DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTI-BRIBERY LAWS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS REPORT Facilitators: Rasheed Ahmine, Barrister, Deputy DPP Tim Owen, QC, Matrix Chambers The two-day session which was held at the seat of the IJLS commenced on the 24th of May and was concluded on the 26th of May with an informal session on Anti- Bribery Laws in Mauritius. The workshop began with an introductory speech given by the Director of the IJLS, Ms Mokshda Pertaub. Mr. Tim Owen introduce the session by giving an overview of the issue of expert evidence. He mentioned that the risk of miscarriages of justice continues to exist despite advances in scientific research. The misuse of expert scientific evidence has often caused problems for the courts as the vast majority of serious cases before the Crown Court in England and Wales now include presentation of one or more types of forensic evidence. He placed the focus of the first session on the case of Sally Clark and the impact it had on the reforms made to the law of expert evidence and its admittance in court. The case is that of an English Solicitor who in 1999 was found guilty of murdering her two infant sons based on the misuse of expert figures in the court. The case introduced the doubt necessary to avoid such impacts by the admittance of wrongful evidence to prosecute. Cresswell J in the Ikerian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68 AT p.81 “expert evidence presented to the court should be and seen to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content…’. He advised that as lawyers, attention should be paid to the reliability of the loose use of statistics in court, this is an issue that is matter of concern to everyone involved in any form of litigation. Expert evidence should be scrutinized before admittance. He also shed light on the perspective of jurors towards the use of expert evidence. It is necessary to ensure that expert evidence is properly martialled and analysed before presenting to jurors. As lay people, advanced expert evidence such as Peter French’s voice recognition is complicated when not properly explained in lay and comprehensive language to the jurors. R v Slade and others [2015] expressed concerns as to how an expert evidence may be explained appropriately to jurors. Mr. Rasheed Ahmine gave the Mauritian perspective on the admittance of expert evidence. He said, for a person to be able to give an expert evidence, he should be qualified, however the threshold for admittance should be high. He also mentioned that if the case can be determined by the jurors and the judge, there will be no need for expert evidence. There are very limited cases regarding expert evidence in Mauritius, however there is the case of ‘Basha’. A case where the defence challenged the authenticity of the expert evidence. He made two points regarding reports from experts, and case management. It is important to carry out scrutiny on any report sought to be used in effect to any case. He concluded by saying that with regards to Mauritius, there needs to be critical reform to the laws regarding expert evidence and evidence in general. Bribery Bribery is an issue faced by all most countries around the world, it is a manifestation of corruption in a society. The World Bank claims that about 1 trillion dollars is paid in bribes annually around the world. Corrupt practices entrench bad governance and undermine the very nature of democracy and the rule of law. It is a practice that impacts the most vulnerable in the society as Transparency International put it: “the people who are most affected by bribery do not have the option of walking away. They are the ones who must live in a society where corruption is further entrenched by bribery payments from western companies”. There have been reforms made to the Bribery Act 2010. As a matter of fact, the Act is a result of a long process of reform accelerated by the need to comply with international treaty obligations – the 1999 OECD Anti-bribery Convention. The act has included more strict penalties for the offence of receiving bribes. Mr Rasheed Ahmine also gave a brief analyses of the Prevention Against Corruption Act (POCA) 2002. He mentioned that the ICAC was established under the POCA. An agency set up to eliminate the rising of corruption in Mauritius. Mr. Ahmine emphasised on sections 4, 5, 6, 13 and 15 etc of the POCA. The sections set out the offences of Bribery by public officials, bribery of public officials, taking gratification to screen offender from punishment respectively etc. He also made a comparison between the Criminal Code and the POCA where he made an observation that the term gratification is more widely defined the POCA while the Criminal Code makes use of the terms ‘offer and gift’. There has been extensive provision for various offences that could fall under bribery in the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002. The sessions were insightful and thought provoking in which it created awareness as to the sections of the laws regarding bribery are in need of reform. It also reiterated the importance of joint effort in the fight against bribery as it is a matter of political, social and economic concern. .