LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023
,LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
2022/2023
, lOM oARcPSD|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 financialinstitutions, 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 financialinstitutions, 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 willseldom,
if ever, take the form of a statement.
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023
,LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
2022/2023
, lOM oARcPSD|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 financialinstitutions, 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 financialinstitutions, 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 willseldom,
if ever, take the form of a statement.
