Spent convictions in Mauritius: Analysing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, 2013

by | Oct 13, 2019 | SACJ, SACJ V28 I3 2015

Spent convictions in Mauritius: Analysing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, 2013

Authors Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Western Cape
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 28 Issue 3, p. 284 – 302

Abstract

For many years courts in Mauritius have considered a conviction that was at least 10 years old to be spent for the purpose of sentencing. However, in 2002 the Mauritian Supreme Court held that there was no concept of spent convictions in Mauritian law and that disregarding convictions of 10 years or over old was a mere practice. The Supreme Court has not developed clear guidelines for considering or disregarding such convictions for the purpose of sentencing. In 2013 a Bill was gazetted, inter alia, to introduce the concept of spent convictions in Mauritius. This article highlights the Mauritian case law on spent convictions and the relevant clause of the Bill. The author relies on legislation from, inter alia, South Africa, Australia, Seychelles and Jamaica to suggest how the Mauritian law on spent convictions could be improved.

Arrest without a warrant: When is an offence committed in the presence of an arresting officer?

by | Oct 13, 2019 | SACJ, SACJ V28 I3 2015

Arrest without a warrant: When is an offence committed in the presence of an arresting officer?

Authors Chuks Okpaluba

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Visiting Professor, College of Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 28 Issue 3, p. 257 – 283

Abstract

The circumstances in which a police officer may, without warrant, arrest any person who commits or about to commit an offence in his or her presence in terms of s 40(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is by no means easy to determine. Does an offence committed in the presence of a police, or arresting officer, contemplate that incident which the officer witnessed or does it include arrest based on information brought to his or her attention by someone else? Assuming that the officer was present in the vicinity of the event but did not witness the actual commission of the offence, to what extent can he, in effecting an arrest under s 40(1)(a), rely on information from another officer or a third party who saw what happened? Would that meet the requirement of an offence committed in the presence of a peace officer? In other words, can the arresting officer see through the lense of his colleague or that of a third party?