The State v Ahmend Mlanzi

The accused was charged with malicious damage to property under section 140 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. On 3 April 2024 at house number 747 Geneva, Gwanda, the accused damaged the windscreen and wipers of a vehicle by throwing stones at it, causing damage valued at US$150.00. The accused pleaded not guilty. His counsel submitted that the accused lacked intention because he was mentally disordered, and argued the accused could not appreciate the contents of the state outline. The prosecutor tendered a certificate from the Prosecutor-General authorizing prosecution after the accused's recovery, a psychiatrist's report, and a statement of agreed facts. The trial magistrate returned a special verdict of not guilty because of insanity. The matter came before the High Court on automatic review under section 57 of the Magistrate Court Act. Dr. Elena Poskotchinova's psychiatric report stated the accused was a known psychiatric patient with 4 admissions at Ingutsheni Hospital since 2017, diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, who had defaulted treatment and relapsed in 2024.

• Whether the proper procedural requirements under sections 28 and 29 of the Mental Health Act were followed in returning a special verdict of not guilty because of insanity
• The distinction between mental disorder during trial (section 28) versus mental disorder at the time of commission of the offence (section 29)
• Whether a trial was properly conducted with sufficient evidence, including medical evidence, to support a special verdict
• Whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper trial and give reasons for its verdict

The proceedings were found not to be in accordance with real and substantial justice. Mutevedzi J withheld his certificate of review but declined to set aside the proceedings given the clear medical evidence of mental disorder.

1. Section 28 of the Mental Health Act applies when an accused appears mentally disordered or intellectually handicapped during trial - the trial must be stopped and the accused examined by two medical practitioners to determine fitness to stand trial. 2. Section 29 of the Mental Health Act applies when an accused has sufficiently recovered to stand trial but raises mental disorder at the time of commission of the offence as a defence - this requires a proper trial with evidence including medical evidence. 3. A special verdict of not guilty because of insanity under section 29 cannot be returned without conducting a proper trial in accordance with established procedures. 4. Medical reports alone are insufficient to establish the defence of mental disorder - they must be supported by other evidence (following S v Gambanga SC32/98). 5. When counsel alleges an accused cannot understand proceedings due to mental disorder, the court must invoke section 28 procedures rather than proceeding with trial. 6. A trial under section 29 requires adherence to normal trial procedures including plea, reading of state outline, defence outline, presentation of evidence, and reasoned judgment.

The court noted that the reference to "preparatory examinations" in section 28(2) of the Mental Health Act should be understood as obsolete since such procedures were long discontinued in Zimbabwe, and the section should be read as dealing only with accused persons who appear mentally disordered during trial. The court also observed that the verdict should simply state "not guilty because of insanity" rather than "special verdict of not guilty because of insanity" as it is obvious that such a verdict is a special verdict. The court expressed concern about the "worrying lack of understanding of the procedures which must be followed where an accused is alleged to have been mentally challenged or intellectually disordered" demonstrated by the proceedings.

This case provides important clarification on the proper procedures to be followed when mental disorder is raised in criminal proceedings in Zimbabwe. It establishes clear guidance on the distinction between section 28 Mental Health Act (mental disorder during trial making an accused unfit to stand trial) and section 29 (mental disorder at the time of commission of the offence as a defence). The judgment emphasizes that even where the state accepts the defence of insanity, a proper trial must be conducted with evidence beyond mere medical reports. It reinforces that courts cannot conduct trials against accused persons who do not understand the proceedings, and that legal practitioners cannot simply make submissions on behalf of mentally disordered clients without following proper procedures. The case serves as a procedural guide for magistrates dealing with mentally disordered accused persons.