BHUNU J: The accused a known psychiatric patient struck and
killed her now deceased grandson on 18 December 2010. Her brother in law one
Claudious Manomano who has known the accused for more than 30 years confirmed
without any contradiction that she is a known psychiatric patient.
There are no factual disputes in this case. It is
common cause that the accused became mentally ill sometime in 2002. She was
treated for her mental condition at Parirenyatwa Psychiatric Hospital.
She was subsequently placed on medication and released on
instructions to take the medication for life. She however defaulted in taking
the medicine under the mistaken belief that she had recovered from her illness.
As a result of the default she relapsed and killed her grandson while mentally
disordered.
Her defective mental status was confirmed and graphically
presented by Dr. C Njanjike as follows:
“A known mental patient who defaulted her treatment and had
a psychotic episode. She is now diagnosed as a temporal lobe epileptic patient
following an abnormal EEG report. She is no stable and no psychopathology at
present. Now stable on carbamazepine 200mg...”
She now stands charged with murder as defined in s 47 of
the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap. 9:23] There can
be no doubt whatsoever that the accused struck and killed the deceased while
suffering under a disease of the mind.
Section 29 (2) of the mental health Act regulates the
criminal liability of persons who commit a crime while labouring under a
disease of the mind. It provides that:
“If a judge or magistrate presiding over a criminal trial
is satisfied from evidence, including medical evidence, given at the trial that
the accused person did the act constituting the offence charged or any other
offence of which he may be convicted on the charge, but that when he did the
act he was mentally disordered or intellectually handicapped so as not to be
responsible for the act, the judge or magistrate shall return a special verdict
to the effect that the accused person is not guilty because of insanity.”
Having regard to the undisputed evidence before this Court,
I can only find it as a fact proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
was suffering from a disease of the mind so as not to be responsible at law for
her conduct at the time she struck and killed the deceased.
In the circumstances the Court has no option but to return
a special verdict. The accused is accordingly found not guilty because of
insanity.
The Attorney General's Office, the State's legal
practitioners.
Chimbune & Associates, The
Defence's legal practitioners.
