Abstract :
This article analyses the history of the various meanings and interpretations of the
sentence of penal servitude for life in Mauritius, the human rights implications,
and the likely challenges that courts will confront in interpreting new legislation.
The Privy Council held in 2008 that a mandatory sentence of penal servitude
for life was arbitrary and disproportionate because it violated the right to a fair
trial under the constitution. However, the article argues that the Privy Council
should also have found that penal servitude for life, where the offender is to
be detained for the rest of his life, violates the prisoner’s right not to be subjected
to inhuman punishment under the constitution, as well as violating Mauritius’s
international human rights obligations. It recommends that Mauritian courts
consult South African jurisprudence when interpreting what amount to
substantial and compelling circumstances under the 2007 Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act.
