Visit UKSCJCPC/2022/0040
•
PUBLIC LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Coomaravel Pyaneandee (Appellant) v Paul Lam Shang Leen and 6 others (Respondents) (Mauritius)
Case summary
Case ID
JCPC/2022/0040
Jurisdiction
Mauritius
Parties
Appellant(s)
Coomaravel Pyaneandee
Respondent(s)
Paul Lam Shang Leen
Samioullah Lauthan
Dr Ravid Kumar Domun
The State of Mauritius
The Hon Attorney General
Koosiram Conhye
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was wrong to hold that the Commission conducted a fair inquiry and did not breach the requirements of natural justice owed to the appellant in the conduct of the inquiry. Whether the Commission Report contained findings against the appellant or only comments and observations.
Facts
In July 2015, the President of Mauritius appointed a Commission of Inquiry composed of the three respondents (the "Commission") to inquire into and report on all aspects of drug trafficking in Mauritius. The appellant, a barrister, was summoned by letter dated 4 August 2017 to appear before the Commission "to give evidence/explanation regarding [his] unsolicited visits to prisoners involved in drugs trafficking and acts and doings amounting to perverting the course of justice". The appellant appeared before the Commission and was deposed. The subsequent Commission Report had a section on the appellant that was critical of him and suggested he was linked with illegal drug activities, for example: "The role of counsel Pyneandee (sic) is very suspect indeed…Was he acting as a spy for other more important drug dealers… The Commission recommends that an in-depth enquiry be instituted to look into the role of counsel which seemed to have tried to pervert the course of justice and trying to shield traffickers". The appellant sought a judicial review of the Commission's Report, arguing that the Commission's comments amounted to findings that could be challenged. He argued that they should be expunged from the Report because their inclusion breached the rules of natural justice and was unreasonable and irrational. The respondent commissioners argued that they were not judicially reviewable findings but only a recital of evidence or observations against which no judicial review lies. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the appellant's judicial review, holding that the Report did not contain findings about the appellant but only comments and observations, which could not be judicially reviewed. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Date of issue
19 May 2022
Judgment details
Judgment date
13 August 2024
Neutral citation
[2024] UKPC 27
Judgment links
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Start date
10 April 2024
End date
10 April 2024
Watch hearings
10 April 2024 - Morning session
10 April 2024 - Afternoon session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here.. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.