, LEV3701 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026 - DUE April 2026
Question 1
The admissibility of the questions posed during cross-examination, as well as the
accused’s intention to call witnesses regarding the complainant’s prior sexual
conduct, must be evaluated in light of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977,
relevant constitutional principles, and established case law.
1. Cross-examination on visibility and identification
The defence’s questioning of the complainant regarding her ability to identify the
assailant in poor lighting conditions is generally permissible.
Cross-examination serves to test the credibility, reliability, and accuracy of
a witness’s testimony.
The issue of identification is crucial in criminal trials, particularly in cases
involving a single identifying witness.
Courts have repeatedly warned of the dangers of mistaken identification, as
highlighted in S v Mthetwa, where it was held that factors such as lighting,
visibility, and opportunity for observation must be carefully scrutinized.
Application to the facts:
The defence is entitled to question whether the complainant could clearly
see her attacker given the absence of moonlight and lighting.
These questions are relevant and aimed at testing the reliability of her
identification.
Conclusion:
✔ The court would allow this line of questioning, as it is relevant and essential to
ensuring a fair trial.
Question 1
The admissibility of the questions posed during cross-examination, as well as the
accused’s intention to call witnesses regarding the complainant’s prior sexual
conduct, must be evaluated in light of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977,
relevant constitutional principles, and established case law.
1. Cross-examination on visibility and identification
The defence’s questioning of the complainant regarding her ability to identify the
assailant in poor lighting conditions is generally permissible.
Cross-examination serves to test the credibility, reliability, and accuracy of
a witness’s testimony.
The issue of identification is crucial in criminal trials, particularly in cases
involving a single identifying witness.
Courts have repeatedly warned of the dangers of mistaken identification, as
highlighted in S v Mthetwa, where it was held that factors such as lighting,
visibility, and opportunity for observation must be carefully scrutinized.
Application to the facts:
The defence is entitled to question whether the complainant could clearly
see her attacker given the absence of moonlight and lighting.
These questions are relevant and aimed at testing the reliability of her
identification.
Conclusion:
✔ The court would allow this line of questioning, as it is relevant and essential to
ensuring a fair trial.
