LEV3701 - Notes (2021)

Relevance and admissibility of evidence WHAT IS MEANT BY "RELEVANCE?  A logical connection between the issues of the case before the court and the evidence that stands to be admitted in order for it to be relevant.  This logical relevance is a matter of common sense Three things therefore stand out when a court has to decide on relevance: ● The importance of the issues ● The potential weight of the evidence ● The potential prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence Similar fact evidence Similar fact evidence is evidence about a fact which is similar to a fact in issue. Note that there are two separate sets of facts.  the facts in issue before court, and,  secondly, a separate set of facts which is very similar to the facts in issue before court, but which is not in issue THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE 1. there must be a logical connection between similar fact evidence and facts in issue 2. the similar fact evidence must have sufficient probative value to warrant its reception Start off by pinpointing the facts in issue, since it is the relevance of similar fact evidence to the facts in issue that determines its admissibility Then find reason why there is an adequate nexus between the facts in issue and the similar facts. Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales 1894 Importance of the dictum.  it states that one may not reason that, because the accused committed a similar crime in the past, he has a criminal character and has therefore indeed committed the offence for which he is being tried  it answers the question of when similar fact evidence will have sufficient probative value to warrant its reception states that similar fact evidence will be sufficiently relevant  It answers the question of whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime were designed or accidental, or if the similar fact evidence could rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the accused. In Harris v DPP 1952, the court points out that it would be a mistake to categorise instances in which the principle will be applicable In DPP v Boardman 1975, the court stressed that, when one deals with similar fact evidence, the most important aspect is the application of the general principle: similar fact evidence will be admissible when the evidentiary value thereof outweighs the potential for prejudice. The processes which the trial court will work through require value based judgements rather than objectively determinable facts. Deciding whether the evidence is sufficiently closely related to the facts in issue for it to be allowed is always difficult and should be based on case to case basis. Character evidence Means disposition/personality and reputation. The real character of a person, or the way that person really is, while reputation is what other people think of that particular person The accused's bad character The general rule is that the accused may adduce evidence of his own good character, but the prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of his bad character Evidence which proves only that the accused has a bad character will normally be inadmissible The only exception to this rule is where the accused has presented evidence of his good character. Then the state is entitled to call a witness to testify about the accused's bad character, although this is most unusual. In terms of common law, such a witness will be restricted to evidence about the accused's general reputation. This protection falls away in the circumstances mentioned; Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 Which provides that; an accused who gives evidence at criminal proceedings shall not be asked to answer any question tending to show that he has committed or has been convicted of an offence or that he is of bad character, unless a) He or his legal representative asks any question of any witness with a view to establish his own good character b) He gives evidence aga