The State versus Brenton Dengwani Guri

On 31 October 2019 at Chawa Village, Chief Makoni, Maparura, Mayo, the accused (then aged 17) was cohabiting with Jane Chimedza, the mother of their 2-month-old baby, Panashe Dengwani (the deceased). The accused was experiencing domestic difficulties and frustrations due to unemployment and poverty. On 29 October 2019, the accused obtained 200ml of diazon pesticide and a syringe from his grandfather, Jairos Guri, under the pretext of using it in his garden to kill termites. He hid the pesticide in a cattle pen. On 31 October 2019, when the baby's mother went to fetch water and the child was alone, the accused retrieved the pesticide and syringe and administered the poison into the 2-month-old baby's mouth. The deceased died immediately. The accused then hid the syringe in a fowl run. The body was taken to Rusape General Hospital where Dr Karembo conducted a post-mortem and determined the cause of death as poisoning. The accused later cooperated with police and led them to recover the almost empty pesticide container and syringe.

• Whether the accused had the requisite intention (actual or legal) to cause the death of the deceased when he administered diazon pesticide into the baby's mouth
• Whether the accused's youthfulness and claimed motive of intending to commit suicide affected criminal liability for murder
• The appropriate sentence for a youthful offender convicted of premeditated murder with actual intention

The accused was found guilty of murder with actual intention in terms of section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Where an accused person formulates a plan to kill, obtains poison in advance, waits for an opportune time when the victim is alone, and then administers deadly poison to a 2-month-old baby with the aim and desire to kill, this constitutes murder with actual intention under section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The test for intention under section 13(1) is subjective - whether the person intended to engage in the conduct or produce the consequence. Pre-planning and deliberate execution of a plan to kill demonstrates actual intention. The motive or underlying reason for forming the intention to kill is immaterial to criminal liability per section 13(2) of the Act.

The court observed that domestic violence related murders are serious offences for which courts should express displeasure by passing appropriate sentences. The court noted that youthfulness is mitigatory as immaturity can influence making wrong decisions based on poor judgment, and youths are prone to act on whims and are susceptible to external factors and peer pressure. The court commented that while the circumstances would ordinarily call for life imprisonment, a fairly long imprisonment (20 years) would meet the justice of the case considering the accused's youthfulness both at the time of the offence (17 years) and at sentencing (19 years). The court also noted that the accused had exit avenues if he did not wish to support the deceased, implying that murder was an entirely unjustified response to domestic difficulties.

This Zimbabwean High Court case is significant for its application of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act's provisions on intention in murder cases. It demonstrates the courts' approach to determining actual intention under section 13(1) using a subjective test, and confirms that motive is immaterial to criminal liability per section 13(2). The case is also significant in the context of domestic violence related murders and the treatment of youthful offenders who commit serious premeditated crimes. It illustrates that while youthfulness is a significant mitigating factor, courts will still impose substantial sentences for brutal, premeditated murders, particularly those involving vulnerable victims such as infants. The case reinforces that domestic difficulties and poverty do not constitute defences to murder charges.