Affaire Vanessa Lagesse…le DPP ne fera pas appel de l’acquittement de Bernard Maigrot

C’est ce qu’indique un communiqué du bureau du Directeur des Poursuites Publiques ce lundi.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THE CASE OF MAIGROT V THE STATE – [2025 SCJ 226]

1. On 27 May 2025, the appellate division of the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence of 15 years against Mr Bernard Maigrot for the charge of Manslaughter.

2. Since the decision, this Office has reviewed the entire proceedings in the case. We focused particularly on what occurred during the trial. As with any review exercise, this Office has a duty to determine whether it should appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, it can only do so by seeking permission to proceed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) for an appeal to be heard.

The test and the threshold required to appeal
3. In criminal matters, appeals cannot just be made for the sake of doing so or because one is not pleased with the outcome. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must be satisfied that there are strong grounds in law to challenge the decision of the appellate court.

4. There are strict legal conditions that must be adhered to obtain permission to appeal i.e. there must be questions of great general or public importance. In clearer terms, this means that this Office must demonstrate that the “due and orderly administration of the law is shown to be interrupted or diverted into a new course which might create a precedent for the future, and where there are no other means of preventing these consequences.”

History of the case
5. At the outset, it is important to recall the steps taken by the Prosecution in this case. Ms Vanessa Lagesse (the victim) was killed in March 2001. Mr Maigrot was identified as a suspect and arrested in April 2001. Criminal proceedings were discontinued in June 2008 due to allegations of police brutality and lack of evidence. In June 2011, the police obtained fresh evidence – in the form of DNA. In the light of this development, the prosecution lodged a new charge.

The Trial & Verdict
6. The matter was heard over a span of several weeks in May and June 2024. During the trial, the Prosecution presented its case by exhaustively adducing all the incriminating evidence collected during the police enquiry. Of note, no less than 53 witnesses were called by the Prosecution. The trial judge, insofar as the management of the case is concerned, acted diligently. No stone was left unturned by the Prosecution team. The DPP particularly wishes to acknowledge the tremendous effort and dedication of his team. They worked relentlessly day in day out. More importantly, they handled and presented the DNA evidence in a commendable manner.
7. On 27 June 2024, by a majority verdict, the jury convicted Mr Maigrot (the defendant). He was sentenced to 15 years of penal servitude. He subsequently appealed by advancing 28 grounds.

Appeal and reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision
8. In its decision, the Supreme Court focused its analysis only on some of the grounds of appeal. There was no dispute that the defendant’s DNA was found on two exhibits secured at the place of the victim. However, two key issues prevailed: (i) how, and (ii) when was the DNA material deposited on these two exhibits.

9. For the Prosecution, the defendant’s DNA was deposited on the night of 9th to 10th March 2001. This was the night the victim was killed. This placed the defendant on the scene of the crime. The Defence case was that the DNA was deposited on 6th March 2001 because the defendant had visited the victim then i.e. around three nights before she was killed. In addition to the DNA evidence, other circumstantial evidence was also elicited.

10. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge correctly explained the law, the facts and the issues for determination. However, a few directions to the jury were inadequate or inaccurate. These directions related to important issues. These misdirections or failings had a direct impact on the fairness of the trial.

11. The Court also found that the “extent and cumulative effect of all the failings” relating to the directions had resulted in a serious risk of substantial miscarriage of justice. This meant that the conviction could not be maintained and consequently the verdict could no longer stand.

12. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for misdirections to happen in jury trials. Not all misdirections are fatal though. However, if these relate to crucial issues and its cumulative effects are too serious, this would result in a serious miscarriage of justice.
Decision of DPP and relevant factors to consider

13. After due consideration, the DPP is of the view that the threshold required under the law as explained above is not met. Consequently, it cannot appeal to the JCPC. There was a failure to tailor the directions on crucial issues and salient features. These were essential for the jury to factor in before deciding on their verdict. For the benefit of the jury, “the other evidence” taken together with the DNA evidence should have been identified by the trial judge. This would have allowed the jury to decide whether all the evidence taken together would lead to an irresistible inference of guilt. This was fatal and an appeal to the JCPC is likely to be unsuccessful.

14. In view of the special nature of this case and after having formed an opinion, the DPP also sought independent advice from a reputable Barristers’ Chambers in London. Their independent legal opinion confirmed that an appeal would unlikely succeed.

15. This Office received representations from members of the public urging us to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court. We are not insensitive to these representations. However, this Office has to operate and act in accordance with the law as opposed to sentiments. This has always been the approach of this Office.

16. Last week, the DPP personally met with the family of the victim in presence of their legal counsel. The DPP imparted and explained his decision to them.

The way forward
17. This Office is conscious that this case shares the same fate as a few other high-profile
or murder cases. It is aware of the pain suffered by victims and their loved ones. It is also not deaf to the frustration of fellow citizens who despair in seeing justice being done.

18. It is aware that there is a definite and urgent need, in the public interest, to improve our criminal justice process at each and every level.

19. The present case, like other unresolved cases, cannot be closed. This Office, despite the number of years elapsed, will strongly recommend to the Commissioner of Police to reopen the investigation into the killing of Ms Vanessa Lagesse. It will further recommend that foreign assistance be sought, if needs be, from experienced investigators. It believes that, even with the passage of time, the truth can still emerge and justice can still be done. This Office will provide its full support and assistance to any new investigation.

Additional recommendations
20. In addition, this Office strongly recommends:
(i) that with a view to minimise the risk of potential misdirections by our courts in the future – judges should be allowed to communicate their written legal directions to counsel before directing the jury. This will allow counsel on each side to make submissions and address any potential issues. This practice ensures that both the court and the parties are fully aware of the law being presented to the jury and that the directions are accurate and fair. This is currently the practice in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions; and

(ii) that the prosecution should be involved from the outset of criminal investigations. It can then guide and advise the police in complex cases. This will result in the collection of stronger evidence, increase the prospects of convictions and ensure that due process of the law is strictly followed. This is the modern and recommended practice in numerous jurisdictions. This Office has constantly advocated for this approach in Mauritius.

16 June 2025
Garden Tower
Port Louis

Posted by Minority Voice on Jun 16 2025. Filed under Actualités, Economie, En Direct, Faits Divers, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry