Martin Moyo v The State

The applicant faced a charge of murder, it being alleged that on 19 November 2017, together with his co-accused, he assaulted the deceased resulting in the deceased's death from injuries sustained in the assault. The applicant was employed as a herdboy at Karlson Farm Insiza. He applied for bail pending trial, averring that he was of fixed abode, did not hold any travel documents, and was employed. The state opposed the application on the basis that it had a strong prima facie case against the applicant as he was involved in the assault of the deceased.

• Whether the applicant was a suitable candidate for bail pending trial on a murder charge
• Whether the absence of disclosure of a defence by an applicant for bail is a relevant consideration in determining bail
• Whether the seriousness of the charge and strength of the state's prima facie case justify refusal of bail in the absence of a disclosed defence

The bail application was dismissed.

Where an applicant for bail faces a serious charge (such as murder) with heavy penalties and the state has a prima facie strong case, and the applicant fails to disclose or hint at a defence beyond a bare assertion of innocence, the applicant cannot be held to be a suitable candidate for bail. The disclosure of a defence is desirable and often of decisive importance in the exercise of the court's discretion on bail applications, as it goes to both the strength of the state's case and the assessment of the risk of abscondment.

The court observed that where an applicant has a defence to proffer, the risk of abscondment is reduced significantly because the applicant will be encouraged to stand trial as he will be looking forward to being absolved. The court also noted that while the seriousness of charges cannot be the only ground for denying bail, its relevance to the risk of abscondment remains a relevant factor to consider.

This case reinforces the established principle in Zimbabwean criminal procedure that an applicant for bail facing serious charges with a strong prima facie case against them should disclose their defence to the charges. The case demonstrates that mere assertions of innocence without disclosure of a defence, particularly in serious cases like murder, will be insufficient to satisfy the court that the applicant is a suitable candidate for bail. It emphasizes the importance of defence disclosure in assessing both the strength of the state's case and the risk of abscondment.