LEV3701
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 9 APRIL 2026
, Law of Evidence - LEV3701
Assessment 2 2026
LEVEL CLAIMED: Excellent
Question 1
The issues relate to (1) the admissibility of cross-examination on prior sexual history
and (2) whether the accused may call witnesses on this issue.
In terms of section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, evidence relating to a
complainant’s previous sexual experience or conduct is generally inadmissible in sexual
offence cases, unless the court grants leave. The purpose of this provision is to protect
complainants from irrelevant, prejudicial, and humiliating questioning that has little
probative value.
The questions put to the complainant about her sexual relations with other men are
therefore not automatically permissible. The court must determine whether such
questioning is relevant to an issue in dispute and whether its probative value outweighs
its prejudicial effect. Case law, such as S v M and S v Jackson, emphasizes that courts
must guard against the use of sexual history to attack credibility unfairly, as this
perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
In this case, the defence attempts to suggest that the complainant is lying or unreliable
by referring to her sexual history. However, her prior sexual conduct is not relevant to
the issue of consent in this specific incident, nor does it affect her ability to identify the
accused. Therefore, such questioning is likely to be disallowed as it is prejudicial and
lacks sufficient probative value.
Regarding the issue of identification, the defence is entitled to challenge the
complainant’s ability to identify the accused due to poor visibility conditions. This line of
cross-examination is relevant and admissible, as it directly relates to the reliability of her
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 9 APRIL 2026
, Law of Evidence - LEV3701
Assessment 2 2026
LEVEL CLAIMED: Excellent
Question 1
The issues relate to (1) the admissibility of cross-examination on prior sexual history
and (2) whether the accused may call witnesses on this issue.
In terms of section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, evidence relating to a
complainant’s previous sexual experience or conduct is generally inadmissible in sexual
offence cases, unless the court grants leave. The purpose of this provision is to protect
complainants from irrelevant, prejudicial, and humiliating questioning that has little
probative value.
The questions put to the complainant about her sexual relations with other men are
therefore not automatically permissible. The court must determine whether such
questioning is relevant to an issue in dispute and whether its probative value outweighs
its prejudicial effect. Case law, such as S v M and S v Jackson, emphasizes that courts
must guard against the use of sexual history to attack credibility unfairly, as this
perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
In this case, the defence attempts to suggest that the complainant is lying or unreliable
by referring to her sexual history. However, her prior sexual conduct is not relevant to
the issue of consent in this specific incident, nor does it affect her ability to identify the
accused. Therefore, such questioning is likely to be disallowed as it is prejudicial and
lacks sufficient probative value.
Regarding the issue of identification, the defence is entitled to challenge the
complainant’s ability to identify the accused due to poor visibility conditions. This line of
cross-examination is relevant and admissible, as it directly relates to the reliability of her
