The State v Nelson Mwandisangudza

The accused, aged 23, was charged with murdering his mother, Spiwe Mwandisangudza (aged 54), on 7 February 2017 at house number 1918 Island Emganwini, Bulawayo. At about 0600 hours, the accused and deceased had a misunderstanding after he threw his mother's clothes out of the house. During the argument, the deceased remarked that the accused had relapsed and needed to be taken to Ingutsheni Mental Hospital. The accused threatened to kill her. During the course of the day, the accused attacked the deceased with a blunt object on the head, killing her instantly. He wrapped her body in a blanket, placed it under the bed, and fled. He was arrested two days later on 9 February 2017. A post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death as extensive subarachnoid haemorrhage and blunt force head trauma due to assault.

• Whether the accused committed the act constituting the offence of murder
• Whether the accused was mentally disordered at the time of committing the offence such that he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions
• Whether a special verdict should be returned under section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act

1. The accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity. 2. The accused shall be returned to prison for transfer to a special mental institution for treatment.

Where the court is satisfied from psychiatric evidence that an accused person committed the act constituting the offence charged but was mentally disordered at the time (specifically suffering from schizophrenia) such that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, the court must return a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act (Chapter 15:12) read with section 248 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The accused must then be committed to a special mental institution for treatment.

The court accepted without extensive discussion the psychiatrist's conclusion that there was "a reasonable possibility" that the accused suffered from schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The relatively low threshold of "reasonable possibility" rather than proof on a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt was sufficient for the court to return the special verdict. The court also noted but did not elaborate on the significance of the deceased's own observation before her death that the accused had "relapsed," suggesting a known history of mental illness.

This case demonstrates the application of the insanity defence in Zimbabwean criminal law under the Mental Health Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. It illustrates the procedural requirements for returning a special verdict when psychiatric evidence establishes that an accused person was suffering from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) at the time of committing a serious offence and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The case reinforces the principle that criminal responsibility requires both the commission of the actus reus and the requisite mens rea, and that mental disorder negating the latter results in a special verdict rather than a conviction.