Key Facts
- •Public inquiry into drug trafficking in Mauritius criticized the appellant's conduct as counsel.
- •Appellant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations.
- •Appellant sought judicial review, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
- •Privy Council Appeal granted permission to appeal.
- •Appellant's hearing and sight impairments affected his ability to participate in the inquiry.
- •The Report contained passages critical of the appellant, recommending further investigation.
- •The Supreme Court held that the Report contained comments and observations not amenable to judicial review.
- •The Transcript of the appellant's evidence was not initially disclosed.
Legal Principles
Duty of candour and disclosure in judicial review proceedings.
English and Mauritian law
Amenability of commission of inquiry reports to judicial review.
Mauritian case law (De Robillard v Yeung Sik Yuen, Jadoo-Jaunbocus v Lam Shang Leen)
Rules of natural justice and fairness in investigative jurisdictions.
R (Hoffman) v Commissioner of Inquiry, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court erred in its narrow approach to judicial review; the impugned passages were amenable to review and breached natural justice.
Impugned passages declared in breach of fairness and natural justice.
The Commission failed to provide the appellant with sufficient opportunity to respond to allegations; the Report was unbalanced and contained unsubstantiated claims.
Impugned passages to be disregarded and a link to the judgment inserted in the online version of the Report.
To rectify the breach of natural justice and ensure fairness to the appellant.