The applicant, a 17-year-old juvenile, was indicted for trial before the High Court on two counts of murder. It is alleged that he shot his father at the back of the head before going upstairs to his parents' bedroom where he shot his mother on the bridge of the nose. Both parents died from gunshot wounds. The applicant applied for bail pending trial before being asked to plead to the charges. He had previously been granted bail in January 2009 and was released into the custody of his elder sister Vimbai, who was the Executrix of the parents' estate. While on bail, the applicant refused psychiatric examination, became moody, exhibited aggressive behavior, demanded US$100 per day, demanded use of family cars despite not having a valid license, and began avoiding his sister in the same manner he had avoided his father before the shooting. Fearing for her life and that of family members and the public, Vimbai renounced her guardianship, leading to the applicant being remanded in custody. The applicant's counsel sought bail to allow for psychiatric evaluation before trial.
The applicant's application for bail was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant be removed from Harare Remand Prison and placed into the custody of North Court Juvenile Remand Home.
Where an applicant for bail has exhibited violent behavior resulting in serious charges, has been found by medical examination to be suicidal and a danger to others, has not undergone meaningful psychiatric evaluation or treatment for the condition that triggered the alleged offenses, and has while on previous bail exhibited behavioral patterns similar to those preceding the alleged offenses and harbored resentment toward those who would supervise him, the court must find in terms of section 117(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act that there is a likelihood the accused will endanger the safety of the public or particular persons if released, making detention in the interests of justice. Further, a juvenile charged with an offense shall not be detained in an adult prison before conviction unless detention is necessary and no suitable remand home is conveniently available, per section 84(1) of the Children's Act.
The court observed that applying for bail before pleading to an indictment is generally ill-advised because any bail granted will lapse when the accused pleads not guilty in terms of section 169 of the CP&E Act, necessitating a fresh bail application. The court noted it was unfortunate that the applicant was kept in remand prison for such a long time when options under section 86(1)(b) and (2) of the Children's Act (government and local authority grants) or assistance from the applicant's family (who brought food daily to remand prison) could have been explored to address food shortages at North Court Juvenile Remand Home and ensure earlier transfer. The court emphasized that the State should constantly review the availability of resources at juvenile facilities. The court also noted the strong and unavoidable right of a deceased's minor children to support from the parent's estate under sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Deceased Persons Family Maintenance Act, including food, accommodation and other necessities of life.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure and juvenile justice law for several reasons: (1) It provides guidance on the application of section 117(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding bail where the accused poses a danger to public safety, particularly in cases involving alleged mental disability; (2) It clarifies the procedural complications of applying for bail before pleading to an indictment, especially in murder cases where a guilty plea cannot be entered; (3) It reinforces the importance of psychiatric evaluation in cases where mental state is at issue; (4) It emphasizes the rights of juveniles under section 84(1) of the Children's Act to be detained in juvenile facilities rather than adult prisons; (5) It addresses the interplay between a deceased parent's estate's duty to support minor children and bail considerations; and (6) It demonstrates the balancing exercise courts must perform between an accused's liberty interests and public safety concerns, particularly where previous bail conditions have been violated or proven ineffective.