The State v Ndumiso Mhlanga

On 14 November 2023, the accused, aged approximately 23 years, was nearing completion of his internship as a traditional healer. The deceased woman had enrolled him for training and was offering him instruction. On that day, the accused stabbed the deceased, his teacher, causing her death. No one witnessed the stabbing. The deceased was discovered dead after the accused left the home. Upon investigation, the accused was arrested and voluntarily made a warned and cautioned statement admitting to stabbing the deceased and causing her death, providing an explanation of how and why he did it. The accused had purchased a knife with the intention of killing the deceased and kept it hidden in the homestead awaiting an opportunity. When he found himself alone with the deceased, he executed the murder and fled.

• Whether the accused's conduct was involuntary, constituting the defence of automatism
• Whether the accused had laid a proper foundation for the defence of automatism
• Whether the murder was committed with actual intention
• Whether aggravating circumstances existed under section 47 of the Criminal Law Code
• What sentence was appropriate given the accused's youth and the gravity of the offence

The accused was found guilty of murder with actual intention and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

An accused raising the defence of automatism must lay a proper foundation for the defence beyond mere assertion. Where an accused has given detailed voluntary statements explaining their conduct and demonstrating planning and intent, automatism cannot be successfully raised without credible supporting evidence. Conduct involving pre-meditation, planning (such as purchasing a weapon), and purposeful execution demonstrates voluntary conduct inconsistent with automatism. Murder with actual intention committed with a weapon constitutes an aggravated offence under section 47 of the Criminal Law Code. While youthfulness (early twenties) is a relevant mitigating factor in sentencing for murder, it must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence, warranting a lengthy but not life imprisonment sentence.

The court observed that the accused's failure to mention automatism in his initial warned and cautioned statement was particularly significant, stating "It is hoped that the accused should have maintained his story when he was firstly invited to give by the police." The court noted that the accused "murdered the deceased for reasons he chose not to disclose," suggesting there may have been undisclosed motives. The court commented on the impropriety of a younger person assaulting an elder as showing "rowdy conduct" and lack of respect. The court observed during trial that the accused "depicted demeanor which displays youthfulness at play given his playful oblivious stance during the serious trial," indicating immaturity. The judgment reflects judicial concern about violent crimes at social gatherings and the need to send clear deterrent messages.

This case illustrates the strict requirements for successfully raising the defence of automatism in Zimbabwean criminal law. It demonstrates that mere assertion of automatism is insufficient; an accused must lay a proper foundation supported by evidence, particularly when prior statements contradict the defence. The case also contributes to jurisprudence on sentencing for murder committed by young adults, balancing the need for deterrence with recognition of immaturity and potential for rehabilitation. The judgment emphasizes that youthfulness, while mitigating, does not excuse serious violent crimes and that pre-meditated murder warrants lengthy custodial sentences.