The State v Maxwell Tendai Farirai

The accused was charged with three counts of murder. Count 1: On 15 January 2000 at 7 Flamingo Road, Greenside, Mutare, Jack Allan Good was murdered by stabbing him several times in the neck and hands. Count 2: On 6 March 2001 at 15 Starling Road, Greenside, Mutare, Sylvia Jean Van der Walt was murdered by striking her with an iron pipe on the head and neck, causing a broken neck. Count 3: On 30 June 2001 at 136 Leerd Street, Mutare, Patrice Anne Cliffe was murdered by striking her on the head with a blunt object. In all three cases, property was stolen from the victims' homes. The accused's fingerprints were found at all three crime scenes. For Count 3, the accused admitted being present but claimed he only intended to steal, not kill, and that Christopher struck the deceased with a stone after plunging the house into darkness. The accused then proceeded to loot the premises after the deceased was killed.

• Whether the accused's fingerprints found at the crime scenes established his presence and involvement in the murders
• Whether the accused made common purpose with his accomplices to commit murder in Count 3, or whether his intention was limited to theft
• Whether the doctrine of common purpose applied to hold the accused liable for murder where he admitted planning a break-in and theft but claimed not to intend the killing
• Whether the accused's conduct after the killing constituted ratification of the murder

The accused was found guilty of murder with actual intent on all three counts as charged.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The liability of a socius criminis (accomplice) is dependent upon his own act and his own state of mind, as per R v Nemashakwe & Others 1967 (3) SA 520. (2) In robbery cases, where the accused plans to forcefully take property and takes precautions to break resistance, the accused foresees death or serious injury to the victim and anticipates it. (3) An accused who continues with a criminal enterprise after becoming aware that a victim has been killed, and who proceeds to loot the premises, thereby ratifies the killing and demonstrates common purpose to commit murder. (4) Failure to withdraw from a criminal enterprise upon realization that murder has been committed constitutes approval of the murder by conduct. (5) Where participants in a planned break-in and theft anticipate that a victim may resist and be killed in the process, they make common purpose to commit murder with actual intent.

The court observed that in armed robberies, the accused is armed for the specific purpose of breaking any resistance the victim may put up. The court noted that in all such cases the robber foresees death or serious injury to the victim, plans it, anticipates it, and carries through the evil design whether resistance is offered or not. This observation contextualizes the court's reasoning about the state of mind in robbery cases generally, though it was applied specifically to the facts of Count 3 where the accused admitted participation in a planned break-in that resulted in murder.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for its application of the doctrine of common purpose in murder cases. It demonstrates how fingerprint evidence can establish presence at crime scenes and link an accused to multiple murders. The judgment clarifies that an accomplice who continues with a criminal enterprise after a co-perpetrator commits murder cannot claim he lacked the intention to kill, particularly in robbery cases where violence is anticipated. The case reinforces that ratification of a criminal act through subsequent conduct (continuing to loot after a killing) can establish common purpose and liability for murder with actual intent, even where the accused did not personally inflict the fatal blow.