Rudolf Derek Jean Jacques (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius (Respondent) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0045

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

RUDOLF DEREK JEAN JACQUES

Respondent(s)

The State of Mauritius

Issue

What is required to commit the criminal offence of “wilfully and unlawfully organise the importation of dangerous drugs into Mauritius”, contrary to section 30(1)(a)(b)(ii) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 (“the DDA”)?

Facts

These two linked appeals related to conduct occurring between October 2011 and June 2012. The appellants are alleged to have organised the importation of dangerous drugs into Mauritius. The prosecution’s case relied on evidence from an accomplice who had been granted immunity from prosecution. This accomplice gave evidence that Mr Jacques had approached him and asked if he would bring a parcel from Madagascar to Mauritius in return for money. Later on, the accomplice met with the appellants at a meeting and agreed to bring drugs from Madagascar for them. At a meeting with Mr Casimir, Mr Casimir instructed the accomplice that there would be 12 bottles to be collected from a man on a beach in Madagascar. The accomplice met with the man in Madagascar, collected the bottles and, once instructed by Mr Jacques, released the bottles from the ship the accomplice was working on as it entered Mauritian waters to be collected by the appellants. Two subsequent transactions occurred between the parties in April 2012 and in June 2012 in a similar fashion. In the original criminal trial, the presiding judge passed away before delivering judgment causing the need for a second trial. After difficulties with the prosecution’s main witnesses, the prosecution discontinued the second trial before recommencing a third whilst adding a new charge against the appellants of committing the offence of organising the importation of dangerous drugs into Mauritius contrary to section 30(1)(a)(b) of the DDA (the “Organising Offence”). The trial judge found each appellant guilty of the Organising Offence and other DDA offences and charged Mr Casimir with a fine of Rs 300,000 and 30 years of penal servitude, and Mr Jacques with a fine of Rs 500,000 and 32 years of penal years of penal servitude. In coming to that conclusion, the trial judge held that the Organising Offence: (i) was of a continuing nature; (ii) could be satisfied without evidence concerning the nature, weight or value of the drugs involved; (iii) did not require proof of the drugs having actually been imported into Mauritius. The appellants appealed their convictions to the Criminal Court of Appeal on numerous grounds, including challenging the trial judge’s interpretation of what the Organising Offence required. The Criminal Court of Appeal held that the actual importation of dangerous drugs was not necessary to satisfy the Organising Offence. Whilst upholding the appellants’ convictions, they reduced each by 2 years on account of the lapse of time since the original offence.

Date of issue

5 June 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Linked cases

Back to top