Twenty-three years after the murder of stylist Vanessa Lagesse, businessman Bernard Maigrot was found guilty by a majority of seven to two jurors at the Assizes. A verdict that highlights the impacts of medico-legal advances and the challenges of long legal procedures.
On Thursday June 27, 2024, after more than six hours of deliberations, the nine jurors in the trial brought against businessman Bernard Maigrot declared him guilty, by a majority of seven to two. The verdict comes more than 23 years after the murder of stylist Vanessa Lagesse, then aged 35, on the night of March 9 to 10, 2001.
Bernard Maigrot, aged 62, was handcuffed by the police and taken to the Beau-Bassin central prison. He will appear again at the Assizes on 16 July 2024 for the plea on the sentence that will be imposed on him. Lawyers are examining the case and the implications of this delay in relation to the sentence to be handed down.
Me Neil Pillay: “A first in the annals”
According to Mr. Neil Pillay, this verdict is a first in Mauritian judicial annals, occurring 23 years after the events. “It's huge, although there is no statute of limitations in criminal cases. » This case is notable because it has been taken up more than once. “It is very rare for the justice system to interrupt a criminal case and then restart it. I think the judge will have to take into account the 23 year period before passing sentence. “The sentence, adds Mr. Neil Pillay, must be in accordance with the law in force at the time of the crime, that is to say that of 2001. “If the law has been modified to become less severe, it is the most lenient sentence that is applied,” he specifies.
Me Shazaad Mungroo: “An extraordinary case”
For Me Shazaad Mungroo, this case is far from ordinary. “This is an extraordinary case. While it is true that some cases before the Assize Court take time to conclude, this one nevertheless took 23 years. To my knowledge, I don't know of any other case that has been interrupted and then restarted so many times,” he says. New scientific evidence obtained well after the initial investigation necessitated the reopening of the police investigation. “The fact that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has dismissed the case (nolle prosequi) does not prevent it from relaunching the prosecution with a new trial,” continues Me Shazaad Mungroo.
“The accused has lived all this time with a sword of Damocles hanging over his head. I am convinced that the period of 23 years between the date of the crime and the conviction will be taken into consideration when passing sentence,” anticipates Me Shazaad Mungroo.
Me Lovena Sowkhee: “The voice of the people has spoken”
Me Lovena Sowkhee emphasizes that no legal provision prohibits trying a person 23 years after the facts, because criminal cases in Mauritius are not time-barred. Bernard Maigrot has the right to appeal, she specifies. “In a jury trial, the jurors are the voice of the people, and the voice has been spoken,” she says. The lawyer also insists on the fact that technological and medico-legal progress makes it possible to confront the accused with their past, while emphasizing that the significant period of time that has elapsed could influence the sentence handed down, in accordance with the judgment of the Privy Council in the Prakash Boolell affair.
Me Yuvir Bandhu: “The delay will have an impact on the sentence”
Advocate Yuvir Bandhu also believes that this is a “unique case”. He believes that the long delay will have an impact on the sentencing. He points to established case law which considers that inordinate delay in the trial of a criminal case is a violation of Article 10(1) of the Constitution. “The court will consider the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, as well as that of the administrative and judicial authorities, before deciding,” he says.
According to Article 215 of the Penal Code, for the offence of manslaughter of which Bernard Maigrot was found guilty, Article 223(3) currently provides for a maximum sentence of 45 years of penal servitude. However, he specifies, it must be taken into account that the offence was committed in 2001, when the applicable sentence was approximately 25 years in prison. The lawyer nevertheless anticipates a probable appeal in this case.
