The
trial against the applicant commenced in the Regional Magistrate Court in 2006.
Several witnesses testified. The applicant then changed his legal practitioner
during the course of the trial. Counsel presently for the applicant assumed
agency. Upon assumption of agency, counsel for the applicant sought to have the
applicant examined by two medical doctors to determine his mental state. The
application was dismissed by the Regional Magistrate. The Regional Magistrate
reasoned -
“Since
the commencement of this trial the accused has been desperately trying to delay
the commencement of this trial. Until yesterday, despite having been granted
several other postponements, he was still trying again yesterday to seek a
further postponement of his case. At all relevant times, witnesses have been
travelling from as far as Botswana and the trial has failed to take off. It is
with this background in mind that the court must look at the application made
by the defence today and satisfy itself that it has not been made frivolously
and vexatiously in an effort to frustrate and obstruct the course of justice.”
On
the day the abovementioned application was made in the Regional Court the
applicant's legal practitioner intimated to the prosecutor that they wanted to
make an application for bail pending trial.
The
Regional Magistrate dealing with the matter resigned in 2007 and left the
country. Thereafter, the applicant withdrew his abovementioned application for
review.
Another
Regional Magistrate has to preside over the matter.
The
State believes that since 2006 the applicant made several applications in order
to delay the trial. Such delays are to ensure that he gets bail and absconds as
his co-accused has done.
Counsel
for the State stated that the State is ready to proceed to trial.
The
sole issue for determination is whether the applicant authored the robberies or
was simply sent to collect the vehicles, and innocently did so.
With
such a simple issue for determination, the respondent has made out a case that
the applicant is not keen to stand trial, and brought up various applications
in order to prevent his day in court. He can only do this in order to
facilitate abscondment.
The
applicant is a flight risk – S v Ndlovu 2001 (2) ZLR 261 (H).
Accordingly, the application fails and the
applicant is refused bail.
