Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HH174-14 - ISHMAEL CHIKUPO vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment


Bail-viz bail pending appeal.
Stock Theft-viz section 114(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
Sentencing-viz stock theft.
Bail-viz bail pending appeal re prospects of success on appeal iro accused who pleaded guilty in the trial court.
Bail-viz bail pending appeal re prospects of success on appeal iro accused who tendered a plea of guilty at trial.
Bail-viz bail pending appeal re sentencing approach iro special circumstances.
Bail-viz bail pending appeal re sentencing approach iro extenuating circumstances.

Bail re: Bail Pending Appeal, Review, Reinstatement of an Appeal and Interlocutory Proceedings iro Approach

This is an application for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence.

The applicant was arraigned before the court sitting at Murewa for contravening section 114(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] - stock theft. He is alleged to have stolen a stray beast.

The applicant was legally represented during the proceedings. He was sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence of nine (9) years after the court a quo ruled that there were no special circumstances. He is now attacking the procedural aspect of the case, more particularly, he is now alleging that it was his defence counsel who tendered a plea of guilty on his behalf and that the court erred in ruling that there were no special circumstances.

I was referred to two important cases of S v Nyandoro 1987 (2) ZLR 66 SC…, and S v Machokoto 1996 (2) ZLR 190 (H).

The counsel for the respondent is not opposing the application.

However, having perused the record as well as the cited cases, I do not agree with the submissions by both counsels as far as the issue of conviction is concerned. There was no misdirection on the part of the court a quo and it is not true that it was the defence counsel who tendered a plea of guilty on behalf of the accused. It was the accused himself who tendered the plea of guilty and the defence counsel confirmed that the plea was in accordance with his instructions. The lawyer proceeded to tell the court that he had explained all the essential elements of the offence to the accused and asked the court to enter a verdict of guilty. There was therefore nothing untoward in that procedure. 


Therefore there are no prospects of success on appeal against conviction.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Extenuating Circumstances, Assessment of Blameworthiness & Effect on Mandatory Sentences

The cases of S v Nyandoro 1987 (2) ZLR 66 SC…, and S v Machokoto 1996 (2) ZLR 190 (H), that I cited above, are distinguishable from the present case.

Be that as it may, on the issue of special circumstances, this normally involves a value judgment by the court seized with the matter. A different court may come out with a different view. The applicant, therefore, may have some prospects of success against sentence only. On that basis, the application for bail pending appeal will be allowed.

The application for bail pending appeal is granted in terms of the draft order.

TAGU J: This is an application for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant was arraigned before the court sitting at Murewa for contravening s 114 (2) (a) of the Criminal law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] - stock theft. He is alleged to have stolen a stray beast.

The applicant was legally represented during the proceedings. He was sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence of 9 years after the court a quo ruled that there were no special circumstances. He is now attacking the procedural aspect of the case, more particularly he is now alleging that it was his defence counsel who tendered a plea of guilty on his behalf and that the court erred in ruling that there were no special circumstances.

I was referred to two important cases of S v Nyandoro 1987 (2) ZLR 66 SC @ 67E-F and S v Machokoto 1996 (2) ZLR 190 (H).

The counsel for the respondent is not opposing the application.

However, having perused the record as well as the cited cases I do not agree with the submissions by both counsels as far as the issue of conviction is concerned. There was no misdirection on the part of the court a quo and it is not true that it was the defence counsel who tendered a plea of guilty on behalf of the accused. It was the accused himself who tendered the plea of guilty and the defence counsel confirmed that the plea was in accordance with his instructions. The lawyer proceeded to tell the court that he had explained all the essential elements of the offence to the accused and asked the court to enter a verdict of guilty. There was therefore nothing untoward in that procedure. Therefore there are no prospects of success on appeal against conviction.

However, the two cases that I cited above are distinguishable from the present case. Be that as it may on the issue of special circumstances this normally involves a value judgment by the court seized with the matter. A different court may come out with a different view.

The applicant therefore may have some prospects of success against sentence only. On that basis the application for bail pending appeal will be allowed.

 

Application for bail pending appeal is granted in terms of the draft order.

 

 

Rubaya & Chatambudza, applicant's legal practitioners

Criminal Division, Prosecutor - General's Office, respondent's legal practitioners 
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top