Exam (elaborations)

LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023

Name: LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023
SKU: doc_2055754
Rating: 4.67 (6 reviews)
Author: Tutor23

6 reviews

27 purchases

Course
LEV3701 - Law Of Evidence

Institution
University Of South Africa

LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023 MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester – Assignment 1 Question 1 (a) If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search for the answer in the ea...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 28 pages

View example

Uploaded on October 25, 2022
Number of pages 28
Written in 2022/2023
Type Exam (elaborations)
Contains Questions & answers

lev3701 mcq 1 law of evidence octobernovember 20222023

6 reviews

By: carolrankwe • 7 months ago

By: tphahlana • 7 months ago

By: rexile080808 • 1 year ago

By: Tutor23 • 1 year ago

Thank you for the Purchase and the rating, and all the best in your academics. Feel free to consult, and message me for more Study Materials via email; studyking254@gmail.com

By: siyengaelinah • 1 year ago

By: Tutor23 • 1 year ago

Thank you for the Purchase and the rating, and all the best in your academics. Feel free to consult, and message me for more Study Materials via email; studyking254@gmail.com

By: mompho • 1 year ago

By: Tutor23 • 1 year ago

Thank you for the Purchase and the rating, and all the best in your academics. Feel free to consult, and message me for more Study Materials via email; studyking254@gmail.com

By: katlegomotsaanaka • 1 year ago

By: Tutor23 • 1 year ago

Thank you for your review!! Congratulations! Best of luck to you

Tutor23 Member since 3 year 1861 documents sold

117

LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF
EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
2022/2023

, lOMoARcPSD|2667034

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS
EVI301-A

2010 Second Semester – Assignment 1

Question 1

(a) If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts
will first of all search for the answer in the early Roman-Dutch law.
(b) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates the Constitution will always be inadmissible.
(c) Substantive law indicates which procedure must be followed to prove a case.
(d) The “facts in dispute” in a particular case are heavily influenced by the applicable substantive law.

(1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(2) Only statements (a), (b) and (d) are correct.
(3) Only statement (c) is correct.
(4) Only statement (d) is correct.
(5) All the statements are correct.

Question 2

(a) In the case of a residuary clause, our courts have to determine what the English law was
immediately before South Africa became a Republic in 1961.
(b) Roman-Dutch law is the common law of South Africa and therefore constitutes the historical source
of our substantive and formal law.
(c) In terms of section 35(1) of the Constitution, every arrested person has the right to adduce and
challenge evidence.
(d) A finding by a court that a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible due to irrelevance is final and
cannot be reconsidered during the course of the same trial.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.
(2) Only statements (a), (b) and (c) are correct.
(3) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct.
(4) Only statements (a) and (d) are correct.
(5) All the statements are correct.

Question 3

(a) A person is charged with fraud in that he made a false statement to a financial institution. Evidence
that this person has, on previous occasions, made similar false statements to other financial
institutions, is hearsay evidence.
(b) A person is charged with fraud in that he made a false statement to a financial institution. Evidence
that this person has, on previous occasions, made similar false statements to other financial
institutions, is evidence about previous consistent statements.
(c) The accused, in trying to dispute the admissibility of a confession made while he was in detention,
wants to tender evidence that, on other occasions, the police have used improper means to get
statements from him. This evidence is evidence of previous consistent statements.
(d) The accused is charged with dealing in dagga. The fact that the accused has previously been
convicted of dealing in dagga is hearsay evidence.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.
(2) Only statement (b) is correct.
(3) Only statement (c) is correct.
(4) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct.
(5) None of the statements is correct.

Question 4

(a) A similar fact may be distinguished from a previous consistent statement in that a similar fact will
seldom, if ever, take the form of a statement.

Downloaded by Neo Lemao ()

, lOMoARcPSD|2667034

EVI301-A Page 2 of 27

(b) Similar fact evidence can only be used by the state, since the law prohibits the accused from using
similar fact evidence to his advantage.
(c) Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 protects an accused against answering
certain questions during cross-examination, but this protection falls away where the accused gives
evidence against any other person charged with the same offence or an offence in respect of the
same facts.
(d) When evidence about someone’s character is important for purposes of the law of evidence, the
common law states that only evidence of the general reputation of such a person may be
presented.

(1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(2) Only statement (c) is correct.
(3) Only statements (a), (c) and (d) are correct.
(4) Only statement (d) is correct.
(5) All the statements are correct.

Question 5

Section 35(5) of the Constitution reads as follows:

(a) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights can be excluded if the
admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the
administration of justice.”
(b) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights should be excluded if the
admission of that evidence would be detrimental to the administration of justice or otherwise render
the trial unfair.”
(c) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the
admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the
administration of justice.”
(d) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the
admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair and also be detrimental to the
administration of justice.”

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.
(2) Only statement (b) is correct.
(3) Only statement (c) is correct.
(4) Only statement (d) is correct.

Question 6

(a) In the case of an alleged offence of a sexual nature, evidence of a previous consistent statement
will inter alia be admissible if the complaint was made at the first reasonable opportunity, but not
later than 48 hours after the offence was committed.
(b) A number of principles have over time developed to ensure the fairness of an identification parade.
One principle is that it is important that the people in the line-up do not wear similar clothes.
(c) There is question of a previous consistent statement when, during testimony in court, a witness
repeats a statement consistent with one made on a previous occasion, in order to corroborate his
evidence.
(d) There is question of a previous consistent statement when a witness repeats a consistent
statement made by another witness on a previous occasion, which serves as self-corroboration for
the other witness.

(1) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
(2) Only statements (b), (c) and (d) are correct.
(3) Only statement (c) is correct.
(4) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct.
(5) Only statement (d) is correct.

Question 7

In the course of a civil matter the plaintiff wants to present the record of a witness’ testimony in a criminal
trial based on the same facts, as evidence against the defendant. Consider the following statements:

(a) The evidence will be hearsay evidence.

Downloaded by Neo Lemao ()

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Tutor23. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R56,77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 15 years now

Start selling

Exam (elaborations)

LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023

Document information

Subjects

Written for

6 reviews

Seller

Reviews received

Content preview

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Quick and easy check-out

Focus on what matters

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Who am I buying this summary from?

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

Can Stuvia be trusted?