In any court matter, there will always be a point where a case needs to be finalised.

Often a court matter only proceeds to a partial hearing, and parties can agree to
resolve their differences. In these circumstances, it is essential to understand
between the dismissal of a proceeding or the stay of the proceedings.
Dismissal of the proceedings means that when there has been a full hearing and
within the hearing or at the end of the hearing when the judge has listened to the
arguments of both parties and then reached a verdict after which the judge will give
his judgment without imposing any punishment to the defendant in the case. It can
also happen that during the case, one of the parties raises a point of law that has not
been respected or procedures that have not been followed. Therefore, the defendant
will not benefit from a fair trial, and the judge will order the dismissal of the case on
that point of law raised.
In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) v Jugnauth and
another (Respondents) (Mauritius) [2019] UKPC 8, where the offence was one of
conflict-of-interest contrary to section 13(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 2002 (POCA), there was an appeal by the DPP on the decision of the Supreme
Court who found that the then appellant was not guilty. Still, on appeal to the JCPC,
it was found that the supreme court did not err in its decision, and therefore, the
appeal against the respondent has now been dismissed without any liability imposed
on him. This means that the case is closed and will not be subject to be re-opened
even if there is new evidence that arises in the future.
While a stay of proceedings means a ruling by the court in civil and criminal
procedure that halts further legal process in a trial or other legal proceeding, the
court can subsequently lift the stay and resume proceedings based on events after
the stay is ordered. However, it is essential to distinguish between a permanent stay
of proceeding and a stay of proceeding.
A permanent stay of proceeding is when there has been a serious miscarriage of
justice, and to try the defendant would be unfair and would not protect the integrity of
the criminal process. This means the accused will not be tried again for the same
offence. However, this is applicable in exceptional cases only. As established in the
case of Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 1990), [1992] 3 All ER169 wherein it
was held that- “Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason
should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a
matter of routine, it would only be a short time before the public understandably
viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust...ln principle therefore, even where
the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should
be the exception rather than the rule.”
In the case of Dahall v State 1993 MR 220 1993 SCJ 425, it was held that on
account of the delay, the case should have stayed, and ultimately the appeal was
allowed, and the conviction was quashed. In this case, the stay of proceedings was
made before the trial began, but the magistrate refused the application. But, on
appeal, it was ruled that the conviction should be quashed and the case should be
stayed, and therefore, the accused was not prosecuted for the same offence again.
However, in the case of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v BEEHARRY S
2006 SCJ 139, learned counsel for the respondent moved that the proceedings be
stayed for abuse of process on account of the complainant’s delay in reporting the
alleged rape to the police. The learned magistrates heard arguments and concluded
it was a fit and proper case to stay proceedings. However, that did not stop the DPP
from contesting the magistrate’s decision at the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and
ultimately, at the supreme court, the DPP obtained the right to appeal against the
magistrate’s decision to stay proceedings. This is because Section 92 of the DIA
reads as follows: “Where a person has been charged with an offence before a
magistrate or before the Intermediate Court, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court against any final decision of the Court.
The same principle was established in the case of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS v CHETTY V. S.2023 SCJ 245, where a ruling was made by the
then Acting Vice-President of the Intermediate Court (Criminal Division) dated 11
February 2022 for having stayed proceedings against the respondent (then accused)
who stood charge under three counts, with the offence of attempt upon chastity upon
a child under the age of 12, in breach of section 249(3) of the Criminal Code.
However, the DPP appealed against the ruling of the learned Magistrate. The appeal
was allowed, and the decision of the Magistrate to stay the proceedings was
quashed, and the respondent had to be tried for the same offence that he was
initially charged for.
The difference is clear that dismissing a case means that the case will not be re-
opened even if there is new evidence that the police have discovered. However, they
have the alternative to continue with the case by appealing against the decision to
the Privy Council. But, if the Privy Council has ruled to dismiss the case, then the
case is closed, and there is no alternative to appeal or re-open the case. However, if
they try to prosecute the accused on the same offence, it will be double jeopardy,
and the case will eventually be struck out.
Moreover, when it comes to the staying of proceedings, we need to distinguish
between a permanent stay of proceedings and the stay of proceedings. In both
cases, the application must be made before the accused is sent for trial and or
before the court has heard the evidence. A permanent stay of proceeding is
exercisable in exceptional cases; this means that the person will not be prosecuted
for the offence he is charged. However, that person can still be tried for a new
offence entirely different from the one that was permanently stayed, but this is only
applicable in exceptional circumstances, for example, where there has been a
serious miscarriage of justice or to protect the integrity of the criminal justice.
But, a normal stay of proceedings means that the case has been stayed because
there is not enough evidence to prosecute the accused for the offence he is initially
charged for. However, this does not prevent the institution of fresh proceedings for
the same offence. This is because the case is still at a preliminary stage and the
prosecution is still carrying out its investigation, and a decision has not been made
on whether to lodge a criminal charge or not. Therefore, if they have found sufficient
evidence to prosecute after carrying out its investigation, then the DPP can apply for
the stay to be lifted because the case has now passed the evidential test to
prosecute.
To sum up, stay of proceedings is an application made before the court has heard
evidence and before the accused is sent for trial but is still liable for being
prosecuted for the same offence and a permanent stay of proceedings is exercisable
in exceptional cases only, where a fair trial is impossible; and that the continued
prosecution offends the courts’ sense of justice and propriety or public confidence in
the criminal justice system would be undermined by the trial. While dismissal of a
case is made at the end of a case after a court has heard evidence from both sides
and will then rule whether the case against the accused should be dismiss if the
accuse is appealing or to dismiss the case against the accuse if the court found that
the accused case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.