S v MATAPO & ORS 2010 (2) ZLR 120 (H)

Flynote

Criminal procedure - committal for trial - failure to bring accused to trial within six months of date of committal - six month period between committal and date of trial - interruption of such period - aggregate period exceeding six months - accused entitled to dismissal - calculation of time period - interruption of six month period - may be interrupted when accused not available to stand trial for reasons beyond the control of the Attorney-General - "not available for trial" - meaning - circumstances when an accused is deemed to be "not available for trial"

Interpretation of statutes - time - computation of time - calendar month - period from date in any particular month to corresponding date in next month

Headnote

For the purposes of computing a month, in s 33(6)(c) of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01], a court will take the date in any particular month to a corresponding date in any other month.

The six month period referred to in s 160(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] does not mean that the period must run uninterrupted and that any period preceding such interruption must be discounted. What it does mean is that if the aggregate period between an accused's committal for trial before the High Court and the date of trial exceeds six months, even though interrupted by some other circumstance which is beyond the control of the Attorney-General, an accused is entitled to a dismissal.

Where an accused is committed for trial before the High Court, for the purpose of the proviso to s 160(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act he automatically becomes "available" for trial. The only time he is "not available to stand trial" for the purposes of the proviso would be, for example, if the accused is too ill to stand trial or when the trial process is interrupted by some other process like an application for referral of constitutional issue to the Supreme Court. Even when the State contends that at some stage investigations had to be conducted in relation to suspect who attempted to facilitate the accused's escape from custody or when the High Court was on vacation, it could not be said that the accused "was not available to stand trial".