RRLLB81
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2025
Research Report
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the
accused and ordinary state witnesses
Due Date: September 2025
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary state
witnesses
By
[RRLLB81 STUDENT]
(012345678)
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR OF LAWS
in the
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary
state witnesses
By
[RRLLB81 STUDENT]
(012345678)
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR OF LAWS
in the
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL AND PROCEDURAL LAW
SCHOOL OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
SUPERVISOR: PROF MM MONYAKANE
RRLLB81 ASSESSMENT 2 / FINAL PORTFOLIO
(DUE DATE: September 2025)
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
ABSTRACT
The admissibility of statements by accused persons and state witnesses remains a
complex and contested aspect of South African criminal procedure. Courts are often
faced with the challenge of evaluating contradictory accounts, weighing the
evidentiary value of confessions, admissions, and witness testimonies against legal
safeguards protecting the accused’s rights. This paper examines the similarities and
differences in evidentiary weight between statements made by accused persons and
those given by ordinary state witnesses, considering constitutional safeguards,
statutory provisions, and case law. Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977 provides the statutory framework, while leading cases such as S v Mathonsi, S
v Rathumbu, and Makhala v S demonstrate how courts balance fairness with
evidentiary reliability. The research argues that although procedures for admitting
statements differ, both categories of evidence significantly influence trial outcomes.
Proper safeguards are essential to protect fair trial rights and ensure justice.
KEYWORDS
Admissibility of evidence.
Accused statement
State witnesses
Criminal Procedure Act
Evidentiary weight
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2025
Research Report
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the
accused and ordinary state witnesses
Due Date: September 2025
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary state
witnesses
By
[RRLLB81 STUDENT]
(012345678)
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR OF LAWS
in the
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary
state witnesses
By
[RRLLB81 STUDENT]
(012345678)
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR OF LAWS
in the
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL AND PROCEDURAL LAW
SCHOOL OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
SUPERVISOR: PROF MM MONYAKANE
RRLLB81 ASSESSMENT 2 / FINAL PORTFOLIO
(DUE DATE: September 2025)
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
ABSTRACT
The admissibility of statements by accused persons and state witnesses remains a
complex and contested aspect of South African criminal procedure. Courts are often
faced with the challenge of evaluating contradictory accounts, weighing the
evidentiary value of confessions, admissions, and witness testimonies against legal
safeguards protecting the accused’s rights. This paper examines the similarities and
differences in evidentiary weight between statements made by accused persons and
those given by ordinary state witnesses, considering constitutional safeguards,
statutory provisions, and case law. Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977 provides the statutory framework, while leading cases such as S v Mathonsi, S
v Rathumbu, and Makhala v S demonstrate how courts balance fairness with
evidentiary reliability. The research argues that although procedures for admitting
statements differ, both categories of evidence significantly influence trial outcomes.
Proper safeguards are essential to protect fair trial rights and ensure justice.
KEYWORDS
Admissibility of evidence.
Accused statement
State witnesses
Criminal Procedure Act
Evidentiary weight
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
