Jury Trials Before the Assizes in Mauritius

A trial before the Assizes in Mauritius is a criminal trial in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in which a judge presides and a jury determines guilt. It is reserved for cases placed on that route under the Courts Act and Criminal Procedure Act; not every serious allegation is automatically tried by a jury. The criminal-law guide for Mauritius explains where the Assizes fit within the court system.

Assizes procedure differs sharply from a summary trial before a magistrate. The route to trial, jury selection, the sequence of evidence, the judge’s directions and the statutory majority required for a verdict all need separate preparation.

Which cases are tried at the Assizes

The Supreme Court is the principal court of original criminal jurisdiction, and the Courts Act provides for criminal trials before a judge and a nine-person jury subject to statutory exceptions. In practice, the Assizes hear grave offences selected for that mode of trial. Murder is a familiar example, but it is safer to check the charging instrument and applicable statute than to treat any informal list as exhaustive.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has statutory choices for specified serious matters, including a judge-and-jury trial, a Supreme Court judge-alone trial or an authorised subordinate-court route. Some Fifth Schedule offences may be prosecuted in the Supreme Court without a jury. A drug allegation, for example, must be analysed under its own legislation; see the guide to drug offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Committal and the road to trial

A preliminary enquiry before a District Magistrate is one possible route for a matter outside summary jurisdiction, but it is not an unavoidable step in every Assizes case. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the DPP may decide in specified cases whether a preliminary enquiry should be held and which lawful trial route should follow.

Where a preliminary enquiry occurs, the recorded depositions become part of the material used to prepare for trial. Where the accused is sent directly to a Supreme Court trial without one, the Act provides a disclosure route for prosecution witness statements, proposed documentary evidence and relevant unused material on demand. Counsel should confirm the actual route instead of preparing on assumptions about “committal”; the guide to how long a criminal case can take explains the timing factors without promising a standard timetable.

Selecting the jury

The Courts Act fixes the trial jury at nine people. Jurors are drawn in open court, after which the State and the accused may use the challenges permitted by the Act. Each side has a limited number of challenges without giving a reason and may also challenge a proposed juror for good cause; the judge decides any disputed basis.

Jury selection is not an opportunity to argue the merits of the charge. Its purpose is to empanel a lawfully constituted jury able to try the case impartially. Once sworn, the jurors choose a foreperson, who communicates their verdict in court.

The prosecution and defence cases

The prosecution opens the case and calls evidence intended to prove the formal information. Witnesses give evidence, are cross-examined for the defence and may be re-examined on matters raised in cross-examination. Exhibits and expert opinions must satisfy the applicable rules before the jury can rely on them.

After the prosecution case, the defence may raise any legal submission that properly arises and then present its chosen answer, including admissible defence witnesses or evidence from the accused where appropriate. The presumption of innocence remains throughout. Preparation should focus on the exact alleged acts, the reliability of each witness and whether the evidence proves every necessary element, rather than on the seriousness of the label alone.

The judge's summing up

After the evidence and the parties’ addresses, the judge sums up the whole case to the jury. The summing up explains the relevant law, identifies the questions the jury must decide and places the competing cases in a fair framework. The jury decides facts, but it must apply the legal directions given by the judge.

Counsel listens closely for a missing element, a direction that may misstate the burden of proof or an unfair account of important evidence. Any concern should be raised through the proper procedure while it can still be addressed. The summing up later forms part of the material considered if a verdict is challenged on appeal.

Verdicts and majority rules

The ordinary verdict is guilty or not guilty on the charge left to the jury. The Courts Act permits a majority verdict when at least seven of the nine jurors agree. The foreperson announces the result in open court and it is recorded; no individual juror is required to explain the jury’s private reasoning.

A verdict must correspond to a lawful charge or alternative made available by the judge’s directions. If an irregularity occurs, its significance depends on the record and whether it produced a wrong result or miscarriage of justice. The possibility of review does not allow either side to question jurors informally after trial.

Sentencing after a jury verdict

A not-guilty verdict results in acquittal on that charge. After a guilty verdict, sentencing belongs to the judge, not the jury. The prosecution and defence may address the applicable sentencing law, the facts established by the verdict and any admissible material relevant to aggravation or mitigation.

The accused must have an opportunity to put forward mitigation, and time already spent in custody is considered under the current Criminal Procedure Act. Sentence is a distinct judicial decision and may itself be appealed where the statutory test is met. The guide to criminal appeals in Mauritius explains the current Court of Criminal Appeal route, while the broader article on how long court cases take discusses system-wide timing.

This article is general legal information for Mauritius, not legal advice. For advice on your situation, consult a barrister.