They could not do a single reform with regard to judiciary or the judicial system and since January 2025, it is this Government which is bringing reforms, under the abled capacity of the Attorney General who is rising above politics with regard to all these amendments. These amendments have nothing to do with petty politics. This is access to justice. He could not understand and due lack of decorum, he is not even here to listen to the debates. This is a lack of courtesy; lack of manners and I am very sad that this hon. Member is a lawyer. Either he understands the Bill or he pretends not to understand what the Bill is all about, but if he does not understand that, then there is a problem with regard to his capacity as a lawyer, as a barrister because we have to rise above party politics with regard to this particular Bill, Madam Speaker. And I am also…

Speak on the Bill now!

Yes.

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker, after the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill that was enacted, which is now an Act, this is another piece of legislation that is another milestone to render justice more accessible to our people. And the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill is a timely and essential piece of legislation aimed at reforming and unifying appellant procedures in criminal matters. The hon. Attorney General rightly put it, this Bill replaces a fragmented and inconsistent legal framework with a single coherent system designed to ensure fairness, legal certainty and access to justice. This is a clear signal as to the commitment of this Government to come with institutional reforms, be it, through the judiciary responsiveness to longstanding challenges and delivery of justice as a public good. The way appeals are being done under this current system, Madam Speaker, the appeal procedures are dispersed across outdated and inconsistent enactments. The Attorney General pointed out the Criminal Appeal Act, the Criminal Appeal Rules 1954 and the Court Act, the District and Intermediate Courts Criminal Jurisdiction Act, the Criminal Procedure Act and the Children’s Court Act 2020. This scattering of rules has created uncertainty, procedural inefficiency and at times impeded on the administration of justice. This Bill brings a sort of consolidation of what we, law practitioners and the public at large, desire. Madam Speaker, with regard to the work of law practitioners, it is indeed something that will render justice and also deliver justice and give advice to clients more efficiently because first and foremost at clause 42(3), this Bill introduces a statutory deadline by amending section 132A of the Criminal Procedure Act. Madam Speaker, the Court now must impose sentence within 14 days of conviction. This fills a longstanding gap in our criminal process. Previously, there was no statutory framework for sentencing past convictions leading to prolonged uncertainty and delay in initiating appeals. Madam Speaker, for the first time, this Bill introduces a uniform appellant process with standardised timelines for filing notices, skeleton arguments and replies. The Bill includes deadlines that will reduce abuse of adjournments and promote discipline among both parties in the Courts. And timely access to records, Madam Speaker, with the clear timelines being provided, now it is also upon the Court Registry to furnish, complete appeal records within a fixed time because it is clearly elaborated in this particular legislation that there are timelines to be respected. So, it will facilitate jobs of the legal professionals but also, the public at large, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, clause 3 of this Bill – the statutory duty to notify right of appeal – this is something – for the first time again – very innovative approach in our law. Every subordinate Court will be required now, Madam Speaker, to notify a convicted person of their right to appeal. This is a transformative procedural safeguard and we are not far from other countries that are embarking on such reforms with regard to criminal procedure. In India, for example, they are trying to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure in the same manner that we are proceeding. In the UK, they are also debating in their 2025 Law Reform with regard to procedures, with regard to criminal appeal. So, Madam Speaker, another milestone is clause 9 – review of convictions and acquittals. Clause 9 introduces a long-needed mechanism for the review of criminal cases after finality. Until now, Mauritius had no statutory provision, allowing for the reopening of cases where new and compelling evidence emerges. The only recourse was presidential pardon. This Bill introduces a robust, judicially supervised review process. Post-conviction reviews may be initiated by the accused. Post-acquittal reviews may be brought by the DPP if the acquittal is tainted. Madam Speaker, this aligns our country with Article 4(2) of Protocol 7 of the European Convention on the Human Rights which permits the reopening of criminal proceedings if there is new or newly discovered evidence or if there has been fundamental defect in the proceedings and this is what the Law Reform Commission said in 2012 with regard to miscarriage of justice, following acquittals or convictions. Another milestone of this Bill, Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks back, we spoke with regard to legal aid. Here, in clause 37, Madam Speaker – legal aid without application. One of the most commendable features is this clause 37, Madam Speaker, empowering the Master and Registrar to refer deserving cases for legal aid to the Chief Justice, even if no application has been made. This provision realises the opinion given by the Law Reform Commission with regard to the paper on legal aid reform that complements the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill 2025 which was very recently debated and unfortunately again, hon. Adrien Duval, was not present when we were debating about it. He pointed out to legal aid. This is already in our law now. Madam Speaker, we must realise that with all those amendments, we are complying with what the UN Committee Against Torture, in its concluding observation made in April 2025 following the consideration of the 5th periodic report, that is, we are consolidating our criminal justice system. This Bill responds directly to those recommendations by addressing procedural gaps and enhancing appeal and review rights. And, Madam Speaker, I will not go into the comparative studies that are being conducted throughout the world. New Zealand is doing it through the streamlining of their criminal procedures, the UK through the 2025 Law Reform Commission Review recommending widening of access to criminal review. In Canada, they are doing it following the famous case of R v Jordan. So, in that respect, Madam Speaker, Mauritius is not merely following. We are acting in solidarity with other democracies tackling the same systemic issues through principal reform. And to conclude, Madam Speaker, I would quote Lord Atkin. Lord Atkin said – “Finality is a good thing but justice is better.” This is all about justice and I commend this Bill to the House. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. I think now we can take a break of 30 minutes. At 4.49 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.30 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Junior Minister, are you ready? Yes, please! (5.31 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Madame la présidente, je vous remercie de me donner la parole. I have been, in fact, expecting a lot from the Member of the Opposition. I expected him to come with very valid points. In fact, dialectics should have called upon him to see what are the shortcomings in the Bill. But unfortunately, he chose another path. We should, in fact, commend the hon. Attorney General for the good work which is being done. Within a very short span of time, he has come with a string of at least five legislations in order to consolidate democracy and human rights. While commending him, at the same time, I would say that he is forcing me to confine myself within pedagogy. So, it is good for me to explain, not to our seasoned barristers and lawyers in this House, but I am here more to speak to the common men and to explain to them. Donc, je ferais un petit plan, une petite introduction pour expliquer la base philosophique de cette nouvelle loi. En deuxième point, je parlerai le pourquoi de cette nouvelle loi. En troisième point – • les failles de la loi actuelle et quelles seront les avancées et les apports de cette nouvelle loi ; • comment on va voir une consolidation des droits de l’accusé et l’appelant ; • comment on a intégré les standards internationaux ; • comment on va respecter les droits humains encore plus; • finalement, comment apporter un équilibre entre les droits de l’accusé et les droits de la société et ; • une petite conclusion. Madame la présidente, nous sommes réunis pour débattre d’un texte fondamental pour la consolidation de notre État de droit. L’État de droit, il faut bien comprendre, Madame la présidente, d’abord, c’est la primauté du droit et aussi, il faut qu’il y ait ce qu’on appelle l’égalité devant la loi. Il faut aussi qu’il y ait ce qu’on appelle la sécurité juridique. Il faut une interdiction de l’arbitraire et aussi permettre un accès à la justice et respecter la séparation des pouvoirs. L’Attorney General a bien fait mention de ce concept fondamental qui existe dans notre Constitution, à travers l’article 10 de la Constitution, un concept très important, ce qu’on appelle le concept d’un procès équitable. Et quand on parle d’un procès, ce n’est pas seulement la première partie de ce procès. Il faut aussi inclure l’appel. Donc, cette nouvelle loi, le Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill, arrive à temps. Ce texte marque une évolution décisive de notre système judiciaire pénal et s’inscrit dans une volonté ferme de garantir un accès effectif à la justice et aussi de renforcer la transparence et de moderniser les institutions. Et l’Attorney General a bien mentionné qu’il viendrait incessamment avec une nouvelle loi pour qu’il y ait une autre cour d’appel. C’est le produit, Madame la présidente, d’une réflexion et aussi d’une volonté politique. Mon collègue, avant moi, a bien précisé que le travail a déjà été fait en amont par la Law Reform Commission. J’étais moi-même membre de cette Law Reform Commission. Il y a eu des discussions. Il y a eu des consultations au préalable. Donc, cette loi n’est pas une nouvelle loi. On a archi discuté de cette loi. La volonté politique, évidemment, n’existait pas dans le passé. Aujourd’hui, on est en train de voir de visu cette volonté politique. Et l’opposition a le culot de critiquer cette volonté politique pour aller vite en besogne. On a déjà pris huit mois. Donc, il faut aller vite, d’après moi, et il ne faut pas critiquer. Pourquoi un nouveau projet de loi ? Quelles sont les insuffisances qu’on cherche à corriger et surtout, en quoi améliore-t-elle le sort des accusés, la qualité de la justice et la protection des droits fondamentaux ? Permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de répondre point par point. D’abord, pourquoi un nouveau projet de loi ? Toute société démocratique, nous allons voir, doit se remettre en question. La loi actuelle, le Criminal Appeal Act date de 1954. Ainsi, les réglementations et autres lois sont aussi désuètes, et je peux les qualifier de fossiles législatifs imprégnés de traces coloniales. Je constate que, malheureusement, nos amis de l’opposition veulent garder ces lois. Dans toute société, Madame la présidente, il y a des intérêts différents des différentes parties. D’abord, d’un côté, la société doit être protégée, les victimes doivent être protégées, mais aussi les accusés et les condamnés. Ce n’est pas parce qu’ils sont des accusés ou des condamnés qu’on ne doit pas respecter leurs droits. D’ailleurs, notre Constitution, à travers différentes dispositions telles que les articles 3 et 5 et surtout l’article 10, donne cette protection. Ainsi, Madame la présidente, les lois ordinaires doivent être en conformité avec les lettres et l’esprit de notre Constitution. Tel n’était pas le cas, malheureusement, avec certaines lois qu’on a héritées de l’ère coloniale. Le législateur a l’obligation constitutionnelle, je dirai, légale et aussi morale de trouver le juste équilibre pour concilier les différents intérêts compétitifs dans une société guidée par un sens de justice, d’équité et du respect de la démocratie et des droits humains. Ce projet de loi est né d’un constat. Notre cadre juridique existant en matière d’appel et de révision pénale était devenu obsolète, aussi fragmenté, comme l’a bien précisé l’Attorney General et mes autres collègues, et inadapté aux exigences contemporaines de la justice. Donc, les règles sont éparpillées, comme bien précisé par mes collègues avant, tantôt dans le Criminal Appeal Act, dans le Criminal Appeal Rules, tantôt dans le DIC, c’est-à-dire dans le District and Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, et dans d’autres lois et d’autres réglementations, et évidemment, cela manquait de clarté, d’uniformité et aussi d’efficacité. En somme, il s’agissait d’un cadre hérité de l’époque coloniale qui peinait à garantir une justice équitable, rapide et accessible à tous, en particulier aux personnes vulnérables et aussi aux personnes sans ressource juridique. Et ce gouvernement a à cœur l’intérêt de ces personnes. Le nouveau projet de loi, Madame la présidente, vise, donc, à centraliser d’abord, clarifier et renforcer les procédures relatives à l’appel et à la révision des affaires pénales tout en les adaptant aux meilleures pratiques internationales. Maintenant, quelles sont les failles sous l’empire de la loi actuelle ? Quelles étaient les failles des lois précédentes ? D’abord, Madame la présidente, il y avait une incohérence juridique : les règles étaient dispersées dans plusieurs textes. Je pense que quand vous faites une comparaison entre la loi actuelle et le projet de loi, vous allez voir que le nouveau projet de loi est beaucoup plus structuré en six parties, comme l’a bien indiqué l’Attorney General. C’est cela le drame. Je crois que le membre de l’opposition n’a pas bien lu la loi actuelle, le Criminal Appeal Act. Vous allez voir que parce qu’il y avait un drafting qui datait de 1954, c’était un genre de désordre. Par contre, avec la nouvelle loi, nous allons voir qu’elle est très bien structurée. Donc, il y avait aussi une autre lacune, c’est-à-dire, il y avait une complexité procédurale et d’ailleurs les démarches pour faire appel où demander une révision étaient trop techniques, je dirais, inaccessible pour les non-initiés et souvent hors de la portée des justiciables, surtout ceux qui n’avaient pas d’avocat. Et même c’était un peu complexe pour les nouveaux avocats. Comme vous le savez, Madame la présidente, le droit pénal à Maurice s’inspire du droit français mais par contre toutes les procédures sont inspirées du droit anglais. Dans un système de droit mixte, il fallait dépoussiérer, il fallait moderniser cette loi. Et aussi sous l’empire de l’ancienne loi, il y avait une lenteur judiciaire, pas par la faute des juges mais par la faute des procédures, dont l’absence des délais clairs et de mécanismes efficaces entraînaient des retards importants nuisant à la crédibilité du système judiciaire. Et aussi, Madame la présidente, il y avait des obstacles à la révision post-condamnation. Les conditions pour obtenir une révision étaient si strictes que certaines erreurs judiciaires n’étaient jamais corrigées. Il y avait aussi, je constate, une surcharge des juridictions supérieures ; les recours abusifs où mal formulés encombraient inutilement les juridictions d’appel au détriment des affaires réellement fondées. Donc le projet de loi introduit une série d’avancées notables et quelles sont ces avancées, Madame la présidente ? Maintenant on voit une sorte de codification, une sorte de structuration claire de ces droits, l’ensemble des droits relatifs à l’appel et à la révision est désormais regroupé dans un seul texte qui est très important pour garantir d’abord la lisibilité, la cohérence et aussi une meilleure compréhension pour les profanes. Nous voyons aussi avec la nouvelle loi une accessibilité accrue. La simplification des procédures facilite l’accès à la justice – un point très important, je dirais – notamment pour les personnes non représentées où issues des milieux défavorisés et je mets l’emphase sur les gens issus des milieux défavorisés. Et aussi, nous voyons une autre innovation qui est cette fois-ci un filtrage de recours non- fondé, avant cela n’existait pas. C’est ce qu’on appelle qu’il faut passer par un leave to appeal. Donc, l’introduction d’une procédure de demande d’autorisation permet aux juridictions de se concentrer sur les cas présentant un véritable enjeu juridique. On a aussi introduit un point très innovateur, Madame la présidente, plus de souplesse pour les preuves nouvelles. Le texte facilite l’introduction d’éléments de preuve découvert après le procès afin de prévenir des erreurs judiciaires. On voit aussi une dématérialisation des procédures qui ouvre la voie, Madame la présidente, à une gestion, dans un contexte moderne, numérique des recours, accélérant leur traitement et réduisant leur lourdeur administrative. Donc, avec la nouvelle loi, on verra des délais beaucoup plus encadrés, le projet fixe des délais clairs pour l’introduction et le traitement des recours, assurant une justice beaucoup plus rapide. Nous voyons aussi, Madame la présidente, une consolidation des droits de l’accusé et l’appelé. Donc, comment ce projet de loi renforce-t-il les droits de l’accusé ? Ce texte consacre, vous allez voir, pleinement des droits procéduraux fondamentaux. D’abord, le droit d’être entendu : toute personne condamnée a le droit de faire valoir ses arguments en appel ou en révision, avec l’assistance d’un avocat si elle le souhaite ; accès aussi à l’aide juridictionnelle et là, c’est un point très important, on a pu lier ce point fondamental avec l’autre projet de loi qu’on avait passé. Donc le projet s’articule avec la réforme de l’Aide légale pour garantir que personne ne soit privée de recours pour des raisons financières et aussi on verra une réévaluation de la peine. Il permet de revoir des sanctions disproportionnées ou prononcées dans des conditions contestables. Protection contre l’injustice, le texte, Madame la présidente, autorise des juridictions à ouvrir les affaires en cas de doute sérieux sur la culpabilité même après l’épuisement de recours ordinaires et cela est un point qui a été touché par mon collègue. On a suivi de près, dans une société démocratique moderne où il le faut absolument, les standards internationaux. Et là, nous allons voir que le projet de loi est aligné sur les engagements internationaux, l’impact internationaux relatifs aux droits civils et politiques et consacre le droit à un procès équitable et à un recours effectif. Les principes de Bangalore, par exemple, Madame la présidente, sur la déontologie judiciaire qui prône l’indépendance, la compétence et l’intégrité du judiciaire, et aussi les bonnes pratiques du Commonwealth, ainsi que les recommandations du comité des droits de l’homme des Nations unies qui insistent sur l’importance des mécanismes efficaces de révision post-condamnation. Donc, en ce sens, Madame la présidente, le projet de loi replace notre législation pénale dont le giron des états modernes et démocratiques respectueux des droits fondamentaux. Donc, c’est pour cela que je suis surpris comment mon ami de l’opposition au lieu de féliciter l’Attorney General, est en train de critiquer. Donc, nous voyons aussi une consolidation des droits humains, et comme vous le voyez bien, ce nouveau gouvernement a hâte de consolider les droits humains, donc nous voyons un respect de l’état de droit et des droits humains. Ce projet de loi, encore une fois, Madame la présidente, est une affirmation du respect de l’État de droit. Il garantit la transparence dans le fonctionnement de la justice pénale. On voit aussi une responsabilité accrue des juridictions, à rectifier les erreurs. L’égalité devant la loi pour que nul ne soit désavantagé dans l’exercice de ses droits. Il répond aussi, Madame la présidente, à des exigences morales fondamentales, un système juste, mais pas celui qui ne se trompe jamais mais celui qui reconnaît les fautes et les corrige. Donc, quel est impact sur l’ensemble du système pénal ? Nous allons voir avec cette nouvelle loi, une modernisation du système judiciaire. Le projet rationalise les flux des dossiers, réduit le retard et renforce l’autorité des décisions de la judiciaire. Nous allons voir aussi, avec ce nouveau projet de loi, Madame la présidente, une crédibilité renforcée. En permettant une justice plus accessible, rapide et équitable, il renforce la confiance du publique dans l’institution judiciaire. Et ça c’est absolument important pour une démocratie. Nous voyons aussi une justice beaucoup plus substantielle. Il ne s’agit pas uniquement de suivre les procédures, procédures oui, mais il y a des limites à des procédures, mais de rendre des décisions justes dans l’esprit du droit. Et finalement, nous voyons, Madame la présidente, – cela est important dans une société et un état de droit – un équilibre entre les droits de l’accusé et les droits de la société. D’une part, il faut protéger la société en général, les victimes aussi on n’a pas oublié, mais il faut respecter les droits d’un accusé et pour cela il y a une garantie constitutionnelle. Donc ce texte réussi, Madame la présidente, à trouver un équilibre, je dois concéder, délicat mais nécessaire pour une société démocratique. Il protège les droits fondamentaux de la personne condamnée sans remettre en cause inutilement les décisions de justice – là aussi, c’est un point très important à retenir. Il évite des recours dilatoires ou abusifs parfois, qui saperaient la stabilité du système. Il préserve les intérêts des victimes, de la société en assurant que justice soit rendue de manière efficace et sans impunité. Finalement, c’est un modèle d’équilibre, d’une part, rigueur judiciaire, humanisme et respect des droits de l’homme. En conclusion, Madame la présidente, le Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill n’est pas une simple reforme technique comme bien précisé par l’Attorney General. Il s’agit en effet d’un acte de foi dans la justice, un acte de foi de notre Premier ministre et du vice-Premier ministre dans la justice et de tous les membres de cette Assemblée, et aussi un signal clair que notre république ne va pas tolérer l’injustice même au nom de la procédure. Il modernise notre appareil judiciaire, renforce les droits fondamentaux et consolide la paix sociale pour une justice beaucoup plus crédible, accessible et surtout équitable. En adoptant ce texte, Madame la présidente, nous affirmons d’une façon claire et nette que la justice n’est pas un privilège, je mets l’emphase sur ce point, mais un droit et aucune erreur judiciaire ne doit rester irréversible. Je vous remercie, Madame la présidente.

Merci beaucoup. Je suis jalouse de ne pas pouvoir prendre la parole. Allez-y hon. Minister ! (5.50 p.m.)

Thank you. Madam Speaker, in fact when one reads the Explanatory Memorandum of this piece of legislation, there are certain words that are used that in fact, give the clue as to what exactly this legislation is all about. Now, when the word ‘clarify’ is used and immediately after that ‘simplify’, and then the third word used is ‘standardise’, it is clear that this Bill is doing nothing else than simply do exactly what those three words say. Now, it takes some qualities in certain people to be able to complicate what is simple and it’s exactly what I have witnessed today. Now, there are various reasons why such things are done in order to complicate what is simple. It’s either one wants to be of bad faith and therefore only opens one’s mouth for the sake of uttering certain words and making certain sounds or it is to try to be constructive. Now, what I have heard the Opposition and allow me to halt a disjuncture and say, once again, the ladies and gentlemen who are watching us outside this Assembly, have the opportunity today to see the Opposition benches, again, …

Empty!

... again, again, …

Empty, as usual.

I said again three times because all three members who usually are seated there – who have, I am sure, a lot of interesting things to contribute to the debate…

Please, no. They don’t!

I am trying to be nice, hon. Prime Minister.

Too nice!

Too nice! I am just trying to be very diplomatic. It is not that I agree with whatever they say and I will show why I don’t agree. I am not going to be very long. They are not here again and what exactly would be the explanation for their absence? It’s a pity. It’s a pity because they are here in order to be able to encourage this culture of debate. We do not have the monopoly of knowledge. We are not always right, we may debate and come to the best solution for the people of Mauritius. That’s the whole idea of this democracy. And the fact that they are not here again, and again and again, shows exactly how they hold this population in high esteem and what type of esteem they hold the population in. So, let me go back to the Constitution. My late father, Senior Counsel, Mohamed, always said to me, whenever I started practicing law, even after 20 years or 30 years of practice, he would say that – “Go to the law, read the Constitution.” And, I read Section 10 (5) of the Constitution – I say this because the hon. Member, Mr A. Duval, stated that this piece of legislation somehow, someplace is putting, is challenging the principle of ‘autrefois acquit and autrefois convict’. This principle of ‘autrefois acquit and autrefois convict’ is a legal principle that is rooted in the principle of res judicata. So, it is as simple as that. You know, this is the very A B C de la loi. We learn this at law school when we start.

Translate res judicata.

Well, no one should be retried for an offense for which he has already been tried and there has been a judgment pronounced. If he has been acquitted, he cannot be retried again for the same offense.

Good!

However, there are exceptions in the law and that is why I think it is important to go to the Constitution. The Constitution says – “No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial of that offence, except upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.” So, whatever, the hon. Attorney General is coming to propose today in this piece of legislation, is in line with what is already provided for under section 10 (5) of the Constitution. And I go further, it is in line with what is already in the law under the Criminal Appeal Act of 1955 as amended. When I look at the original legislation and I see here section 11 of the Law as it is – Supplementary powers of Court and this is the section of the law that the hon. Member referred to– “(b) order any witnesses who would have been compellable witnesses at the trial to attend…” That particular subsection or subsection (c) – “(c) receive the evidence, if tendered, of any witness (including the appellant) who is a competent but not compellable witness.” All those issues under section 11 that the hon. Member takes objection to – it’s amazing – he takes objection to what is in the Bill now when it is already provided for under section 11 here. The hon. Attorney General and his officers have come and clarified everything; nothing more. He said that there is importance for him to have been consulted. This government understands the meaning of consultation. This government and the proof – let’s look at the Finance Bill of today. It’s been circulated today. It is only going to be taken at Second Reading on Friday and only the hon. Prime Minister will address the National Assembly. On next Tuesday – we are giving ample time for everyone to be able to ascertain, assess, study, be ready for the debate because this government understands, appreciates and values the importance of consultation, the importance of circulating a Bill that changes the things fundamentally but here, the question that I put and this is what he should have put – is there any fundamental change of such difference, of such importance that would warrant the need for consultation? And here, I don’t see any fundamental change in principles. No change whatsoever in actual time, apart from clarifying the issues. Issues that cropped up in the case before the Supreme Court, the Maigrot case and other cases with regard to delay, when to appeal, at conviction, at the time of sentence, the delays – everything is clarified. So, I fail to really understand what was the point that the hon. Member was trying make. And secondly, I think he spoke about suspended sentence. He did speak about suspended sentence. I mean, in order for there to be a suspended sentence, there needs to be a conviction, a sentence. And, if I understand him correctly and I am sure I understood what he meant, he meant that there could be a suspended sentence without a sentence.

Oh, wow!

As I said, some people have the ability to complicate things that are very simple. I am at great difficulty in understanding how can one have a suspended sentence without a sentence. Now, I understand why he has allied himself with the MSM. I mean they really make a mess of things. Fair enough! So, now, Madam Speaker, let me take this Opportunity to and I don’t say it simply for the sake of saying, I really mean it. I would like to thank the hon. Attorney General for having understood that there was the need to simplify and clarify. And, what is the purpose of doing all this? The purpose of doing all of this is also to satisfy the principles of democracy, to create ease of access, clarity, resource optimisation, efficiency. All this is in the spirit of giving sense to what democracy is. Removing it from black on white written in a book and making it – we breathe democracy. And the proof of the pudding, as the hon. Prime Minister always says, is in the eating. You see, they have always tried to criticise this government about many things and it’s their right but let me say it and I think it is important for the people to understand. Each and every piece of legislation that has been brought to this House has been the underpinning, has been to consolidate democracy and even if they are to go outside and criticise, which is their right, they will have no one trying to arrest them for having the right to express their views. Even if they are to go outside and criticise, which is their right, they will have no one trying to arrest them for having the right to express their views. On the contrary, they are entitled to have their views even if it makes no sense. They are entitled to it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hon. Attorney-General, your summing-up speech! (6.00 p.m.)

Je regarde et je vois des sièges vides. Je ne vois pas mon confrère, mon collègue de l’Assemblée, le Whip de l’opposition, entendre ce que j’ai à dire sur ce qu’il avait à dire plus tôt. Je ferais donc son procès in absentia. Madam Speaker, the initial point made by the Whip of the Opposition is quite as extraordinary as the rest of his intervention. He has qualified this Bill as being one which smacks of legislative ambush. Not only is that not the case, as will become apparent in the summing-up, to add to what my colleague, the hon. Minister of Housing and Lands has said, the Whip of the Opposition has failed to mention that the Finance Bill and associated legislations have been circulated this Tuesday morning prior to the First Reading next Friday. Given the time we shall start on Friday, we shall hear only the mover of the Bill at Second Reading stage. The Opposition will have ample time, another three more days, to be ready to reply to the hon. Prime Minister’s address. And this, they will do next Tuesday. So, the surprising accusation of the Whip of the Opposition is to use an oft-quoted expression by our own courts, an accusation which is devoid of any merit. The second matter he had to say as an introduction to his speech was that we had not held formal consultations with the Bar Association, the law society and the Law Reform Commission. Well, if we had too, we would have. But since this Bill had more importantly resonance with the Judiciary, we held extensive consultations at every stage with the Judiciary, since it is the Judiciary that will be applying this law day in and day out. Whilst it is important to note that there is no constitutional duty to consult external bodies before legislating – and rightly so – given the separation of powers, this Government has always welcomed the views of legal practitioners, because they are the ones who work within the system every day and know where it needs improving. I was one of them only a few months ago. Of course, the Office of the Attorney General, which I have just joined, which is tasked with drafting and piloting such legislations, is itself deeply familiar with the workings of our courts and the practical challenges they face. Madam Speaker, having had to sit and hear the quite extraordinary statements of the Whip of the Opposition, I am still reeling in disbelief at what he has said. Clearly – and I am being very polite –, he has no idea what this Bill is all about. You see, Madam Speaker, in my younger days, I remember clearly my father instilling in me a basic requirement to understand. You must read anything you need to, from the first page to the last, including the preface, the acknowledgments and the epilogue. This kept me in good stead in my years I studied at Oxford and the Middle Temple and throughout my four decades of practice at the Bar. When you do not read and think, you do not understand! The Whip of the Opposition has just understood what is clearly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum. The purpose, as my friend, hon. Mohamed, just stated, is to clarify, simplify and standardise existing procedures for all appeals in criminal matters and modify certain procedures in order to be fairer to the accused parties. The Whip of the Opposition has attacked me when he stated that I have, by this Bill, dented a fundamental right – the right of appeal. How? He never said! His next point, in fact, threw light on his lack of comprehension of this law. He advocated, to the astonishment of all the lawyers in the House, that there cannot be an appeal against suspended sentences and community service orders. What nonsense! He should be ashamed to make such clearly erroneous statements in this House. A suspended sentence or a community service order cannot be ordered unless there has been a custodial sentence first. I hope he understands what custodial means! It means – and let me spell it out for him – imprisonment. His reference to Section 22 is another grave misconception. Again, I am being very polite. What is provided in that section already exists in the law. Quite surprisingly, the learned Whip of the Opposition just discovered that it existed! The hon. Minister of Housing and Lands has, of course, taken us through the principal of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. He has not answered the question of the Chair regarding res judicata. Res judicata means already decided, already adjudicated upon. Therefore, you cannot come back.

I just wanted everybody to understand.

In fine, Madam Speaker, this debate has brought to the fore one important fact, that this law has become absolutely necessary not only to bring certainty, clarity and simplification to the law, but it has become absolutely necessary to ensure that some law practitioners, who, unfortunately, do not know their basic law, will now be able to refer to only one statute in order to advise their clients as to the appeal process in criminal matters. I am done, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Attorney-General, you have to commend the Bill again.

I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill (No. XVII of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with the Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Review Bill (No. XVII of 2025) was read a third time and passed.