LEV3701 FINAL PAPER 2025/2026 QUESTIONS WITH
ANSWERS MARKED A+
✔✔Competence of a co-accused as a prosecution witness - ✔✔- A co-accused is not a
competent witness for the state, whether to prove the case against himself or against
the accused, because he is also an accused.
- Maybe circumstances where the state may call someone, who was previously a co-
accused to testify.
- this happens when the person is no longer a co-accused in that case.
- it can happen in one of the following ways
1. by withdrawing the charge against the co-accused
2. by finding the co-accused not guilty
3. by the co-accused entering a plea of guilty
4. if the trials of the accused and his co-accused are separated for some other valid
reason
✔✔Two pieces of evidence about a complaint made soon after an alleged offence of a
sexual nature are admissible, even if this evidence is about a previous consistent
statement. these are: - ✔✔1. evidence that such a complaint was made (serves to
support the credibilty of the complainant)
2. evidence about the contents of the complaint (indicates that the evidence tendered
has not been recently fabricated and will support the consistency and therefore
credibility of the complainant)
✔✔Admissibility of Pointing out - ✔✔- It was decided in the Seema case and confirmed
in the January case, that a pointing out is essentially a communication by means of
conduct and therefore a declaration by the person performing the pointing out that she
knows something about the facts in issue.
- If this statement is to the disadvantage of the person doing the pointing out, it will
constitute an extra judicial admission.
- the rule regarding the admissibility of pointing out made by the accused is the same as
in the case of any admission, namely that it will be admissible only if the pointing out
was done freely and voluntarily.
✔✔Admissibility of hearsay evidence - ✔✔- inadmissible (coz unreliable), unless it falls
within one of the exceptions to this rule
exceptions
- consent
- if the other party testifies
- if the court exercises a discretion and allows hearsay
- common law exceptions
- statutory exceptions
, ✔✔Hearsay - ✔✔- means evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of
which depends on the credibility of any person other than the person giving such
evidence
✔✔Circumstantial evidence - ✔✔- provides indirect evidence and then inferences have
to be drawn about the prohibited act
- eg fingerprint evidence, DNA tests
✔✔Admissibility of circumstantial evidence - ✔✔- evaluation of a case based on
circumstantial evidence, depends on the presiding officers ability to think logically.
- the court should consider the cumulative effect of all the circumstantial evidence
presented in the case.
- if inferences can be drawn from c.e in a criminal case, two cardinal rules of logic apply
1. the inferences sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proven facts
2. the proven facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference except
the one sought to be drawn
✔✔Admissibility of documentary evidence - ✔✔- main requirements that should be met
before a doc can be used as evidence are, generally speaking, that a doc will be
admissible only in the following circumstances
1. if the original document is produced in court
2. if the document is proved to be authentic
✔✔Definition of documentary evidence - ✔✔- evidence presented by way of a
document
- includes everything that contains the written or pictorial proof of something
✔✔corroboration - ✔✔- evidential material that independently confirms other
(untrustworthy) evidential material and which is admissible
✔✔cautionary rule - ✔✔- a rule of practice bearing the mandatory character of a legal
rule
- and prescribing a specific approach to be adopted by the court
- to assist in the evaluation of cetain evidence
✔✔Requirements for corrobotation - ✔✔- corroborative evidence must be admissible
- may take on a variety of forms
- should consist of independent evidence
- should confirm the evidence
✔✔S v Masuku 1969 - ✔✔- caution is imperative when dealing with accomplice
evidence
- an accomplice is a witness who has a possible motive for telling lies about an innocent
accused
ANSWERS MARKED A+
✔✔Competence of a co-accused as a prosecution witness - ✔✔- A co-accused is not a
competent witness for the state, whether to prove the case against himself or against
the accused, because he is also an accused.
- Maybe circumstances where the state may call someone, who was previously a co-
accused to testify.
- this happens when the person is no longer a co-accused in that case.
- it can happen in one of the following ways
1. by withdrawing the charge against the co-accused
2. by finding the co-accused not guilty
3. by the co-accused entering a plea of guilty
4. if the trials of the accused and his co-accused are separated for some other valid
reason
✔✔Two pieces of evidence about a complaint made soon after an alleged offence of a
sexual nature are admissible, even if this evidence is about a previous consistent
statement. these are: - ✔✔1. evidence that such a complaint was made (serves to
support the credibilty of the complainant)
2. evidence about the contents of the complaint (indicates that the evidence tendered
has not been recently fabricated and will support the consistency and therefore
credibility of the complainant)
✔✔Admissibility of Pointing out - ✔✔- It was decided in the Seema case and confirmed
in the January case, that a pointing out is essentially a communication by means of
conduct and therefore a declaration by the person performing the pointing out that she
knows something about the facts in issue.
- If this statement is to the disadvantage of the person doing the pointing out, it will
constitute an extra judicial admission.
- the rule regarding the admissibility of pointing out made by the accused is the same as
in the case of any admission, namely that it will be admissible only if the pointing out
was done freely and voluntarily.
✔✔Admissibility of hearsay evidence - ✔✔- inadmissible (coz unreliable), unless it falls
within one of the exceptions to this rule
exceptions
- consent
- if the other party testifies
- if the court exercises a discretion and allows hearsay
- common law exceptions
- statutory exceptions
, ✔✔Hearsay - ✔✔- means evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of
which depends on the credibility of any person other than the person giving such
evidence
✔✔Circumstantial evidence - ✔✔- provides indirect evidence and then inferences have
to be drawn about the prohibited act
- eg fingerprint evidence, DNA tests
✔✔Admissibility of circumstantial evidence - ✔✔- evaluation of a case based on
circumstantial evidence, depends on the presiding officers ability to think logically.
- the court should consider the cumulative effect of all the circumstantial evidence
presented in the case.
- if inferences can be drawn from c.e in a criminal case, two cardinal rules of logic apply
1. the inferences sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proven facts
2. the proven facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference except
the one sought to be drawn
✔✔Admissibility of documentary evidence - ✔✔- main requirements that should be met
before a doc can be used as evidence are, generally speaking, that a doc will be
admissible only in the following circumstances
1. if the original document is produced in court
2. if the document is proved to be authentic
✔✔Definition of documentary evidence - ✔✔- evidence presented by way of a
document
- includes everything that contains the written or pictorial proof of something
✔✔corroboration - ✔✔- evidential material that independently confirms other
(untrustworthy) evidential material and which is admissible
✔✔cautionary rule - ✔✔- a rule of practice bearing the mandatory character of a legal
rule
- and prescribing a specific approach to be adopted by the court
- to assist in the evaluation of cetain evidence
✔✔Requirements for corrobotation - ✔✔- corroborative evidence must be admissible
- may take on a variety of forms
- should consist of independent evidence
- should confirm the evidence
✔✔S v Masuku 1969 - ✔✔- caution is imperative when dealing with accomplice
evidence
- an accomplice is a witness who has a possible motive for telling lies about an innocent
accused
