100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023 €2,93   In winkelwagen

Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

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

6 beoordelingen
 303 keer bekeken  26 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Instelling

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...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 3 van de 28  pagina's

  • 25 oktober 2022
  • 28
  • 2022/2023
  • Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
  • Vragen en antwoorden

6  beoordelingen

review-writer-avatar

Door: carolrankwe • 4 maanden geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: tphahlana • 4 maanden geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: rexile080808 • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: Tutor23 • 1 jaar geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: siyengaelinah • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: Tutor23 • 1 jaar geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: mompho • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: Tutor23 • 1 jaar geleden

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

review-writer-avatar

Door: katlegomotsaanaka • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: Tutor23 • 1 jaar geleden

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

avatar-seller
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 (knlemao@gmail.com)

, 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 (knlemao@gmail.com)

Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:

Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.

Focus op de essentie

Focus op de essentie

Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper Tutor23. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,93. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 77254 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen
€2,93  26x  verkocht
  • (6)
  Kopen