Coomaravel Pyaneandee (Appellant) v Paul Lam Shang Leen and 6 others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Judgment given

Case summary
Judgment details
Appeal
Watch hearings

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.