Introduction, Previous Consistent Statements, Similar Fact Evidence, Character Evidence, Opinion Evidence, Hearsay, Res Gestate, Privilege.
Very detailed notes with all case law.
INTRODUCTION
Historical development of law of evidence
Heritage is the English Common Law System
- This was designed for a jury, but SA has not used a jury since 1969.
- English Law of Evidence is strict when it comes to ruling out evidence because
> Juries can attach undue weight to untrustworthy evidence.
Adjective v Substantive Law
Law of Evidence is part of Adjective Law
- What the elements are that the plaintiff needs to prove is substantive law.
- How to go about proving the elements is adjective law.
Sources of Law of Evidence
If there are no statutory provisions on a topic – we turn to English law that was in
force until 31 May 1961
- South African cases decided according to English Common law rules on or after
this date are binding.
- Last resort is cases decided in England after this date (persuasive not binding)
and law of evidence is Anglo-American jurisdictions.
The Constitution’s impact
Some common law rights were hardened into constitutional rights – s35
- The right to be informed of rights.
- Passive defense rights are a shield against the state.
- Active defense rights are a sword in the detained hands.
- The right to due process.
RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY
(1) Relevance
Relevance is the pre-condition for admissibility
- Relevant evidence – evidence with the potential to make existence of any fact in
issue more probable or less probably.
- If any evidence were allowed, then it would delay proceedings and be expensive
, > Polygraphs are not allowed.
(2) Admissibility
Not all relevant information will be admissible.
(3) Assessment
Once evidence is admissible, the court must evaluate the evidence
- Not all evidence is equal so the court must weight it to see how heavily it must be
relied upon.
Relation between an item of evidence and a material fact in the case
Relevance is not inherent to all evidence – it only exists where the evidence relates
to a material fact in the case
- Dhlamini case
Facts
> P alleged that A stabbed D to death.
> A has an alibi
> P wants to call N as a witness to testify that A stabbed her close to where D
died and around the same time.
> A says N’s evidence is irrelevant because it related to criminal conduct that
is not part of the charges against A.
Court
> What was P trying to prove when calling N?
> If the evidence is to lead to prior misconduct, then it is inadmissible because
it is irrelevant to the issue.
> If the evidence was to disprove the alibi, then it is admissible because it is
relevant to a material fact.
PREVIOUS CONSISTENT STATEMENTS (PCS)
Written or oral statements made by a witness prior to testifying in court that is the
same or substantially similar to their testimony
General rule (rule against narrative)
, PCS is inadmissible because it is irrelevant – witness’ cannot corroborate their own
story
- PCS can also not be proved by calling another witness.
- Previous inconsistent statements are admissible because they are relevant to the
credibility of the witness.
Rationale for the rule against narrative
PCS has little probative force
- It is unreliable (a lie can be repeated).
- It allows for easy fabrication or self-made evidence.
- It is unnecessary as we don’t expect a truthful witness’ story to change.
- It is time consuming and duplicative.
R v Roberts
Facts
- A said killing his girlfriend was an accident and testified to telling his dad that it
was an accident 2 days after the killing.
Court
- A party cannot make evidence for himself.
- It does not help the court shed light on what happened.
Exceptions to the rule against narrative
These exceptions are numerus clausus
1. To rebut an allegation of fabrication
- When a cross-examiner suggests that a witness fabricated testimony.
- The attack must be specific to the witness’ testimony
> A cross-examiner cannot say the witness is not credible in general.
- PCS is used to save the witness and show consistency between statements.
2. Prior identification
- Dock identification (where the prosecutor asks the witness to point the defendant
out in court)
> This has little probative value because it’s obvious who the defendant is.
Alle Vorteile der Zusammenfassungen von Stuvia auf einen Blick:
Garantiert gute Qualität durch Reviews
Stuvia Verkäufer haben mehr als 700.000 Zusammenfassungen beurteilt. Deshalb weißt du dass du das beste Dokument kaufst.
Schnell und einfach kaufen
Man bezahlt schnell und einfach mit iDeal, Kreditkarte oder Stuvia-Kredit für die Zusammenfassungen. Man braucht keine Mitgliedschaft.
Konzentration auf den Kern der Sache
Deine Mitstudenten schreiben die Zusammenfassungen. Deshalb enthalten die Zusammenfassungen immer aktuelle, zuverlässige und up-to-date Informationen. Damit kommst du schnell zum Kern der Sache.
Häufig gestellte Fragen
Was bekomme ich, wenn ich dieses Dokument kaufe?
Du erhältst eine PDF-Datei, die sofort nach dem Kauf verfügbar ist. Das gekaufte Dokument ist jederzeit, überall und unbegrenzt über dein Profil zugänglich.
Zufriedenheitsgarantie: Wie funktioniert das?
Unsere Zufriedenheitsgarantie sorgt dafür, dass du immer eine Lernunterlage findest, die zu dir passt. Du füllst ein Formular aus und unser Kundendienstteam kümmert sich um den Rest.
Wem kaufe ich diese Zusammenfassung ab?
Stuvia ist ein Marktplatz, du kaufst dieses Dokument also nicht von uns, sondern vom Verkäufer kiaradavey. Stuvia erleichtert die Zahlung an den Verkäufer.
Werde ich an ein Abonnement gebunden sein?
Nein, du kaufst diese Zusammenfassung nur für 5,20 €. Du bist nach deinem Kauf an nichts gebunden.
