Andson v Republic (Bail Application Cause 125 of 2021) [2022] MWHC 157 (6 January 2022)

SS IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI ZOMBA DISTRICT REGISTRY BAIL APPLICATION CAUSE NUMBER 125 OF 2021 BETWEEN JUSTIN ANDSON — v.ccceccecsteceonteeeeoneeeoseemens APPLICANT AND THE REPUBLIC «—_decssecsesceseneteccvcsccccseseceeusenenseesees RESPONDENT Honourable Justice Violet Palikena-Chipao Debwe, of Counsel for the Applicant Kumwenda, Senior State Advocate, of Counsel for the Respondent Kazambwe (Ms), Official Interpreter and Court Clerk Coram: RULING ON APPLICATION FOR BALL PENDING TRIAL 1. The Applicant, Justin Andson, is on temand at Domasi Prison on allegations of murder. 2. The Applicant was arrested by police in November, 2017 on the allegation of having caused the death his wite. The brief facts are that the deceased was an epileptic woman who was also pregnant. The Applicant reported that the deceased had fainted and was taking long to regain consciousness. The deceased tater died and the Applicant was arrested in connection with her death. Post mortem indicated that the deceased died of strangulation. 4, The Applicant has been in custody since he was arrested in November 2017. It is on the basis of the length of stay on remand without prospects of trial in the near fature and the fact that the Applicant’s continued stay im custody is illegal as his pre-trial custody time limit expired long ago, that the Applicant prays to this court for bail. 5 The State has indicated that investigations were completed but that they are yet to receive the docket from the Police. The State did not object to the bail application. 6. The right to bail is guaranteed by section 42(2) (e) of the Constitution is subject to the interests of justice. Interest of justice has not been defined in the Constitution but the Bail Guidelines Act of 2000 offers guidance on what to consider when deciding whether or not it is in the interest of justice to grant bail. The Bail Guidelines Act in Section 3 under Part Hon Bail by the Court Paragraph 4(a) to (d), lays down principles which the court should take into when deciding whether or not to grant bail. . (a) the likelihood that the accused, if released on bail, will attempt to evade his or her trial {b} the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were released on bail, will attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses or to conceal or destroy evidence (c) the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were released on bail, will endanger the safety of the community or any particular person of will commit an offence (cd) in exceptional circumstances, the likelihood that the release of the accused will disturb the public order or undermine the public peace or security 7. The duty lies on the State to satisfy the court why bail should not be granted in the interest of justice. Whilst the burden to show that the interests of justice require further detention lies on the State, the Court may also on its own, notwithstanding any representations to the contrary by the Applicant or the State or both, make its independent finding upon weighing the personal circumstances of the Applicant and the interests of justice. According to Part Il Section 9 of the Bail Guidelines Act, “Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution does not oppose the granting of bail, the court has the duty to weigh up the personal interests of the accused against the interests of justice.” 8 The State has not opposed the application for bail and has not laid any grounds why bail should not be granted in the interest of justice. The Coutt also has not found anything against the pranting of bail more so considering that the Applicants have been on remand for over 4 years. The Applicant have overstayed on. remand and it is only just that she be released on bail. Bail is therefore granted to the Applicant on the following conditions; qa. Cash bond of £30, 000 b, Two sureties bonded in a non-cash sum of K 100, 000 ce. The Applicant and his sureties to produce their national identities d. Applicant is to report for bail at the nearest police station Fridays every fortnight e. Applicant is to surrender travel documents to the court if any. ho 9. The State is directed to commit the applicants for trial to the High Court within 30 days from today and file necessary disclosures within 60 days from today and the matter shall come to court for plea and directions on 10" March, 2022. it is so ordered, Pronounced in Chambers this 6" Day of January, 2022. Violet Palikena-Chipao JUDGE