LAW OF EVIDENCE
LEV3701 // EXAMINATION
MAY 23, 2022
STUDENT NO: 67819761
RISHILE CHAUKE
, SECTION 1
1.1The approach that the courts should take when considering Mr Candidia's
evidence should be based on Sections 221 and 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
which provide that certain trade or business records may be admitted into evidence
as proof of their contents if they were compiled in the course of business from
information supplied by persons having personal knowledge of the matters dealt with
in the document; and the person who supplied the information must be a person with
personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in the document. In other words,
information derived from computer printouts would only be admissible if the
computer's function was simply passive, such as recording or storing the data. The
results of the computer's efforts would be unacceptable if it performed active
functions in addition to storing. The court in S v Mashiyi and Others joined its voice
to the plea "to address this lacunae in our law and to explore and enact new
legislation related especially to computer evidence in criminal proceedings." The
ECT Act, which went into effect shortly after the S v Mashiyi and Others decision,
has such provisions.
1.2 A document, according to Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is any
instrument that stores or records information. (Photographs, videotapes, etc.) As a
result, Mr Candida's video is admissible evidence; nonetheless, the statements
contained in the document must be relevant and admissible, among other things.
The document's authenticity must be established. Normally, the original document
must be produced. The general rule is that anyone wants to manufacture a
document must demonstrate that it is genuine. Section 15(1) of the law of evidence
allows electronic evidence to be admitted based on the fact that it is made up of data
messages, or if it is the best evidence that the person presenting it could reasonably
expect to get, despite the fact that it is not in its original form. In civil cases, the issue
of the legitimacy of documentary evidence is resolved outside of the courtroom. If a
party seeks to introduce documentary evidence, he or she does not have to prove its
authenticity if he or she provides notice on the opposing party requesting that he or
she concede authenticity. If an opponent refuses to accept authenticity
unnecessarily, he may be forced to pay for evidence.
1.3 Once admitted, section 15(2) ensures that information in the form of a data
message is given due evidential weight by evaluating the reliability of how the data
message was generated, stored, or communicated; the reliability of how the data
message's integrity was maintained; and the manner in which its originator was
identified. In Firstrand Bank v Venter, the Supreme Court of Appeal reviewed section
15(3). Setting aside the court a quo's judgment, Heher JA held that the court had
over-emphasized the role of item by overlooking the fact that the witness had not
been led or cross-examined on those matters, and that the court had underplayed
the role of item by failing to take into account factors that go to the item. A
comprehensive approach to the evidential weight of a data message and the other
LEV3701 // EXAMINATION
MAY 23, 2022
STUDENT NO: 67819761
RISHILE CHAUKE
, SECTION 1
1.1The approach that the courts should take when considering Mr Candidia's
evidence should be based on Sections 221 and 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
which provide that certain trade or business records may be admitted into evidence
as proof of their contents if they were compiled in the course of business from
information supplied by persons having personal knowledge of the matters dealt with
in the document; and the person who supplied the information must be a person with
personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in the document. In other words,
information derived from computer printouts would only be admissible if the
computer's function was simply passive, such as recording or storing the data. The
results of the computer's efforts would be unacceptable if it performed active
functions in addition to storing. The court in S v Mashiyi and Others joined its voice
to the plea "to address this lacunae in our law and to explore and enact new
legislation related especially to computer evidence in criminal proceedings." The
ECT Act, which went into effect shortly after the S v Mashiyi and Others decision,
has such provisions.
1.2 A document, according to Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is any
instrument that stores or records information. (Photographs, videotapes, etc.) As a
result, Mr Candida's video is admissible evidence; nonetheless, the statements
contained in the document must be relevant and admissible, among other things.
The document's authenticity must be established. Normally, the original document
must be produced. The general rule is that anyone wants to manufacture a
document must demonstrate that it is genuine. Section 15(1) of the law of evidence
allows electronic evidence to be admitted based on the fact that it is made up of data
messages, or if it is the best evidence that the person presenting it could reasonably
expect to get, despite the fact that it is not in its original form. In civil cases, the issue
of the legitimacy of documentary evidence is resolved outside of the courtroom. If a
party seeks to introduce documentary evidence, he or she does not have to prove its
authenticity if he or she provides notice on the opposing party requesting that he or
she concede authenticity. If an opponent refuses to accept authenticity
unnecessarily, he may be forced to pay for evidence.
1.3 Once admitted, section 15(2) ensures that information in the form of a data
message is given due evidential weight by evaluating the reliability of how the data
message was generated, stored, or communicated; the reliability of how the data
message's integrity was maintained; and the manner in which its originator was
identified. In Firstrand Bank v Venter, the Supreme Court of Appeal reviewed section
15(3). Setting aside the court a quo's judgment, Heher JA held that the court had
over-emphasized the role of item by overlooking the fact that the witness had not
been led or cross-examined on those matters, and that the court had underplayed
the role of item by failing to take into account factors that go to the item. A
comprehensive approach to the evidential weight of a data message and the other
