EVI3702 Questions and Answers
1) Identify the factors highlighted by the court in S v Mthethwa when
assessing the reliability of a witness’s observation (the cautionary
rule in respect of identification).
Lighting
Opportunity for observation as to both time and situation
Visibility
Eyesight
Suggestibility
Result of identification parade
Accused’s voice, face, build, gait, dress
Proximity of the witness
Extent of prior knowledge of the accused
Mobility of the scene
Corroboration
(LOVES RAPE MC)
2) List 5 requirements that must be met before a witness will be
allowed to refresh her memory while in the witness box. [5]
1. The witness must have personal knowledge of the events recorded.
2. The witness must have recorded the information personally.
3. The record must have been made (or checked and verified) while the
facts were still fresh in the memory of the witness.
4. The witness must be unable to recall fully a matter on which she is being
examined.
5. The document used to refresh the memory while the witness is in the
witness box must be made available to the court and the opposing legal
team so that they can inspect it.
6. Where the witness has no independent recollection of the incident, the
original document must be used.
3) Summarise the ten principles related to the cautionary rule in
respect of accomplices, as listed in S v Masuku.
@yash0505 Page 1
, 1. Caution is imperative when dealing with accomplice evidence.
2. An accomplice is a witness who has a possible motive for telling lies about
an innocent accused.
3. Corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony is required.
4. The cautionary rule will only be satisfied if there is corroboration that
directly implicates the accused in the commission of the offence.
5. Such corroboration may be found in the evidence of another accomplice,
provided his evidence is reliable.
6. Where no corroboration is available, there must be some other assurance
that the evidence of the accomplice is reliable.
7. Such assurance is self-evident where the accused is a lying witness, or
where he does not testify.
8. The risk of false incrimination is reduced where the witness is a friend of
the accused.
9. Where the above are absent, the court can only convict when fully
appreciating the danger inherent in accomplice evidence, and only if the
accomplice is an excellent witness.
10. Where corroboration of an accomplice is offered by another accomplice,
the court must also approach this corroborative evidence with caution.
4) A notorious fact is a well-known fact. Certain notorious facts are
matters of general knowledge, which our courts have taken judicial
notice of. Mention 5 such facts. [5]
1. The fact that there are seven days in a week.
2. The fact that there is a national road network in South Africa and that
these roads are public.
3. The fact that billiards, chess, and table tennis are games of skill.
4. The fact that dangerous wild animals remain potentially dangerous even
after docile behaviour has come about as a result of semi-domesticity.
5. The fact that scab is a well-known sheep disease.
6. The fact that brand marks on cattle do not fade completely.
7. The fact that rhinoceroses are more rare than elephants.
8. The instinctive behaviour of domesticated animals.
5) Explain how it is determined whether a fact is of local notoriety and
thereafter mention 4 facts that have been considered sufficiently
well known at local level for the courts to have taken judicial notice
of.
@yash0505 Page 2
, A fact is of local notoriety is that fact is “notorious among all reasonably well
informed people in the area where the court sits”. Examples of such facts that the
courts have taken notice of are:
1. The fact that a road that passes within 50 metres of the court is a public
road.
2. The fact that Franschhoek is not a small place and that it contains a
number of streets.
3. The location of the local city hall.
4. The fact that a certain local street is particularly dangerous as far as
traffic is concerned.
6) Discuss the competency and compellability of officers of the court to
testify [5]
It is in the interests of justice that presiding officers should remain objective with
respect to the cases over which they preside. For this reason, judges and
magistrates are considered to be incompetent witnesses with respect to these
cases over which they preside.
Where, however, a presiding officer perceives a certain fact in the court over
which he is presiding, he will be considered competent to testify on such fact in
another court.
7) Write a short note explaining how the court in S v Moti applied the
cautionary rule with respect to identification evidence. [5]
Such evidence has to be approached with care and skepticism. The court has to
answer two questions: 1. Was there a proper identification? 2. Was the evidence
reliable?
The identification would be improper if photo identification was done when the
suspect was already in custody, if the photograph was shown to the witness just
before the identification parade, or testimony in court.
The reliability of the evidence would be affected by factors such as the credibility
of the witness, the opportunity of the witness to observe the offender during the
crime, whether he had previously been shown a picture of the suspect, etc.
@yash0505 Page 3
1) Identify the factors highlighted by the court in S v Mthethwa when
assessing the reliability of a witness’s observation (the cautionary
rule in respect of identification).
Lighting
Opportunity for observation as to both time and situation
Visibility
Eyesight
Suggestibility
Result of identification parade
Accused’s voice, face, build, gait, dress
Proximity of the witness
Extent of prior knowledge of the accused
Mobility of the scene
Corroboration
(LOVES RAPE MC)
2) List 5 requirements that must be met before a witness will be
allowed to refresh her memory while in the witness box. [5]
1. The witness must have personal knowledge of the events recorded.
2. The witness must have recorded the information personally.
3. The record must have been made (or checked and verified) while the
facts were still fresh in the memory of the witness.
4. The witness must be unable to recall fully a matter on which she is being
examined.
5. The document used to refresh the memory while the witness is in the
witness box must be made available to the court and the opposing legal
team so that they can inspect it.
6. Where the witness has no independent recollection of the incident, the
original document must be used.
3) Summarise the ten principles related to the cautionary rule in
respect of accomplices, as listed in S v Masuku.
@yash0505 Page 1
, 1. Caution is imperative when dealing with accomplice evidence.
2. An accomplice is a witness who has a possible motive for telling lies about
an innocent accused.
3. Corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony is required.
4. The cautionary rule will only be satisfied if there is corroboration that
directly implicates the accused in the commission of the offence.
5. Such corroboration may be found in the evidence of another accomplice,
provided his evidence is reliable.
6. Where no corroboration is available, there must be some other assurance
that the evidence of the accomplice is reliable.
7. Such assurance is self-evident where the accused is a lying witness, or
where he does not testify.
8. The risk of false incrimination is reduced where the witness is a friend of
the accused.
9. Where the above are absent, the court can only convict when fully
appreciating the danger inherent in accomplice evidence, and only if the
accomplice is an excellent witness.
10. Where corroboration of an accomplice is offered by another accomplice,
the court must also approach this corroborative evidence with caution.
4) A notorious fact is a well-known fact. Certain notorious facts are
matters of general knowledge, which our courts have taken judicial
notice of. Mention 5 such facts. [5]
1. The fact that there are seven days in a week.
2. The fact that there is a national road network in South Africa and that
these roads are public.
3. The fact that billiards, chess, and table tennis are games of skill.
4. The fact that dangerous wild animals remain potentially dangerous even
after docile behaviour has come about as a result of semi-domesticity.
5. The fact that scab is a well-known sheep disease.
6. The fact that brand marks on cattle do not fade completely.
7. The fact that rhinoceroses are more rare than elephants.
8. The instinctive behaviour of domesticated animals.
5) Explain how it is determined whether a fact is of local notoriety and
thereafter mention 4 facts that have been considered sufficiently
well known at local level for the courts to have taken judicial notice
of.
@yash0505 Page 2
, A fact is of local notoriety is that fact is “notorious among all reasonably well
informed people in the area where the court sits”. Examples of such facts that the
courts have taken notice of are:
1. The fact that a road that passes within 50 metres of the court is a public
road.
2. The fact that Franschhoek is not a small place and that it contains a
number of streets.
3. The location of the local city hall.
4. The fact that a certain local street is particularly dangerous as far as
traffic is concerned.
6) Discuss the competency and compellability of officers of the court to
testify [5]
It is in the interests of justice that presiding officers should remain objective with
respect to the cases over which they preside. For this reason, judges and
magistrates are considered to be incompetent witnesses with respect to these
cases over which they preside.
Where, however, a presiding officer perceives a certain fact in the court over
which he is presiding, he will be considered competent to testify on such fact in
another court.
7) Write a short note explaining how the court in S v Moti applied the
cautionary rule with respect to identification evidence. [5]
Such evidence has to be approached with care and skepticism. The court has to
answer two questions: 1. Was there a proper identification? 2. Was the evidence
reliable?
The identification would be improper if photo identification was done when the
suspect was already in custody, if the photograph was shown to the witness just
before the identification parade, or testimony in court.
The reliability of the evidence would be affected by factors such as the credibility
of the witness, the opportunity of the witness to observe the offender during the
crime, whether he had previously been shown a picture of the suspect, etc.
@yash0505 Page 3
