The applicant, a 43-year-old self-employed peasant farmer, was charged with stock theft in contravention of section 114(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The state alleged that in August 2018, at Section 3 grazing lands, Mazunga, Beitbridge, the applicant stole 40 beasts belonging to Gift Mudau. The stolen cattle were found in the applicant's possession, and he had branded some of them with his own brand mark. The applicant's accomplice had already been convicted and sentenced. The applicant appeared before a magistrate at Beitbridge on 5 October 2018, where his bail application was refused. He then appealed to the High Court in terms of section 121(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.
The appeal against the refusal of bail was dismissed.
Where the state case is strong, the offence is serious, and there is likelihood of conviction leading to a lengthy custodial sentence, coupled with the conviction of an accomplice who has implicated the accused, these factors constitute compelling circumstances justifying the refusal of bail despite the constitutional right to bail. The court must balance the liberty of the applicant against the interests of justice and the smooth administration of justice. The conviction and sentencing of an accomplice can be a compelling reason to deny bail where there is a risk that such conviction may induce the accused to abscond.
The court observed that while the general principle is that courts lean in favor of granting bail given the presumption of innocence, this is not absolute. The court noted that the applicant's claim that his brand mark had been taken during the investigation and that someone else might have branded the beasts was not persuasive given that he did not deny the stolen beasts were found in his possession. The court also remarked that the applicant's voluntary surrender to police, while a relevant consideration, was not sufficient to outweigh the other compelling circumstances against granting bail.
This case demonstrates the application of constitutional bail rights in Zimbabwe and the balancing exercise courts must perform between an accused's liberty and the administration of justice. It affirms that despite constitutional protections, compelling circumstances such as the strength of the state case, seriousness of the offence, and risk of abscondment can justify pre-trial detention. The case is illustrative of bail considerations in stock theft cases and provides guidance on when the conviction of an accomplice may constitute a compelling reason to deny bail.