Judgment No S.C. 61\2002
Crim
Appeal No. 217\2002
EDWARD MORRIS BARROWS v THE STATE
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE
JULY 24, 2002
J.
Samkange, for the appellant
N.J.
Mushangwe, for the respondent
Before ZIYAMBI JA, in Chambers in terms of Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Bail Rules
The appellant and six others are jointly charged with the crime of
armed robbery. Their trial commenced before the High Court on
the
18th February 2002 and was adjourned on the 22nd
February 2002. An application for bail pending the resumption of the
trial was denied by the learned presiding judge.
On the 17th June 2002,
on which date the trial was scheduled to continue, the appellant and
two of his co-accused made an application for a postponement
on the
grounds that there had been no proper consultation for this date
between the Attorney- Generals office and the legal
practitioners
representing the accused persons. The learned judge postponed the
matter to the 5-9th August 2002 whereupon the appellant
and his two co-accused immediately applied for bail on the basis that
the postponement just granted
amounted to changed circumstances
justifying a reconsideration of their bail applications.
In that regard, it was submitted
on behalf of the appellant and the other two applicants that three of
their co-accused, who had been
on bail pending their trial, had not
absconded and the applicants were prepared to be bound by more
stringent conditions than those
imposed on their co-accused.
The learned trial judge, relying
on subparagraph (ii) of s. 116(1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure and
Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07]
(the Act), held that the initial
application for bail having been refused by the High Court, a further
application could only be
made if based on changed circumstances. He
found that the fact of the grant of bail to the appellants
co-accused was a factor
which was known at the time of the denial of
bail to the appellant. He considered the question whether a
postponement could be regarded
as a change in circumstances and
concluded that each case must be considered on its own facts and in
the present case the postponement
could not be regarded as a change
in circumstances warranting a reconsideration of bail.
Mr Samkange, who appeared for the appellant, while not
alleging any misdirection on the part of the learned judge, submitted
that the fact of
the postponement and the length of time the
appellant has been in custody constituted a changed circumstance
within the meaning of
s 116 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act and that the
learned judge had erred in taking a different view. Mr Mushangwe,
who appeared for the State, submitted that the learned judge may
have misdirected himself in not giving adequate weight to the
time
lapse. However, he submitted that if there was a misdirection in
this regard it was not of such a nature as would vitiate
the decision
of the learned judge to deny bail to the appellant.
It is trite that the power of
this Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court in a bail
application is limited to the
finding of a misdirection or
irregularity or an improper exercise of the lower Courts
discretion in circumstances such as to vitiate
the Courts
decision.
It is not apparent from the
record of proceedings whether the fact of the time lapse standing on
its own was raised by the appellant
as a changed circumstance. What
appears to have been the issue was the fact of the postponement and
this was considered by the
learned judge who concluded that it did
not amount to a change in circumstance within the meaning of s 116(1)
of the Act.
In any event, the learned judge
was alive to the fact of the appellants incarceration since his
arrest but found that he could
only interfere if there were changed
circumstances warranting a reconsideration of his bail application.
I am unable to find any misdirection on the part of the learned
judge. The possible misdirection alluded to by Mr Mushangwe
has not been substantiated and even if it had been, is not of such a
nature as to vitiate the courts decision to deny bail to
the
appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Byron Venturas & Partners, appellants legal
practitioners