37095147

Court docket visit survey My 1st court go to was a municipal appeal case under the pecking order of appellant jurisdiction at the Intermediate court docket and my personal second check out was a felony case underneath the original of criminal jurisdiction at the district court. Both courts are normally found in Dock Louis, Mauritius. The difference between your two courts is that the appellant jurisdiction had been heard within a lower the courtroom whereas the criminal legal system was heard for the first time in the lower courtroom.

The atmosphere and the surrounding in the courts were nearly exactly like both had magistrate chair and office, advocate chair and desk, benches, microphones, speakers, air-con system, witness box, dazzling lighting system and smoke detector. Right after between the process of law were that in the intermediate court there were a computer and in the area court there were an offender box. Inside the court of appeal, the magistrate, within a black gown behind his desk on the podium, was facing the people.

There was a court usher in a suit who was completing documents and evidences for the magistrate and a formally dressed person in front the pc who was saving the process. Both attorneys in dark-colored gowns sitting on the 1st bench. Just behind all their lawyers, technically dressed, seated both claimer and accused. Both the court docket of charm and the district court function in nearly the same way. The sole difference is the fact in the last mentioned the falsely accused had zero lawyer to represent him thus he sat with the market. A quite friendly ambiance prevailed in both tennis courts.

Their ushers gave me the cases’ chronicles, details and facts. In the court of appeal, the lawyers had been exchanging words with their consumer and I even got the chance to interview the claimant, the defendant and in many cases the legal representatives. In the region court My spouse and i interviewed the accused who was sitting next to me and was alternatively stressed. In each court, when the justice of the peace came, the people stood about show respect and remained silent. In the court of appeal Mrs Bibi Fatima Rughoonauth recorded a detrimental suit against the Commissioner of Police pertaining to unlawful arrest.

In the preceding civil circumstance, she was accused of molesting a police officer available as “lichien (dog). When the proceeding started, the witnesses, all cops in standard, were individually called by the court usher so as to preserve confidentiality. Every witness gone in the witness box and presented him self. The declaration of law enforcement was read as facts for mix examination. During interrogation, the magistrate actually had to intervene once because the see was not reacting. During her interrogation with the witness, the defendant’s lawyer refuted the points elevated by the litigant’s lawyer.

After the second witness’s interrogation, the third one came up and the litigant’s lawyer asked him in that persuasive and enforcing way that he cracked under the strain and revealed the fact. Due to period constraint, no verdict was given and the case was postponed. In the area court, Mister Brado Michel Nicolas was prosecuted to get breaching the road traffic action (amendment) the year 2003. The falsely accused had a car crash and attended the police stop to give his statement. This individual gave a great alcohol test which emerged positive. Mister B. M. Nicolas, gently dressed, arrived the accused box upon the court docket officer’s phone.

He was asked by the magistrate to remove his hands from his storage compartments as such work caused disrespect to the courtroom. The magistrate asked Mister B. Meters. Nicolas in the event he pleaded guilty however the latter expected the justice of the peace if he could hear his declaration given in law enforcement station again. Then a officer presented him self in front of the magistrate and browse the statement with the witness in the witness package. Then Mister B. M. Nicolas pleaded guilty. The magistrate held the accused to spend a fine of Rs a few, 100 (three thousand and one hundred Mauritian rupees).

In respect to me it was a fair trial. Changes that we believe might help in maintaining order in the court and in addition its dignity are the following: 1 . A regular person, unacquainted with court working, should be briefed as once i was there, due to not enough information a witness proceeded to go in the charged box and had to be well guided to the observe box by court official. 2 . Tools in this kind of important and sensitive place as a court should be functioning properly as during my visit the microphones and speakers were not working and therefore the the courtroom proceedings wasn’t able to be heard properly.

Tweet