In this unusual case, a man of cloth was arraigned on nine counts of contravening section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and one count of contravening section 29(1)(B) of the Censorship and Entertainments Control Act [Chapter 10:04].In respect of the latter charge, I am ...
In this unusual case, a man of cloth was arraigned on nine counts of contravening section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and one count of contravening section 29(1)(B) of the Censorship and Entertainments Control Act [Chapter 10:04].
In respect of the latter charge, I am not sure how the prosecutor missed it, as the correct citation is section 26(1)(b) of the Censorship and Entertainments Control Act [Chapter 10:04].
The applicant was convicted on five of the counts of rape as well as the count under the Censorship and Entertainment Control Act....,.
The trial court's assessment of the evidence, on unlawful possession of obscene or indecent material, seems unassailable. The trial court also correctly applied the law.
The provision in question states that -
“(1) No person shall, without lawful excuse, have in his possession any—
(a) Publication, picture, statue, or record that is indecent or obscene or prohibited; or
(b) Recorded video or film material on which is recorded a film that is indecent or obscene or prohibited.
(1a) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level six or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”
Possession of a thing entails physical control of that thing and an intention to exercise control for oneself or another. In this respect see S v Masson 1982 (1) ZLR 216 (SC) and S v Ndiweni 1983 (2) ZLR 49 (H).
