Tyack v. The State, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, March 29, 2006, [2006] UKPC 18

Reporting Judge: [2006] UKPC 18

President: Tyack v. The State

Linked as:

Extract

Tyack v. The State, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, March 29, 2006, [2006] UKPC 18

[2006] UKPC 18

Tyack v. The State (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 18 (29 March 2006)

Privy Council Appeal No 60 of 2005

Louis Joseph Marie Gerard Tyack Appellant

The State Respondent

FROM

THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Delivered the 29th March 2006

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Lord Mance

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Majority judgment delivered by Lord Carswell]

Air Mauritius plays an important part in the economic life of the state of Mauritius. It is a large public limited company, in which members of the public have shareholdings. Its success has been linked with the development of tourism in Mauritius, which is of considerable importance to the island. When it became known that very substantial defalcations had taken place within the company, and it was alleged that very senior members of the management were involved, it gave rise to a large scandal and the public concern was equally great.

The appellant was at the centre of the misfeasance, as general manager in charge of finance and company secretary, playing a part which their Lordships will describe later in more detail. When rumours of irregularities were spreading and an internal inquiry had been commissioned, he admitted his part, provided detailed information to the police and expressed willingness to give evidence against the other participants. He was charged on two counts of conspiracy to defraud, which carried a maximum penalty of five years' penal servitude. The subject matter of the charges represented only a small fraction of the sums wrongly received by the appellant on his own admission, and an even smaller fraction of the company's overall loss. He pleaded guilty at the Intermediate Court and the Presiding Magistrate sentenced him to three years' penal servitude on each count, which are to run concurrently. ...

See the full content of this document