State v Grace Bhizimoni

The accused, Grace Bhizimoni, was charged with contravening section 89(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) - assault. On 10 October 2018, she paid an admission of guilt fine of $10 at Chivhu Police Station. However, the admission of guilt form was not transmitted to the Magistrates Court as required by law. Subsequently, on 3 December 2018, the accused appeared at Chivhu Magistrates Court on the same charge, pleaded guilty under section 271(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and was sentenced to a fine of $50 or 20 days imprisonment, which she paid. It was later discovered that she had already paid the admission of guilt fine at the police station for the same offence.

• Whether the proceedings of 3 December 2018 were grossly irregular given that an admission of guilt fine had already been paid for the same offence
• Whether the proper procedure under section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act was followed when the admission of guilt form was not transmitted to the Magistrates Court
• What is the correct legal procedure when an admission of guilt fine has been paid but not properly processed through the court
• Whether this constituted a case of double jeopardy (autrefois convict)

1. The proceedings of 3 December 2018 were quashed and the conviction and sentence set aside. 2. The record of proceedings was remitted to the Chivhu Magistrates Court to act in terms of section 356(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

When an admission of guilt fine is paid to a peace officer under section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, the admission of guilt form must be transmitted forthwith to the Clerk of the Magistrates Court. The court must then exercise its judicial discretion to either convict and sentence the accused (to a fine not exceeding level 3) or refuse to convict. Only the court can convict an accused person - an admission of guilt only becomes a conviction upon endorsement by the court. The court's role is supervisory to ensure the peace officer has acted within their mandate and the accused's rights have been protected. Failure to transmit the admission of guilt form to the court and subsequently trying the accused as if it were a fresh matter constitutes a gross irregularity that renders the subsequent proceedings invalid and liable to be set aside on review.

The Court observed that the Magistrate was mistaken in viewing this matter as falling within the realm of the autrefois convict plea (double jeopardy principle now enshrined in section 70(1)(m) of the 2013 Constitution - nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa). The Court noted this plea was not applicable in this case because the proper procedure under section 356 had not been followed - there had been no valid first conviction since the admission of guilt had not been endorsed by the court. The Court also noted that under section 356(6), if the fine imposed by the court is less than the admission of guilt fine paid, the accused is entitled to a refund of the difference; and under section 356(7), if more, the balance shall be recovered from the accused. The Court emphasized that the court is not expected to merely rubber-stamp the fine but must exercise its mind on the appropriateness or otherwise of the admission of guilt.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure as it clarifies the proper procedure for admission of guilt fines paid to peace officers under section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. It emphasizes that: (1) admission of guilt forms must be transmitted forthwith to the Magistrates Court; (2) only the court can convict an accused person, not the peace officer; (3) the court has a supervisory role to ensure the peace officer has not exceeded their mandate and that the accused's rights have not been violated; (4) the court must actively consider whether to convict based on the admission or refuse to convict, rather than merely rubber-stamping the fine; and (5) failure to follow this procedure results in gross irregularity. The case protects accused persons from being improperly subjected to court proceedings when they have already paid an admission of guilt fine.