Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HMT18-20 - IRIMAI GOCHE vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment


Procedural Law-viz criminal appeal.
Road Traffic Violations-viz reckless driving re section 53 of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11].
Sentencing-viz road traffic violations.
Procedural Law-viz appeal re findings of fact made by the trial court.
Procedural Law-viz appeal re the exercise of discretion made by the primary court.
Procedural Law-viz appeal re concession of an appeal by the State iro section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06].
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re findings of fact iro concessions between counsel.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re findings of fact iro agreements between counsel.
Road Traffic Violations-viz dangerous driving re section 52 of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11].
Sentencing-viz sentencing discretion of the sentencing court.
Sentencing-viz penalty provisions of a statute.

Road Traffic Violations re: Approach and Negligence


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Appeal re: Findings of Fact or Exercise of Discretion Made by Trial Court iro Terminated or Complete Proceedings


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Appeal and Leave to Appeal re: Approach, Notice, Grounds and Right of Appeal, Concession & Withdrawal of Appeal by State


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Findings of Fact re: Concessions or Agreements Between Counsel and the Abandonment of Concessions or Agreements


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Sentencing re: Road Traffic Violations


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Sentencing Discretion of Trial Court & Judicial Interference By Appeal or Review Court


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Approach to Sentencing, the Penalty Provision of a Statute and the Pre-Sentence Inquiry


On 11 October 2019, the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment; in addition, he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in terms of section 54(4)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act; further, the appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The State does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], more particularly, on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view, that, the concession by the State, as against conviction, was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Road Traffic Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger; it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of the appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious; and, it is my considered view, that, a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result, the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]; dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000, or, in default of payment, 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

Criminal Appeal

MUZENDA J: On 11 October 2019 the appellant was convicted of contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] for reckless driving and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, in addition he was prohibited from driving commuter omnibuses or heavy vehicles for the rest of his life in term of section 54(4)(a)(b), further appellant's licence was cancelled.

The appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The state does not oppose the appeal in terms of section 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] more particularly on the aspect of conviction.

Having read the arguments presented before us by both counsel, we have the view that the concession by the state as against conviction was properly made and the conviction of the appellant for contravening section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] is set aside and substituted by a conviction for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is for dangerous driving.

As regards sentence, the conviction of reckless driving has been set aside, this court is at large to interfere with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

The Act provides an option of a fine of level 10 or for imprisonment of 1 year or to both.

The manner the appellant drove on the day in question exposed both passengers and human traffic to serious danger, it is fortunate that no one died on the day in question.

The conviction of appellant for dangerous driving is equally serious and it is my considered view that a fine will meet the justice of the case when cumulatively taken with the imminent prohibition.

In the result the following order is returned:

(a) Both appeals against conviction and sentence are upheld.

(b) Accused is found guilty for contravening section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] dangerous driving.

(c) RTGS 6,000 or in default of payment 5 months imprisonment.

(d) Accused is prohibited from driving class 1 and 2 motor vehicles for a period of 2 years.

MWAYERA J agrees _______________



Chibaya & Partners, appellant's legal practitioners

National Prosecuting Authority, State's legal practitioners

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top