The State v Admore Matevese

### Preamble
1
HMA 22-20
CRB CH 91-19
THE STATE
versus
ADMORE MATEVESE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAWADZE J
MASVINGO, 1 June 2020
Criminal Review
---------


The Learned Judge of Appeal continued at page 71 E to say;

“the nature of the weapon used, seriousness of the injury, nature and the degree of violence and the medical evidence must be considered.”

This same principle was reiterated by BLACKIE J. with the concurrence of CHEDA J. in the case of S v Mpofu 1992 (2) ZLR 68 (H) in which the learned JUDGE said that imprisonment is invariably imposed for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm unless there are other important mitigatory factors like provocation or where the accused is pregnant.

After the codification of our criminal common law useful guidance is provided in s 89(3)(a) to (f) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] on what factors to consider in assessing sentence in cases of assault.

I have no doubt in my mind that the accused in casu deserved to be sentenced to a minimal effective custodial sentence of 6 months. The degree of force or violence he used on the victims was uncalled for and high. He used a knife which is a lethal weapon. The injury inflicted on the second complainant was amounts to serious bodily harm. The assaults were not only persistent but unprovoked. There are no other important mitigatory factors warranting the accused to be treated leniently.

There is no explanation as to why both counts were even treated as one for sentence. I say so because in count 1 due to the none serious nature of the injuries caused a hefty fine may have both deemed appropriate. In respect of count 2 accused deserved to be incarcerated. Clearly a fine of $200 for both counts is manifestly lenient and offends one’s sense of justice.

In the result I am unable to confirm the proceedings as in accordance with real and substantial justice. The order by the learned scrutiny Regional Magistrate certifying the proceedings as in accordance with real and substantial justice should be set aside. I would in the circumstances withhold my certificate.

ZISENGWE J. agrees ……………………………………………………..