2022 0CTOBER EXAM -LAW OF EVIDENCE [LEV3701]

Section 1 1.1 The cautionary rule is applicable in certain situations. One of the situations is when there is one witness tendering evidence in court. In such a case there is no other witness to support and augment such testimony. As such, it is within the province of the court presiding over the matter to treat such evidence with caution. In S v Webber the court set the standard that should be followed when dealing with the evidence of a single witness. It stands to reason that the evidence of a single witness can be relied upon when it is clear and satisfactory in every material respect. The court can, therefore, rely upon such evidence for example, where the witness has a conflicting interest to that of the accused or is biased against the accused. It is possible that a conviction is possible on the strength of the evidence of a single witness. The court needs to establish and determine whether such witness is a credible one and the evidence of same should be approached with caution. Due consideration should be given to factors which affirm and factors which detract from the credibility of the witness. The probative value of the evidence of a single witness should also not be equated with that of several witnesses. There is no rule-of-thumb or formula to apply when considering the credibility of a single witness. The evidence of a single witness may be satisfactory even though it is susceptible to criticism. The degree of caution which should be applied to the testimony may also be increased by other factors, for example if the state relies on a single witness and does not adduce other evidence, there is a greater need for caution. 1.2 There are situations where accused persons are tried jointly. In such a case they are referred to as “co-accused” persons. With regard to the principle of competence and compellability, the co-accused as a defense witness Accused may testify in defense of complainant and vice versa. Accused may not be compelled to testify in defense of complainant because Accused is also an accused. Regarding the co-accused as a prosecution witness, he is not a competent witness for the state, because he is also an accused. He is morally and legally criminally liable as the other accused person. In this case the question of compellability does not even arise where the witness is not competent to testify. There may, however, be circumstances where the state may call someone who had previously been a co-accused, to testify. This happens when the person is no longer a co-accused in that case. This can happen in one of the four following ways: • Withdrawing the charge against the co-accused. I must stress at this point that this is not an acquittal. A former accused may be prosecuted again. • Finding the co-accused not guilty. • The co-accused entering a plea of guilty. This has the effect of a separation of trial of the accused and co-accused. • If the trials of the accused and co-accused are separated for some other valid reason. 1.3 In the past, the mere silence of the accused was seen as a sign of a guilty conscience. Silence was used as a form of circumstantial evidence to bolster