Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) v Thierry Pierre Joseph Marie Lagesse and 2 others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0030

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent(s)

Thierry Pierre Joseph Marie Lagesse, Ashis Kumar Seeburrun

Dhanishwar Toolsee

Issue

(1) Did the courts below err in their approach to circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove the alleged conspiracy? (2) Did the courts below err in their approach to the testimony of Mr Barbot?

Facts

In 2014, the respondents were charged with conspiracy to do an unlawful act. The appellant’s case against them was that they had conspired to evade payment of excise duty and taxes on the importation of a car from the United Kingdom into Mauritius. In Mauritian law, a “returning citizen” is allowed to import one motor vehicle at a concessionary rate of excise duty. The second respondent (Mr Seeburrun) is a Mauritian citizen who, in 2011, returned to Mauritius following a period of time spent working in London. Whilst in London, Mr Seeburrun had worked as a station assistant for Transport for London. His bank statements demonstrated a modest income in this role. The events giving rise to the charge and trial for conspiracy can be summarised as follows. In February 2011, a luxury car (a Mercedes Benz SLS63 AMG) was purchased in the United Kingdom for a price of £143,500 and shipped into Mauritius at a cost of approximately £43,000. The car was purchased and shipped using funds provided by the first respondent (Mr Lagesse), who is a wealthy businessman in Mauritius. The car was purchased from a dealer in the United Kingdom through the offices of a broker, Mr Toolsee (the third respondent). Mr Lagesse was not eligible for the concessionary rate of import duty. The vehicle was, however, registered in the name of Mr Seeburrun (who, as a returning citizen, was at the time eligible to take advantage of the concessionary rate). Mr Seeburrun made a declaration as a returning resident in order to obtain the tax concession, and the concessionary rate of excise duty was accordingly paid. There was no pre-existing social or financial link between Mr Lagesse and Mr Seeburrun. Shortly after the arrival of the car in Mauritius, Mr Seeburrun obtained a removal permit to move the vehicle from Port Louis to Cap Malheureux, where Mr Lagesse lived. Mr Seeburrun then permitted Mr Lagesse to use the vehicle. Mr Seeburrun also signed a promissory note acknowledging that he owed Mr Lagesse R6.8m (the equivalent of the £143,500 purchase price of the car) and promising to repay it at the end of four years without interest. Mr Lagesse paid, via payments to Mr Toolsee, for the vehicle’s road tax. He also paid for its insurance. Mr Seeburrun remained the registered keeper of the car. It came to the attention of the Mauritian tax authorities that the car was in Mr Lagesse’s possession and was being used by him, despite having been imported in Mr Seeburrun’s name. The tax authorities and the police investigated, and as a result of the investigation the respondents were charged in 2014 with various charges. This appeal is concerned primarily with the charge of conspiracy in breach of section 109(1) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act in relation to an offence contrary to sections 158(1)(a) and 160(1)(b) of the Customs Act, by acting to evade payment of excise duty and taxes on the importation of the car by making use of the concession for returning citizens. The prosecution’s case was that Mr Lagesse was the true owner and importer of the car: Mr Seeburrun was involved solely in order to obtain the returning citizens’ concession and had no true rights over the car. The respondents pleaded not guilty in November 2014. In July 2016, a Magistrate sitting in the Intermediate Court acquitted them of all charges. The DPP appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed a retrial. The respondents then appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council upheld the Supreme Court’s direction that the matter should be retried. The Privy Council considered that the prosecution had presented a seriously arguable case that the reality was that Mr Lagesse had purchased and imported the car for himself, which was the reason he was prepared to provide the money for the purchase price and to bear the cost of importing, insuring and taxing it, and that Mr Seeburrun recognised that as between him and Mr Lagesse it was Mr Lagesse who had the right to exercise ownership. Following the retrial, the Magistrate acquitted all three respondents on all charges against them on 5 September 2023. The Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to prove any unlawful agreement between the respondents. The Magistrate’s ruling was appealed by the DPP. By a decision dated 25 February 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the DPP’s appeal. The DPP now appeals to the Privy Council. The DPP argues that the Magistrate and Supreme Court were wrong in their approach to the circumstantial evidence, and were wrong in their approach to the evidence of Mr Barbot (who had given evidence at the first trial to the effect that Mr Lagesse paid for the insurance of the car).