Zusammenfassung
Summary BWR320 Unit 1-5
- Kurs
- Hochschule
Summary of semester content
[ Mehr anzeigen ]vorschau 4 aus 45 Seiten
Vorschau 4 aus 45 Seiten
In den Einkaufswagen
In den Einkaufswagen
Verkäufer
Folgen
Gauke107
Deine Reviews
Inhaltsvorschau
BWR320 - COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITYCertain classes of Ws are excluded from giving evi. These rules relate to the competence &
compellability of Ws
COMPETENCE & COMPELLABILITY
● COMPETENCE: When a (W) witness is qualified and able to lawfully give evidence or
act as a W (MAY give evidence)
● COMPELLABLE: When a person is lawfully obliged to give evidence (MUST give evi)
● Most people are competent Ws, but not all Ws are compellable to give evidence
COMPETENCE & COMPELLABILITY AND PRIVILEGE
● A competent and compellable W may not refuse:
○ to enter the W box or
○ to take the oath/affirmation unless he/she is specifically exonerated from doing
so (privilege)
● Privilege against self-incrimination:
○ The W can only claim this right when the question is posed
○ Right is then invoked
● Attorney-client privilege:
○ The attorney will be sworn in and placed in the W box
○ May claim professional privilege when the question is posed.
LEGAL RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPETENCE & COMPELLABILITY
● CIVIL LAW:
○ Section 8 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965
○ Every person shall be competent & compellable to give evi in civil proceedings
unless excluded from doing so by the Act/by any other law
○ Includes any inherited English law rule prior to 30 May 1961
● CRIMINAL LAW:
○ Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
○ Every person is both competent & compellable to give evi in criminal proceedings
unless expressly excluded
● GENERAL RULES:
○ All Ws are presumed competent & compellable in criminal and civil matters
○ If a W is NOT competent by virtue of any rule/law, the parties themselves cannot
agree to the admission of evi by that W
“Humanly intolerable”
● Criminal sanctions may be imposed if a W refuses to attend proceedings without a “just
excuse”
○ A “just excuse” includes humanly intolerable actions
● Nel v Le Roux 1996:
○ A W is not compelled to act if it is in conflict with his constitutional rights
, ○ The parties cannot consent to the admission of an incompetent Ws’ evidence:
■ The court must decide whether the W is competent/compellable either by:
● Testimony during a TWAT or
● On the basis of its own observations
GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO COMPETENT AND COMPELLABLE WITNESSES
● A competent and compellable witness MUST attend the proceedings
● Recalcitrant witness = a C & C W who refuses to attend proceedings
● Section 189(1) CPA:
○ The court may in a summary manner enquire into such refusal/failure
○ Purpose = to determine whether the person failing to attend proceedings has a
just excuse for not attending
○ If the excuse is not satisfactory to the court, the court may sentence the W to
imprisonment:
■ for a period not exceeding two years OR
■ where the criminal proceedings relate to an offense referred to in part II of
Schedule 2, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years
○ JUST EXCUSE is not limited to lawful excuses, such as privilege
○ JUST EXCUSE is also if it is humanly intolerable:
■ Attorney General, Transvaal v Kader:
● R was detained in solitary confinement before he was called as a
state W & was “interrogated”
● It was so traumatic that he had to receive psychiatric treatment
● He refused to testify as a state W when he was called on the
following grounds:
○ (i) He would be psychologically scarred for life, and
○ (ii) He would be ostracized by his community
● The court held that the determination of “humanly intolerable” is a
question of fact.
CLASSES OF WITNESSES THAT ARE EXCLUDED FROM GIVING EVIDENCE
1. CHILDREN:
● Not prohibited from testifying by common law/statute, but testimonies of children are
approached with caution.
● Very young children may testify provided that they:
○ Appreciate the duty to speak the truth
○ Have sufficient intelligence
○ Can communicate effectively
● Rules pertaining to oath/affirmation where children testifies:
○ Children can be sworn in if the court is satisfied that the child understands the
nature and religious sanction of the oath
○ If the child is not able to understand the nature & religious sanction of the oath,
they may give evi without oath but only if the court cautions the C to speak truth
● Testifying against parents:
, ○ General rule: Children are C & C to testify against their parents but in principle, it
is undesirable that children be compelled to do so (R v Zulu 1947)
● The prosecutor's discretion depends on
■ Availability of other Ws
■ The seriousness of the offense with which the parent is charged
● Test for the trustworthiness of a child was formulated in Woji v Santam Insurance Co
○ The only eyeWs to a car accident were two children (10 years old) who testified
at trial about an incident that had occurred when they were 5 years old
○ The trial court dismissed the claim because the children's testimony was not
corroborated
○ Appeal: No statutory req that a child's testimony has to be corroborated. The
question that the trial court must ask itself is whether the young W’s testimony is
trustworthy
○ Trustworthiness depends on:
■ Power of observation= whether a child has the capacity to observe
accurately
■ Power of recollection= whether a child is able to remember what
happened
■ power of narration= whether a child has the capacity to understand the
questions put and to frame & express intelligent answers
○ Other factors:
■ Does the child appear to be honest? (Consciousness of duty to speak the
truth)
■ Nature of the evidence given by the child
■ S v Heroldt (2018)
● Rape of 5-year-old child
● The accused appealed against the conviction based on the
competency of the child (complainant)to testify
● The Magistrate used a competency test to determine whether the
child could understand the difference between truth & falsehood
● The court found that the competency test was age-appropriate
2. MENTALLY DISORDERED AND INTOXICATED WITNESSES:
● Section 194 CPA:
○ The following persons are not competent Ws while so afflicted (S v Katoo):
■ Mentally ill
● A mentally ill person/intellectually challenged person who is not
deprived of proper use of reason is a competent W
■ Intoxicated/under the influence of drugs
● An intoxicated person will become competent and compellable
when he/she becomes sober
■ Deprived of proper use of reason
3. DEAF AND SPEECHLESS PERSONS:
, ● Sign language is considered to be oral evidence ito the CPA
● Such a W will be competent & compellable if they can communicate with the court
○ This is usually done through an interpreter who must also be sworn in
4. ACCUSED PERSONS:
● NB! Accused in his own trial will be competent, but not compellable
○ Accused can only be called as a W if he elects to testify in his own proceedings
● An accused person is competent to testify in his/her own defence, whether/not they are
charged jointly with another person
● Incrimination of co-accused:
○ An accused person’s competence is limited to giving testimony in his/her own
defence
○ An accused who elects to testify in his/her own defence may in the process give
testimony that might be helpful/incriminate to the co-accused, but because the
accused testifies of his/her own violation, the accused can’t be compelled to give
evi that’s helpful to the co-accused
○ An accused person is not compellable to give evi for the state
○ NB! The accused can become a W for the state against a former co-accused by
terminating his/her status as accused in the same proceeding (“S204 State Ws'')
5. SPOUSES:
● “Marriage” includes:
○ Marriages ito indigenous law/religious law systems
○ Civil unions
○ Solemnized same-sex unions
● Competence & compellability of spouses depends on the nature of the proceedings:
Civil Matters Criminal Matters
- A S is a C & C W for/against the other spouse (W - A spouse is a competent W for the accused
for an opposing party) BUT may claim marital (jointly/severely charged)
privilege (Sec 198) - If the spouse is called to testify for the accused,
- A W can be compelled to take the W box but can that spouse is competent and compellable.
invoke the marital privilege & refuse to disclose the - If the spouse is called to testify for the CO-
communication between spouses during the course accused, that spouse is competent but NOT
of the M/Ms which were dissolved/annulled after the compellable.
communication took place
○ NB!! When can a spouse be compelled to testify?
■ Spouses of the accused cannot be forced to testify against each other
unless the crime falls into one of the categories ito Section 195
● Offense against the spouse/any child of them
● Certain offenses under the Child Care Act
● Contravention of the Maintenance Act
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 Gauke107. Stuvia erleichtert die Zahlung an den Verkäufer.
Werde ich an ein Abonnement gebunden sein?
Nein, du kaufst diese Zusammenfassung nur für 5,29 €. Du bist nach deinem Kauf an nichts gebunden.
Kann man Stuvia trauen?
4.6 Sterne auf Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
45.681 Zusammenfassungen wurden in den letzten 30 Tagen verkauft
Gegründet 2010, seit 14 Jahren die erste Adresse für Zusammenfassungen