On 27 April 2003, the accused and the complainant, who were friends, were drinking beer together at a Bottle Store. They quarreled over beer and during the altercation that followed, the accused struck the complainant with a beer bottle. The complainant sustained cuts and other injuries. When restrained by police officers, the accused remained belligerent, confrontational and extremely provocative towards them. The accused was charged with: (1) assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (common law offence), and (2) contravening section 116(j) of the Liquor Act [Chapter 14:12] (statutory offence).
The sentence imposed by the magistrate a quo was set aside. The High Court imposed the following sentences: Count 1 (assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm): $5,000 or in default of payment 10 days imprisonment. Count 2 (contravening section 116(j) of the Liquor Act): 10 months imprisonment of which 2 months imprisonment is suspended for five years on condition the accused does not during that period commit an offence involving violence on the person of another for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
Where an accused is convicted of two offences that are entirely different in nature (one common law and one statutory), it is preferable to sentence the accused separately for each offence rather than impose a globular sentence. A globular sentence for two or more offences should only be considered where the offences are of the same or similar nature and are closely linked in time. Where a court elects to proceed under section 271(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in respect of a statutory offence, it limits its sentencing options and cannot impose imprisonment for that offence. It is improper to take offences as one for sentencing purposes where there is a prescribed range of sentence for one offence but not for the other, and where the adopted procedure precludes such treatment.
The court observed that faced with a case in which an accused stands convicted of two offences, one statutory and the other common law, the trial magistrate's task is first to decide whether to sentence him to particular punishments in respect of each offence or to impose a globular sentence. The court noted that had the trial court taken the accepted route of separate sentences, it could have remembered that the first count was a grave common law crime for which it could impose any sentence it deemed appropriate, and it would then have been obvious that it could not impose a custodial sentence for the statutory contravention in view of the stipulated statutory fines and the procedural limitations of section 271(2)(a).
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure and sentencing law as it clarifies the proper approach to sentencing where an accused is convicted of multiple offences of different nature. It establishes important principles regarding: (1) the preference for separate sentences where offences are entirely different in nature, (2) the limited circumstances in which globular sentences are appropriate, (3) the constraints imposed by procedural choices (such as proceeding under section 271(2)(a)) on sentencing options, and (4) the impropriety of imposing custodial sentences for statutory offences with prescribed fines when the summary procedure under section 271(2)(a) has been adopted. The case reinforces the importance of matching sentencing approach to the nature of offences and the procedural framework adopted.