LEV3701 EXAM PACK
2024
QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
FOR ASSISTANCE CONTACT
EMAIL:laureenkanyiri02@gmail.com
,LEV3701 EXAM NOV 2015
SECTION 2
2.1 Briefly explain the content of the first leg of the test for the exclusion of
unconstitutionally obtained evidence (5)
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prevents evidence obtained
through unconstitutional means from being admitted in court. The first leg
of the test for the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence
typically involves determining whether there has been a violation of a
constitutional right. If the court finds that law enforcement or government
officials have engaged in unconstitutional conduct, such as conducting an
illegal search or seizure, the evidence obtained as a result of that conduct
may be excluded from the trial under the exclusionary rule. The focus is on
whether there has been a breach of constitutional rights, and if so, the court
may exclude the evidence to deter future unlawful conduct by law
enforcement.
2.2 List five examples of instances where a court may allow for the evidence of
a lay person. (5)
Courts may allow the evidence of a lay person (a non-expert witness) in various
situations. Here are five examples:
1. Eyewitness Testimony: Lay witnesses who directly observed an event may
provide testimony about what they saw, heard, or
2. experienced.
Character Witnesses: Lay witnesses can testify about a person's character or
reputation for honesty, truthfulness, or peacefulness in certain situations, such
as in cases where the character of a party is relevant.
3. Common Knowledge or Personal Observation: Lay witnesses may be
permitted to testify about facts or events that are within their common
knowledge or personal observation and do not require specialized expertise.
4. Identification of Personal Property: Lay witnesses can identify personal
property, such as recognizing a specific item or describing its condition,
without the need for expert testimony.
5. Opinions on Speed, Distance, or Time: In some cases, lay witnesses may be
, lOMoAR cPSD| 4982425
allowed to express opinions on speed, distance, or time, based on their
perceptions and experiences, without being qualified as experts.
It's important to note that the admissibility of lay testimony can vary depending on
the jurisdiction, the type of case, and the specific circumstances of the testimony.
Additionally, some limitations may apply to the scope of lay witness testimony.
2.3 List the requirements for the admissibility of an otherwise inadmissible
confession.
The admissibility of a confession in court is subject to certain requirements and
safeguards to ensure fairness and reliability. These requirements can vary based on
jurisdiction and the legal system, but here are some common principles:
1. Voluntariness: The confession must be voluntary, without any coercion,
duress, or undue influence. If law enforcement or other authorities obtain a
confession through threats, promises, or physical abuse, it may be deemed
involuntary and therefore inadmissible.
2. Miranda Rights: In jurisdictions that follow the Miranda v. Arizona decision in
the United States, a confession may be inadmissible if the suspect was not
properly informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney
present during questioning.
3. Competency of the Confessor: The person making the confession must be
competent at the time of making the statement. Factors such as age, mental
capacity, and the influence of substances may be considered.
4. Knowledge of Consequences: The confessor should be aware of the
consequences of their confession, including an understanding of the legal
implications and potential charges.
5. No Deceptive Practices: Confessions obtained through deceptive practices,
such as false promises of leniency or misinformation about evidence, may be
considered involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible.
6. Right to Counsel: In jurisdictions that recognize the right to counsel, the
accused must have had the opportunity to consult with an attorney before
making the confession.
7. Recorded Confessions: Recording the confession, either through audio or
video means, can enhance the reliability of the confession and provide
evidence of voluntariness.
It's crucial to consult the specific laws and rules of the jurisdiction in question, as well
, as any relevant case law, to understand the precise requirements for the admissibility
of confessions in that particular legal context.
2.4 Briefly explain the main principles relating to the police docket privilege
which are evident from Shabalala and others v Attorney-General of the
Transvaal 1996 (1) SA 725 (CC). (5)
The case of Shabalala and others v Attorney-General of the Transvaal (1996) SA 725
(CC) in South Africa addressed the concept of police docket privilege. The main
principles from this case include:
1. Presumption of Inadmissibility: The court acknowledged a general
presumption against the admissibility of police dockets as evidence. Police
dockets contain investigative materials, and the court recognized the need to
protect the integrity of investigations by not easily allowing their admission in
court.
2. Limited Exceptions: While there is a presumption against admissibility, the
court recognized that there could be exceptional circumstances where the
contents of a police docket might be admissible. These exceptions would be
based on the principles of fairness, justice, and the particular facts of the case.
3. Balancing Test: The court established a balancing test to determine
admissibility. This involves weighing the interests of justice and fairness
against the potential harm to the administration of justice if the contents of
the police docket are disclosed. The court should consider factors such as the
nature of the information, the stage of the proceedings, and the impact on the
accused's right to a fair trial.
4. Necessity for Safeguards: If a court decides to admit evidence from a police
docket, it must put in place adequate safeguards to protect the accused's
rights. This includes measures to prevent the abuse of the information and to
ensure that the accused has a fair opportunity to challenge and respond to the
evidence.
It's important to note that the principles outlined in Shabalala case emphasize the
cautious approach to admitting evidence from police dockets and highlight the need
for a careful consideration of the circumstances in each case to ensure a fair trial.
SECTION 3
3.1 Write a note on the requirements for the operation of legal professional
privilege between a client and his legal advisor. (10)
