Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 7 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 the assistance of the notes made by Mrs Ziyambi was accurate. However the parties were not agreed on whether or not the applicant had indeed been found guilty of murder and robbery and what remedy should follow. [16] At the hearing, the applicant submitted that no guilty verdict had been returned. In the alternative, that even if there was such a verdict, a permanent stay would still be warranted as the record of the proceedings remains incomplete and no-one can say with any degree of certainty what transpired after the closure of the defence case. [17] The State opposed the grant of a permanent stay, pointing out that the trial judge, the trial prosecutor, assessor and transcriber had all deposed to the fact that a verdict of guilty had been returned. Whilst accepting that there had been some prejudice owing to the delay in the finalisation of the matter, the State submitted that the interests of justice would be seriously prejudiced were the applicant to be set free, particularly in light of the fact that the trial judge had indicated that he was in a position to reconstruct the remaining portion of the proceedings. The State further submitted that the totality of the facts suggested that someone had gone to great lengths to ensure that the record was destroyed and that the only person who stood to benefit from the disappearance of the record is the applicant. To release him in these circumstances would set a dangerous precedent as it would encourage persons undergoing trial to arrange for the disappearance of the record of proceedings in the belief that they would ultimately get a permanent stay of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the State submitted that the Court should order the trial judge to reconstruct the missing part of the record and thereafter proceed to pass sentence. This Court then reserved judgment. WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS FOUND GUILTY