LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023

LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023




HomePC
[COMPANY NAME] [Company address]

,LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF
EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
2022/2023

,LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023


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 financial institutions, 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 financial institutions, 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.

, LEV3701 MCQ 1 LAW OF EVIDENCE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2022/2023
Question 4

(a) A similar fact may be distinguished from a previous consistent statement in that a
similar fact will seldom, if ever, take the form of a statement.