This is an appeal against the
decision of the Magistrates Court sitting in Filabusi wherein the appellant's
application for bail pending trial was denied.
On the 16th August
2011 both counsel appeared before me. I dismissed the application and undertook
to give my reasons later. These are they.
The respondent was not opposed to
this application, but, I ordered that both counsel should appear to argue which
they did.
The background and facts of this
matter, as outlined in the summary of the State case, are that the appellant, a
31 year old woman, was employed by Debshan company (complainant) as a Company Secretary.
Between the 10th December 2010 and 30 June 2011, she, on fourteen
occasions stole a total of $14,000= from her employer. She devised a method of
adding $1,000= on each and every requisition made by one Majid Omar, who was
employed as a Workshop Manager. It is through this method that she creamed-off
a total of $14,000-00 from the complainant.
On the 4th August 2011,
she appeared at the Magistrates Court and applied for bail which was denied
hence this application.
The appellant, through her legal
practitioner, has attached the magistrate's decision on the basis that the
magistrate did not consider that she is not a flight risk since she is a
Zimbabwean, a responsible family woman and that there are no chances of her
interfering with State witnesses as she will be based in Harare, a place far
away from where the offence was committed.
It is trite that the courts
arguably favour the liberty of an individual as the principle of the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court prevails in our
judicial system. The determination of that liberty can only be justified where
liberation is most likely to result in the defeat of the smooth running of the
wheels of the proper administration of justice.
In casu, the appellant was
caught with her hands fully immersed in the cookie jar.
This practice had been going on
for seven (7) months without detection. I note with interest that her legal
practitioner, in his wisdom, has not attempted to say anything about her
attitude towards this offence. This, in my view, is a reflection of avoiding
fighting against the obvious. This, however, is not to say, she is guilty, but,
however, goes to demonstrate her full knowledge of how deeply immersed in the
criminal murky waters she is.
The seriousness of the offence
and the prospect of imprisonment in the event of a conviction is, therefore,
enough impetus for the appellant to abscond if given a chance to do so. This
chance cannot present itself more clearly than her admittance to bail.
The respondent has supported this
application on the basis that the magistrate did not give reasons for his
refusal to grant her bail and that she is unlikely to abscond.
In as much as the magistrate
failed to give reasons, which, according to the State, are not good enough or
something of that nature, the obvious reason is that she is unlikely to stand
trial if released on bail.
I therefore hold the view that to
grant her bail under those circumstances is to easily facilitate her flight -
which I am not prepared to do.
These
are the reasons.
