Morris Duwa v The State

The applicant, Morris Duwa, was charged with rape of a 15-year-old girl near Magwegwe Secondary School in Bulawayo on 14 March 2010. At the time of this alleged offence, the applicant was already on bail for a similar offence (another rape charge). He applied for bail pending trial in the High Court.

• Whether bail should be granted to an accused person who allegedly committed a similar offence while on bail for a previous similar offence
• What factors should a court consider when determining whether it is in the interests of justice to grant bail
• Whether committing a similar offence while on bail demonstrates contempt of court and breach of bail undertakings

The bail application was dismissed.

A person who allegedly commits a similar offence while on bail for a previous similar offence is not a suitable candidate for bail, as such conduct demonstrates brazen contempt of court and constitutes a breach of the inherent undertakings accompanying bail (not to abscond, not to interfere with witnesses, and not to commit similar offences). When an accused person betrays the judicial trust by allegedly committing a similar offence while on bail, the court is justified in refusing further bail as it would not be in the best interests of justice or society, notwithstanding the general principle favoring bail and the presumption of innocence.

The court observed that while an accused person facing allegations is still presumed innocent and will ultimately have his day in court (which is his constitutional right), the court should not ignore the fact that by allegedly committing a similar offence while on bail, the accused 'would have been sailing too close to the wind which he should not have been doing under those circumstances.' This colorful expression emphasizes that accused persons on bail have a duty to conduct themselves appropriately and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, particularly regarding similar offences.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure law as it establishes clear judicial reasoning for refusing bail to accused persons who allegedly commit similar offences while already on bail. It demonstrates the court's approach to balancing the presumption of innocence with the protection of society and the integrity of the bail system. The judgment reinforces that bail is a privilege that can be forfeited when an accused person demonstrates contempt for previous bail conditions and undertakings.