LEV 3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 2021

Question 1 1.1 I would inform the investigating officer that he needs to know that, first and foremost, there is a difference between an admission and a confession. An admission is simply an admission of one or more of the facts in issue (but not all the facts in issue), in contrast a confession is an admission of all the facts in issue. I would further inform the investigating officer that he also needs to distinguish between formal admissions (which are made in pleadings or in court) and an informal admission (usually made out of court). He would need to understand that formal admissions are binding on the maker, whereas informal admissions merely constitute an item of evidence that can be contradicted or explained away. The investigating officer needs to be aware of the fact that in criminal matters the requirement for admissions is that they need to be proved as being made voluntarily, prior to them being admitted into evidence. In S v Cele 1965 1 SA 82 (A) it was held that; at common law an extra-judicial statement made by an accused may not be admitted into evidence unless it is proved to have been made freely and voluntarily. In R v Barlin 1926 AD 459 it was further explained that; the words ‘freely and voluntarily’ have a technical and restricted meaning and an admission will be found to be involuntary only if it has been induced by a promise or threat proceeding from a person of authority. The investigating officer would need to place the above information against the facts in issue. The facts in issue are that he can be found to be viewed as person of authority, in his capacity as a Captain in the SAPS by X. In Cross of Evidence, 5th edition, (1979) it is reported that: The courts have held that a person in authority includes a magistrate, police officer, complainant. Another fact in issue is that he informed X that if he would possibly not be charged with other murders if he confessed to the current charge against him, this may be construed as being a promise. The reason it may be construed as a promise may be substantiated in R v Magoetie 1959 2 SA 322 (A) whereby it was held that: A threat or promise will be found to have been made if a person, by means of words or conduct, indicates to the accused that they will be treated more favourably if they speak, or less favourably if they don’t. The facts given do not meet the requirements of section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, which speak to X’s confession being made freely and voluntarily in order for it to be admissible against him in criminal proceedings. 1.2 In terms of section 218(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that X (the accused) pointed out the gloves as evidence is not admissible. This is due to section 218(1) stating that any evidence of fact may be admitted at criminal proceedings, notwithstanding that the witness discovered such fact only in consequence of information given by an accused in a confession or statement which in inadmissible. Through the interpretation of section 218(1) we find that X does not fulfil its requirements. Whilst section 218(2) refers to evidence of any pointing out by an accused may be admitted at criminal proceedings, notwithstanding that such pointing out forms part of a confession or Page 1 of 3 This study source was downloaded by from CourseH on :20:05 GMT -05:00 This study resource was shared via CourseH LEV3701 Assignment 01: