Court Visit Report

Court examine report My first chat up visit was a accomplished totallyurement case infra the hierarchy of plaintiff in error jurisdiction at the medium judicatureroom and my scrap visit was a criminal case under the original of criminal jurisdiction at the district court. Both courts ar found in Port Louis, Mauritius. The difference between the two courts is that the appellant jurisdiction was already heard in a land court whereas the criminal jurisdiction was heard for the first time in the lower court.The atmosphere and the surrounding of the courts were nearly the same as both(prenominal) had magistrate stooge and desk, advocate seat and desk, benches, microphones, speakers, air conditioning system, witness stroke, bright ignition system and smoke detector. The differences between the courts were that in the intermediate court at that place was a computer and in the district court there was an incriminate shock. In the court of appeal, the magistrate in a black g own tail his desk on the podium, was facing the people.There was a court usher in a suit who was passing documents and evidences to the magistrate and a formally dressed person in expect the computer who was recording the proceedings. Both lawyers in black gowns sit on the first bench. Just behind their lawyers, formally dressed, sat both claimant and defendant. Both the court of appeal and the district court function in nearly the same way. The only difference is that in the latter the criminate had no lawyer to represent him and thence he sat with the audience. A quite friendly atmosphere prevailed in both courts.Their ushers gave me the cases histories, details and facts. In the court of appeal, the lawyers were exchanging words with their client and I tear down got the opportunity to call into question the claimant, the defendant and even the lawyers. In the district court I interviewed the impeach who was sitting next to me and was rather stressed. In each court, when t he magistrate came, the people stood up to show respect and remained silent. In the court of appeal Mrs Bibi Fatima Rughoonauth filed a civil suit against the Commissioner of Police for unlawful arrest.In the preceding civil case, she was charge of molesting a police officer on duty as lichien (dog). When the proceeding started, the witnesses all police officers in uniform, were individually called by the court usher so as to maintain confidentiality. Each witness went in the witness box and presented himself. The statement of police was read as evidence for cross examination. During interrogation, the magistrate even had to intervene once as the witness was not responding. During her interrogation of the witness, the defendants lawyer refuted the points raised by the plaintiffs lawyer.After the second witnesss interrogation, the third one came and the plaintiffs lawyer questioned him in such(prenominal) a persuasive and enforcing way that he daft under the strain and revealed the truth. Due to time constraint, no verdict was inclined and the case was postponed. In the district court, Mr Brado Michel Nicolas was prosecuted for breaching the road traffic act (amendment) 2003. The charge had a car accident and went to the police send to give his statement. He gave an alcohol test which came positive. Mr B. M. Nicolas casually dressed, came in the accused box upon the court officers call.He was asked by the magistrate to remove his hands from his pockets as such act caused disrespect to court. The magistrate asked Mr B. M. Nicolas if he pleaded guilty but the latter pass on the magistrate if he could hear his statement given in the police station once again. Then a police officer presented himself in front of the magistrate and read the statement of the witness in the witness box. Then Mr B. M. Nicolas pleaded guilty. The magistrate held the accused to pay a fine of Rs 3,100 (three thousand and one hundred Mauritanian rupees).According to me it was a fair t rial. Changes which I believe would help in maintaining ordination in the court and also its dignity are as follows 1. A normal person, unaware of court functioning, should be briefed as when I was there, receivable to lack of information a witness went in the accused box and had to be guided to the witness box by the court officer. 2. Equipments in such an important and sensitive place as a court should be working properly since during my visit the microphones and speakers were not working and hence the court proceedings could not be heard properly.