RRLLB81 FINAL ASSIGNMENT

RRLLB81 FINAL ASSIGNMENT I ADMISSIBILTY OF EXTRA-CURIAL STATEMENTS IN THE AGE OF CONSTITUTTIONAL RIGHTS: COMMON LAW AND LEGISLATIVE PESPECTIVE By CHRISTOPHER NDOU Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for LLB degree BACHELOR OF LAWS In the SCHOOL OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA RRLLB81 ASSIGNMENT 02 MR LC COETZEE (06/10/2021) II ACADEMIC INTEGRITY DECLARATION Declaration: ............................................. 1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of UNISA’s policies in this regard. 2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s work I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every contribution to, and quotation in, this assignment from the work or works of other people has been referenced according to this style. 3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work. 4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own. NAME: Christopher Ndou……………………………………………………………………. STUDENT NUMBER: ………………………………………………… MODULE CODE: RRLLB81........................................................................ SIGNATURE: 6088…………………………………………………………. DATE: 06/10/2021…………………………………………………………………….. III Abstract Admissibility of confessions and admissions are generally regulated in terms of the common law and the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (hereinafter the CPA). 1 Section 219 of the CPA prohibits admission of a confession as evidence by an accused person against another. This is in keeping with the common law rule regarding the admissibility of extra-curial statements as evidence in that, hearsay evidence can only be used against the party tendering such evidence.2 Section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 (hereinafter the LEAA) is receptive to hearsay evidence under certain circumstances including where the interests of justice permits as provided for in section 3(1)(c). 3 The Supreme Court of Appeal (hereinafter the SCA) in Ndhlovu remarked that, where the interests of justice prevail, a violation of the accused’s section 35(3)(i) right is justified, because the question regarding cross-examination does not arise in this instance. 4 However, in Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S the Constitutional Court (hereinafter the CC) opined that admission of extra-curial statements violate a right to equality before the law.5 KEYWORDS Extra-curial statements Law of Evidence Admissibility of admissions and confessions Right to fair trial Co-accused