S v L S (A JUVENILE) 2012 (2) ZLR 70 (H)

Flynote

Criminal procedure (sentence) — general principles — juvenile — probation officer's report — importance of — need to call officer to explain and clarify recommendations made

Headnote

The accused was convicted of rape. He was aged 16 years at the time of the offence and he already had a previous conviction for aggravated indecent assault for which he was sentenced to corporal punishment. During the trial a probation officer's report was produced. The recommendation of the probation officer was that the accused be referred for psychiatric examination. The prosecutor advised the magistrate that he did not agree with the probation officer's recommendation, and the magistrate sentenced the accused to 12 years' imprisonment, of which three years were suspended on condition of good future behaviour.

Held, that the greatest regard should always be paid to the report of a probation officer. These officers are experts in their own field. The probation officer's report in this matter was based on careful investigation of the accused's home background, family relationship, personality traits, education and other social factors. The least the magistrate could have done was to call the probation officer to testify and clarify on the recommendation in light of the factors she had discovered during the trial. The probation officer would have been cross-examined on the report with some thoroughness. While a court is never compelled to accept any expert evidence at its face value, where that evidence is honestly given and supported by sound reasons, which are not contradicted in evidence, a court should not lightly disregard that opinion. Oral evidence of probation officers should not be easily dispensed with for the sake of convenience. The sentence would be set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for the evidence of the probation officer to be heard and sentence passed afresh.