The State v Charno Fernandes

The accused was charged with murder. Before the trial could commence, defence counsel informed the court that she had been unable to take proper instructions from the accused during two consultations (9 April 2021 and 19 May 2021). During these consultations, the accused exhibited erratic behaviour, was fidgeting, moving around, and was incoherent. The accused disclosed that prior to his arrest, he had been taking chlorpromazine (a medication used to treat psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia) and benzisoxazole (medication that regulates mood and behaviour). State witnesses confirmed during interviews that the accused suffers from a mental disorder. A psychiatrist had previously examined the accused and opined that he was not mentally disordered at the time of the commission of the offence and was fit to stand trial (this report was marked as Exhibit 1).

• Whether the accused should be referred for further mental examination in terms of section 28 of the Mental Health Act [Chapter 15:12]
• Whether the court could properly conduct a criminal trial where there are indications that the accused may be suffering from a mental disorder
• Whether the accused was mentally fit to stand trial and understand the proceedings
• Whether the accused had the mental capacity to properly conduct his defence

The court ordered that: (1) The accused is hereby returned to prison pending transfer to Mlondolozi Special Institution for further examination and treatment in terms of section 28 of the Mental Health Act [Chapter 15:23]; and (2) An Electroencephalogram (EEG) examination to be conducted on the accused.

A court cannot conduct a criminal trial for an accused person who might be mentally disordered or is suspected to be suffering from a mental disorder. A court cannot reach a finding of criminal non-responsibility without hearing expert evidence. The court must be guided by specialist medical evidence as to the mental status of the accused. Where the court is unable to conclude on the totality of the factual material whether or not an accused person is mentally disordered or intellectually handicapped, or whether the accused would be able to understand the nature of the proceedings or properly conduct their defence, further specialist examination is necessary to ascertain the accused's mental status, even where a prior psychiatric report exists indicating fitness to stand trial.

The court noted the specific medications the accused had been taking (chlorpromazine for treating psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, and benzisoxazole for regulating mood and behaviour), which appeared to inform the court's view that there were legitimate grounds for concern about the accused's mental state. The court also noted that state witnesses had confirmed during interviews that the accused suffers from a mental disorder, which further supported the need for additional examination notwithstanding the existing psychiatric report.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to protecting the rights of accused persons who may be suffering from mental disorders. It affirms the principle that criminal proceedings cannot proceed where there is a reasonable suspicion that an accused person may not be mentally fit to stand trial, notwithstanding a previous psychiatric report. The case emphasizes the court's duty to ensure that an accused person can properly understand proceedings and conduct their defence, and that courts must be guided by specialist medical evidence in making determinations about mental fitness. The judgment reflects the court's cautious and protective approach to safeguarding the procedural rights of potentially mentally disordered accused persons.