The applicant was charged with murdering his mother on 16 August 2018 by striking her with an unknown object several times all over her body, resulting in her death. He then left her inside the house and went away. Upon his arrest, police recovered his blood-stained T-shirt and noticed he had wounds on his neck. The deceased was found with cuts on her face. The applicant had previously filed two unsuccessful bail applications before MABHIKWA J on 28 September 2018 (HCB 170/18) and 27 November 2018 (HCB 211/18). This was his third bail application, filed on 30 January 2019, claiming changed circumstances.
The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.
A renewed bail application under section 116(c)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act must be based on genuinely new facts that were not placed before the court in the previous application and which arose or were discovered after that determination. Merely reshuffling or recharacterizing old evidence does not constitute new facts for purposes of a renewed bail application. When considering a renewed bail application, the court must consider all facts (new and old) on their totality, but the threshold requirement is that there must be some genuinely new matter to justify entertaining the application at all.
The court observed that the applicant's legal practitioner failed to file supporting affidavits from the applicant's relatives to substantiate the claimed changed circumstances, and instead appeared content to rely on arguments based on disputed facts. This suggested poor preparation and an inadequate appreciation of the evidential burden in bail applications. The court also noted that faced with overwhelming evidence, coupled with the seriousness of the offense and attendant lengthy sentence, the likelihood of absconding was a genuine and reasonable fear, particularly where the applicant had no place to call home.
This case clarifies the application of section 116(c)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in Zimbabwe regarding renewed bail applications. It establishes that merely reshuffling old evidence does not constitute 'changed circumstances' or 'new facts' sufficient to warrant a renewed bail application. The judgment reinforces that courts will not entertain repeated bail applications based on the same facts, as this would constitute an abuse of process. It also demonstrates the importance of properly substantiating claimed changed circumstances with evidence (such as affidavits) rather than relying on disputed assertions in bail statements.