Lanken Peter v The State

The applicant was charged with murder under section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On the night of 25 December 2020, the applicant allegedly came home drunk and became violent, causing his wife to flee into a maize field, leaving their deceased child alone with the applicant. The post-mortem report revealed the deceased suffered a right tempore-parietal subdural haematoma, right tempore-parietal bone fracture, and severe head trauma (an open fracture on the right side of the head). It was alleged that the applicant killed his son with an unknown blunt object and then burned him with a candle. The applicant allegedly attempted to destroy evidence by washing the deceased's clothes to clean them of blood and dumping them, and by cleaning the scene. According to the deceased's mother (applicant's wife), a dispute had arisen between her and the applicant regarding the paternity of the deceased, whom the applicant accused her of having conceived with a boyfriend. Despite the applicant's attempts to destroy evidence, blood spots were found on the applicant's shirt, and the deceased's washed clothes were found still wet and hidden.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial for murder
• Whether the applicant's attempts to destroy evidence disqualified him as a proper candidate for bail
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk

The bail application was dismissed.

An accused person who has attempted to destroy evidence linking them to a serious crime such as murder is disqualified as a proper candidate for bail. The failure to properly destroy evidence creates a risk that the accused may resort to absconding, making them a flight risk. Blood evidence found on an accused's clothing that connects them to the deceased, where no other person sustained bleeding wounds, is sufficient to identify the accused as the assailant and supports the conclusion that they pose a risk of absconding if released on bail.

The court observed that the applicant's status as a migrant farm labourer of no fixed abode was raised by the State in opposition to bail. The court also noted the applicant's initial protestations that there was no shirt of his soiled with blood, which was contradicted by the investigating officer's testimony. The court commented on the particular manner in which the applicant attempted to destroy evidence, including cleaning the scene of blood, burning the deceased's body, and washing and hiding the deceased's clothes.

This case demonstrates the application of bail principles in Zimbabwean law, particularly regarding how attempts to destroy evidence and flight risk are assessed in serious criminal cases such as murder. It illustrates that conduct indicating an attempt to evade justice, such as destroying evidence, is a significant factor weighing against the granting of bail. The case also shows the court's willingness to call witnesses (the investigating officer) during bail proceedings to test disputed factual allegations.