Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A HIGH Court judge has withheld certification of a criminal trial after a magistrate convicted a man, whose criminal responsibility was in doubt, without obtaining medical evidence to establish his mental state when the alleged offence was committed.
Justice Lucy-Anne Mungwari, reviewing the conviction of Ashly Paruma, 26, said the failure to resolve the question of criminal responsibility went to the root of the case and denied the accused a fair trial.
“I am satisfied that a real and substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred and as a result the proceedings cannot be certified as being in accordance with real and substantial justice,” she ruled.
Paruma had been convicted of physically abusing his mother, Chipo Ngairongwe, 45, and sentenced to pay a US$400 fine or serve four months in prison if he failed to pay.
But the judge found that the magistrate proceeded with the trial after receiving warnings about Paruma’s mental state, without ensuring that the question of whether he was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged assault, was answered.
The case arose from an incident on July 7, when Paruma allegedly assaulted his mother at their home after returning late and demanding that the gate be unlocked.
Ngairongwe told the court that her son struck her with clenched fists, pulled her by the hair, removed part of her weave and injured two of her fingers. She also reported pain in her back and swelling on her face. However, the trial took a different turn when Paruma presented his defence.
He accused his mother of involvement in international marijuana trafficking and alleged that she wanted to sacrifice him in a cult because he had refused to join her business. He claimed that she had tried to make him drink “red poison” and said he had detected the plot because he was a pharmacist.
Justice Mungwari said the claims should have alerted the magistrate that the accused might be suffering from a mental disorder.
“These assertions are disconnected from the charge. They are grandiose and persecutory in character, and none of them was supported by any evidence,” she said.
She added that the magistrate had treated the account as an attempt to discredit the complainant, overlooking the possibility that it could have resulted from a disordered mind.
The State raised the issue on July 29, informing the court that Paruma was experiencing hallucinations and that his mother had reported similar episodes in the past.
The prosecutor also stated that the State was uncertain about his mental condition when the alleged assault occurred.
The magistrate ordered an examination by two doctors under Section 26 of the Mental Health Act.
Justice Mungwari found that the provision did not apply because Paruma had already been arraigned, pleaded not guilty and begun his trial.
The charge also carried a possible prison term of up to 10 years.
The doctors later certified Paruma fit to stand trial.
One recorded a history of substance abuse, while the other noted pressured speech and grandiosity and found him fit for trial while on treatment.
Neither doctor expressed an opinion on his mental state on July 7, when the alleged assault occurred.
Justice Mungwari said fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility at the time of an offence were separate questions.
