A MASVINGO man who had served four years in prison for attempted murder was back in jail within eight months of tasting freedom for committing a similar offence.
This time, he got a 10-year jail sentence after attempting to kill a police officer.
Confidence Simango’s application for bail pending appeal against his 10-year sentence was dismissed by Masvingo High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara.
Simango (28) was released from prison only last year after serving an effective four-year term arising from a previous six-year sentence for the very same offence.
Eight months down the line, he set upon a defenceless victim, this time a uniformed police officer who was peacefully executing his duties.
The convict felled the law enforcement agent with a stone that weighed approximately 2kg.
Simango was convicted after a fully contested trial and sentenced to eight years in prison, with the two years suspended from the previous conviction being added to the current one, which will see him effectively serving 10 years behind bars.
In his bail appeal, Simango argued that the trial court misdirected itself both as to the appropriateness of a custodial sentence of such length.
- Judge rules in favour of CCC candidate
- Security guards steal gold
- Armed robbery suspect granted bail
- High Court rules in favour of former Shabanie workers
Keep Reading
He submitted that he was intoxicated when he committed the offence, saying the regional magistrate failed to assist an unsophisticated self-actor in articulating mitigation.
He said he had deep roots in Zvishavane, no passport, and would gladly report to the nearest police station should the court deem it necessary.
The State submitted that an effective custodial sentence remained unavoidable, saying that the interests of justice were not served by releasing a recidivist, whose very liberty was recently conditioned on good behaviour that has now been spectacularly breached.
However, after considering submissions and arguments from both parties, Justice Mambara said he would mindfully consider four factors of prospects of success on appeal, the likelihood of abscondment, the potential delay before the appeal is heard and the prejudice to the applicant if he is incarcerated pending that hearing.
“The record shows a calculated blow delivered with severe force to the back of the head of a police officer who was a mere three metres away,” Justice Mambara said.
“The applicant’s assertion in cross-examination that he ‘wanted to kill’ the complainant was later retracted as an inadvertence born of confusion, yet the unequivocal concession stands starkly alongside the objective circumstances: a heavy stone, a vulnerable target area and the absence of any immediate threat to the applicant.
“The part of the body aimed at ‘betoken a plain risk of fatal consequences’, foresight of death may readily be inferred.”
The judge said the degree of force and the anatomical situs of impact spoke for themselves, adding that even the superior court was inclined to uphold the conviction.
“In that scenario, the presumptive custodial sentence, augmented by the activation of the suspended two-year term, would still consign the applicant to prison,” Justice Mambara said.
“Turning to the risk of abscondment, counsel urged that the applicant’s youth, familial ties and lack of a passport constitute a sufficient anchor.
“That submission rings hollow against the backdrop of the certain prospect of further incarceration.
“Our courts have repeatedly emphasised that the real incentive to abscond arises not from the length of sentence alone, but from the certainty of imprisonment.
“Against that legal reality, the bland proffer of monthly reporting conditions is no talisman.”
