LEV3701 Assignment 1 5 June 2021.

LEV3701 Law of Evidence 2021 Student No,: Assignment: 1 Unique number: (1) The privilege against self-incrimination is manifested in various rights which are contained in the Bill of Rights, including the rights of an arrested person to remain silent (s 35(1)(a)), or not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person (section 35(1)(c)), and the right of an accused person to be presumed innocent, and not to testify at trial (section 35(3)(h)). The court stated that not only did the record of the bail proceedings form part of the subsequent trial record, but any evidence which the accused elected to give at the bail hearing was admissible against him or her at the trial, provided that the court which heard the bail application had warned the accused of the risk of making such statements. The court accepted that the testimony at the bail application may cause prejudice to the accused later on, if it were incriminating for the purposes of the trial. That it may be a hard choice does not affect the question, as long as the choice remained that of the accused, and that it was made with a proper appreciation of what it entailed. An uninformed choice is no choice. While the statement in the question is stated in the negative, the court in Dlamini came to the same conclusion, but stated the decision in positive terms, namely that (self-incriminating) evidence will be admissible if the accused was “properly advised” or warned by the judicial officer of the consequences of testifying (namely that such testimony could be used against the witness). If Mr Shakes was properly advised of the consequences of testifying, such evidence will be admissible in the main trial.