RRLLB81 Assignment 2 (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary state witnesses

This document contains workings, explanations and solutions to the RRLLB81 Assignment 2 (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025. For assistance whats-app us on 0.6.8..8.1.2..0.9.3.4... Admittance of “statements” evidence adduced by the accused and ordinary state witnesses The admissibility of statements as evidence in criminal cases is quite a complex exercise. Sometimes due to the categorisation of witnesses engaged in this process, it becomes difficult for the court to admit the evidence adduced as true. The court could be faced with deciding what/which evidence should be considered to be accurate. For instance, where you have contradictory evidence obtained from the state witness and the accused or his witness. One wonders what the differences between the accused and state witness statement could be. What if any, could be the similarities and differences in evidentiary weight of accused and witness statements? Is the procedure for admission of various statements the same? Prove your opinion, founded on legal rules, about the law relating to admission of evidence adduced by the accused and state witness, and how this evidence could influence the outcome of the trial. Cases S v Mathonsi 2012 (1) SACR 335 (KZP) S v Rathumbu 2012 (2) SACR 219 (SCA) Makhala & Another v S 2022 (1) SACR 485 (SCA) Books Schwikkard PJ and others, Principles of Evidence (5th edn, Juta 2023) Kruger A, Hiemstra’s Criminal Procedure (Lexis Nexis 2025) Du Toit E, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act (Juta 1978) Legislation Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Law Act 51 of 1977 Journal Articles Monyakane M, ‘The Danger for an Underestimation of Necessary Precautions for the Admissibility of Admissions in Section 219A of the South African Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977’ (2020) 31 Crim Law Forum 81 Monyakane MM and Monye SM, ‘The legal implications of S v Ndhlovu and Litako v S on the South African law of hearsay evidence: A critical overview’ (2016) 29 (3) SACJ 308