NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
STUDENT NUMBER: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MODULE CODE: LEV3701
SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: O1
DUE DATE: 31 AUGUST 2022
Honesty Declaration:
In writing and submitting this paper i affirm that:
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and are aware of UNISA’s
policies in this regard.
2. 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.
3. I did not make use of another student’s work with or without permission
and submitted it as your own.
Date: 30-/08/2022
Signature: S C MAGUBANE
, QUESTION 1
1.1. Main principles Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal and
Another: The main limitation to police docket privilege is the constitutional right of an
accused to a fair trial, as framed in section 25(3) of the interim Constitution – section
35(3) of the final Constitution. The police docket privilege which applied in terms of R v
Steyn 1954 (1) SA 324 (A) cannot be reconciled with this. Normally, this right would
ensure access by the accused to exculpatory documents (documents which tend to
show that the accused is not guilty) in the docket, as well as to witness’s statements
which he may need in order to exercise his right to a fair trial. The State may oppose
such requests on the ground that such access is unnecessary in order to exercise that
right; that it may lead to the identification of a police informant; that it may lead to
intimidation of witnesses or in some other fashion subverts the ends of justice. Access
to the police docket for purposes of a fair trial differs from access to the police docket for
purposes of a bail hearing. Different considerations come into play when access is
considered during a bail application and when access is needed to ensure a fair trial.
The court has to exercise a judicial discretion in determining whether access should be
allowed. In the exercise of this discretion, the following factors are relevant:
(a) It would be difficult to justify withholding information from the accused which favours
the accused or is exculpatory.
(b) The fact that specific information has to do with state secrets, methods of police
investigation, the identity of informers, or that disclosure may lead to the intimidation of
witnesses or otherwise impede the proper ends of justice, does not in itself justify the
withholding of information.
(c) Sufficient evidence or circumstances ought to be placed before the judicial officer to
enable the court to exercise its own judgment in assessing the legitimacy of the claim.
(d) The prosecution must therefore in each case show that it has reasonable grounds
for its belief that the disclosure of the information wanted carries with it a reasonable
STUDENT NUMBER: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MODULE CODE: LEV3701
SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: O1
DUE DATE: 31 AUGUST 2022
Honesty Declaration:
In writing and submitting this paper i affirm that:
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and are aware of UNISA’s
policies in this regard.
2. 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.
3. I did not make use of another student’s work with or without permission
and submitted it as your own.
Date: 30-/08/2022
Signature: S C MAGUBANE
, QUESTION 1
1.1. Main principles Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal and
Another: The main limitation to police docket privilege is the constitutional right of an
accused to a fair trial, as framed in section 25(3) of the interim Constitution – section
35(3) of the final Constitution. The police docket privilege which applied in terms of R v
Steyn 1954 (1) SA 324 (A) cannot be reconciled with this. Normally, this right would
ensure access by the accused to exculpatory documents (documents which tend to
show that the accused is not guilty) in the docket, as well as to witness’s statements
which he may need in order to exercise his right to a fair trial. The State may oppose
such requests on the ground that such access is unnecessary in order to exercise that
right; that it may lead to the identification of a police informant; that it may lead to
intimidation of witnesses or in some other fashion subverts the ends of justice. Access
to the police docket for purposes of a fair trial differs from access to the police docket for
purposes of a bail hearing. Different considerations come into play when access is
considered during a bail application and when access is needed to ensure a fair trial.
The court has to exercise a judicial discretion in determining whether access should be
allowed. In the exercise of this discretion, the following factors are relevant:
(a) It would be difficult to justify withholding information from the accused which favours
the accused or is exculpatory.
(b) The fact that specific information has to do with state secrets, methods of police
investigation, the identity of informers, or that disclosure may lead to the intimidation of
witnesses or otherwise impede the proper ends of justice, does not in itself justify the
withholding of information.
(c) Sufficient evidence or circumstances ought to be placed before the judicial officer to
enable the court to exercise its own judgment in assessing the legitimacy of the claim.
(d) The prosecution must therefore in each case show that it has reasonable grounds
for its belief that the disclosure of the information wanted carries with it a reasonable
