High Court Chides Magistrate for Mishandling Case Involving Mentally ill Accused

The High Court has sharply criticized the conduct of a Bulawayo magistrate in a criminal insult case involving a mentally ill accused person, ruling that although the final verdict was correct, the proceedings were riddled with serious legal and procedural errors. In a detailed criminal review judgment, Justice Munamato Mutevedzi withheld his certificate of confirmation after finding that the magistrate fundamentally misunderstood the law governing mental disorder defenses and special verdicts .

The case involved Tamisayi Brian Mapako, who was charged with criminal insult after allegedly harassing a woman at Fidelity House in Bulawayo. The court heard that Mapako persistently accosted the complainant, wrote letters demanding sexual intercourse, and proposed what the judge described as "a threesome romp." Medical evidence showed that Mapako had a long history of schizophrenia, having been treated at Ingutsheni Central Hospital on at least 12 occasions since 1999 .    Follow & Share Our WhatsApp Channel

Justice Mutevedzi faulted the magistrate for mischaracterizing Mapako's defense and embarking on an irrelevant legal exposition. The magistrate also inconsistently concluded that Mapako committed the offense but lacked the requisite criminal intent due to mental illness. "This court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense," the magistrate had ruled, before adding that Mapako "lacked the requisite mens rea when he committed this offense .

Mutevedzi said this betrayed a "serious misunderstanding" of the law, particularly the distinction between a normal acquittal and a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. "Needless to emphasize, the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means exactly that. The accused is found not guilty," he said. "He or she cannot be sentenced to any punishment .

The judgment serves as a pointed warning to lower courts on the proper application of mental health laws and the handling of accused persons suffering from serious mental illness. It highlights the need for magistrates to understand the distinction between a normal acquittal and a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity .