The accused was charged with contravening section 89 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm). He pleaded guilty, was convicted, and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment with conditions of suspension. The case came on review, and the scrutiny Regional Magistrate raised a query about the trial procedure. The medical report was produced after conviction and immediately before mitigation, rather than before conviction. The trial magistrate had justified this on the basis that the offence was covered by the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act. By the time of review, the accused had already served his sentence.
The conviction for contravening section 89 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm) was quashed and substituted with a conviction for common assault. The sentence was confirmed.
In assault cases, particularly those involving allegations of intent to do grievous bodily harm, a medical report must be produced before conviction, not after. Magistrates cannot form opinions on medical matters without expert medical evidence, as they lack the requisite scientific training and expertise. A conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm cannot stand in the absence of a medical report produced before conviction; in such circumstances, the appropriate conviction is for common assault.
The court made observations encouraging magistrates, particularly those at the provincial level, to be willing to accept guidance from their supervisors and Regional Magistrates. Cheda J noted that this is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of pragmatism, as it is through experience from their seniors that magistrates can permanently learn the art of trials. This comment was made in the context of the trial magistrate's failure to heed the concerns raised by the scrutiny Regional Magistrate.
This case reinforces important procedural requirements in Zimbabwean criminal law regarding the timing and necessity of medical evidence in assault cases. It clarifies that medical reports must be produced before conviction, not merely before sentencing, particularly in cases involving allegations of grievous bodily harm. The judgment emphasizes the limitations of magistrates in forming medical opinions and the necessity of expert medical evidence. It also provides guidance to magistrates on the importance of following proper procedure and being willing to accept guidance from supervisory magistrates.