, LEV3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026
- DUE April 2026 ; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
Question 1:
The issue is whether the cross-examination conducted by the accused
was permissible, and whether he should be allowed to call witnesses
regarding the complainant’s sexual history. This must be considered in
light of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and relevant case law.
1. Cross-examination on identification and visibility
Cross-examination is a fundamental component of a fair trial and serves
to test the credibility, reliability, and accuracy of a witness’s evidence.
An accused person is entitled to challenge any aspect of the
complainant’s testimony that may cast doubt on its correctness.
In this case, the accused questioned the complainant’s ability to identify
her attacker under conditions of poor visibility, namely:
The absence of moonlight, and
The lack of artificial lighting in that part of the campus
Such questioning is directly relevant to the reliability of the
identification evidence.
The courts have consistently warned about the dangers of mistaken
identification. In S v Mthetwa 1972 (3) SA 766 (A), it was held that
identification evidence must be approached with caution, and factors
such as lighting, proximity, and opportunity for observation must be
carefully considered. Similarly, in S v Charzen 2006 (2) SACR 143
- DUE April 2026 ; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
Question 1:
The issue is whether the cross-examination conducted by the accused
was permissible, and whether he should be allowed to call witnesses
regarding the complainant’s sexual history. This must be considered in
light of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and relevant case law.
1. Cross-examination on identification and visibility
Cross-examination is a fundamental component of a fair trial and serves
to test the credibility, reliability, and accuracy of a witness’s evidence.
An accused person is entitled to challenge any aspect of the
complainant’s testimony that may cast doubt on its correctness.
In this case, the accused questioned the complainant’s ability to identify
her attacker under conditions of poor visibility, namely:
The absence of moonlight, and
The lack of artificial lighting in that part of the campus
Such questioning is directly relevant to the reliability of the
identification evidence.
The courts have consistently warned about the dangers of mistaken
identification. In S v Mthetwa 1972 (3) SA 766 (A), it was held that
identification evidence must be approached with caution, and factors
such as lighting, proximity, and opportunity for observation must be
carefully considered. Similarly, in S v Charzen 2006 (2) SACR 143
