Obert Magebe v The State

HH 144-2011
                                                                                B 686/11

OBERT MAGEBEDE
versus
THE STATE


HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
BHUNU J
HARARE, 27 June 2011


Mr. A Taruvinga, for the applicant
Mr. Mafuwa, for the respondent.


Bail Application


        BHUNU J: The applicant is a young police officer of 37 years of age residing at
Chikurubi Support Unit police camp. He is alleged to have sexually abused his elder
brother’s ten year old son with whom he resides at the same place. The allegation is that
he forcibly sodomised the complainant on three different occasions during the period
extending from December 2010 to April 2011.
        The complainant took refuge at Highlands Police Station and made a report to a
police officer. He was examined at a clinic resulting in the accused’s arrest. The applicant
is now applying for bail pending trial.
        The test in deciding whether or not the application must succeed was laid down in
the case of S v Ndlovu 2001. The factors for consideration include:
   1.      The seriousness of the offence.
   2.      The likely sentence if convicted.
   3.      The incentive to abscond.
        Undoubtedly the offence is of a very serious nature. The mere fact that it was
perpetrated on three different occasions is a serious aggravating feature. In the event of
conviction the applicant can expect a very long period of imprisonment.
        The applicant being a police officer imprisonment would tend to weigh more
heavily on him than ordinary members of society. The possibility of the state securing a
conviction is high because there can be no question of mistaken identity as the applicant
was well known to the complainant. The complaint was made within a reasonable time to
2
HH 144-2011
B 686/11

an independent law enforcement officer. The complaint is backed up by medical evidence
compiled within a reasonable time.
       Having regard to the severity of sentence upon conviction and the real likelihood
of conviction I am of the considered view that the accused is a flight risk. In the
circumstances of this case he is unlikely to hang around when the prospect of a lengthy
period of imprisonment is staring him in the face.
       In the result it would be wholly unsafe to release the applicant on bail. The
application for bail pending trial is accordingly dismissed.




Khanda and Company, the Applicant’s Legal Practitioners.
The Attorney General’s office, the Respondent’s Legal Practitioners.