Examination of Witness in Criminal Trial and Evidence Act ( Recent Case Law ) Section 231(2) CRPC
Cross & Tapper on Evidence
It is also worth noting that the supporters of the Act are averse to discretionary powers being vested in judges in rape cases. In January he was re-arrested and charged with a series of connected but diferent ofences. Opinion XII. For a judge as an orator, the formulation of tapped general principle justifying a new development in the relevant ield calls for creative imagination.See K? D was convicted and the appeal was allowed. It is the object of this chapter to assess critically the evidential rules relating to the protection of vulnerable witnesses under the YJCEA with a view to determining whether they om compatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the Convention. For an overview, see R.
Boston: Little, n, to maintain long-established rights. It must adjust its processes to the genera. Access to the complete content on Law Trove requires a subscription or purchase. So legal proof can never equal scientiic proof.
The most authoritative and respected textbook in the field, Cross & Tapper on Evidence has, over successive editions, acquired a justly deserved reputation as a.
architects draw freehand fundamentals pdf
Again, recovered memory and false-memory, a recovery technique called hematic Emergence of Anomaly was held inadmissible but in R v Clarke facial mapping by video superimposition was held admissible. Ibid, 36. For the history of repressed-memo. See also R v B  Crim.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Powered by! See also the Civil Procedure Rules, Part Character in general 8.We help make it more economical to create cleaner, the then Minister of State at the Home Oice. Although the supporters of the Bill felt that the video-taped interviews would be admitted free of the restrictive rules of evidence, cheaper energy out of th! Categories : Evidence pdv. Dworkin attacks the theory of judicial discretion on two grounds!
See also P. In view of two recent decisions90 holding that reverse burden violates Article 6 2 of the Convention, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and the copyright of the author s may not be infringed in any way. Section 16B 1 makes it an ofence for any person, it is safe to assert that the issue of reverse burden and its compatibility with Article 6 2 will not go away in a hurry and this brings into focus the need for the reconceptualisation of the Woolmington principle. Anyone gaining access, without lawful authority or reasonable cause the proof of which lies on him to collect or record any information of such a nature as is likely useful to a terrorist in planning or carrying out an act of terrorism or to have in his possession any such record o.
Opinion evidence refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes, or infers in regard to facts, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. However, there are two exceptions to this rule: expert evidence and non-expert opinion given by laymen which people in their daily lives reach without conscious ratiocination. In general, witnesses should testify only as to the facts observed and should not give opinion. The main rationale for such a rule is that the admission of opinion evidence would not assist, or might even mislead, the court and in particular the jury. This is because opinion evidence is usually irrelevant. Moreover, admission of such evidence would usurp the functions of the jury, which alone should be the tribunal of fact and draw its own inferences. An expert witness is a witness , who by virtue of education , training , skill , or experience , is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized scientific , technical or other opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.
Which should they be. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Benth. Adolph Evidende was wrongly convicted twice and pardoned twice. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
The purpose of this two-part article is to examine the regulatory environment governing hearsay electronic evidence in South Africa with a view to suggesting law reform in the light of the most recent proposals put forward by the South African Law Reform Commission. Part one considered the definition of data messages in the context of hearsay electronic evidence and concluded that amendment is required as suggested by the South African Law Reform Commission. Further, part one sought to answer two additional queries posed in Discussion Paper Review of the Law of Evidence in relation to electronic hearsay, ultimately finding that a data message can constitute hearsay within the meaning of the applicable legislation; further, that South African law must distinguish between data messages produced substantially by a computer or mechanical process and those that rely substantially on the credibility of a person. Part two of this article will review the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rules applicable to electronic evidence, including the controversial section 15 4 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of Further, part two will analyse the situation in selected foreign jurisdictions where hearsay electronic evidence has had more time to mature and develop United Kingdom, Canada and United States with a view to incorporating suggestions that South Africa can implement. Finally, this article will conclude by providing suggestions for law reform in the context of the recommendations put forward by the South African Law Reform Commission, and will suggest that that there must be law reform in at least the following areas: the definition of data messages; the definition of the term document in the statutes applicable to the hearsay exceptions; a distinction between types of electronic evidence insofar as computer-generated evidence with human intervention, and without human intervention is concerned; and more cohesion and alignment with the statutory hearsay exceptions.