PC (Mauritius) The defendant challenged his conviction for having taken a bribe saying there had been an injustice, and seeking protection directly under the constitution. The evidence against him was that a transaction had been carried out at a bank on a certain day. Only after the trial was it realised that that day was a Saturday, and that it could not have happened. He had not been allowed to raise this point on appeal.
Held: The court had been correct to take judicial note of a bank not being open on a Saturday afteroon. Whilst the court might be more ready to apply a broader test for admission of new evidence on an appeal, not all such evidence should be admitted. The powers of the appellate court in Mauritius were not limited to the provision of a re-hearing, but could include other actions as provided by the constitution. The petition was dismissed.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Sir Andrew Leggatt
 UKPC 51
Cited – Regina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
Cited – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
Cited – Regina v Beresford CACD 1971
When asked whether the appellate courts in England and Wales should entertain additional evidence under the section, which required the court to be satisfied that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it: ‘The court has in . .
Cited – Darmalingum v The State PC 10-Jul-2000
(Mauritius) The constitutional right of a defendant to have his case tried within a reasonable time applied not just to the initial trial but also to any appeal arising from that trial. Where there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay between . .
Cited – Church v H M Advocate HCJ 1995
The court should in general take a broad, rather than a narrow, approach to the admission of new evidence on appeal. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 January 2021; Ref: scu.218715