LEV3701-mcq-law-of-evidence. 100% CORRECT ANS.

2010 Second Semester – Assignment 1 Question 1 (a) If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search for the answer in the early Roman-Dutch law. (b) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates the Constitution will always be inadmissible. (c) Substantive law indicates which procedure must be followed to prove a case. (d) The “facts in dispute” in a particular case are heavily influenced by the applicable substantive law. (1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct. (2) Only statements (a), (b) and (d) are correct. (3) Only statement (c) is correct. (4) Only statement (d) is correct. (5) All the statements are correct. Question 2 (a) In the case of a residuary clause, our courts have to determine what the English law was immediately before South Africa became a Republic in 1961. (b) Roman-Dutch law is the common law of South Africa and therefore constitutes the historical source of our substantive and formal law. (c) In terms of section 35(1) of the Constitution, every arrested person has the right to adduce and challenge evidence. (d) A finding by a court that a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible due to irrelevance is final and cannot be reconsidered during the course of the same trial. (1) Only statement (a) is correct. (2) Only statements (a), (b) and (c) are correct. (3) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct. (4) Only statements (a) and (d) are correct. (5) All the statements are correct. Question 3 (a) A person is charged with fraud in that he made a false statement to a financial institution. Evidence that this person has, on previous occasions, made similar false statements to other financial institutions, is hearsay evidence. (b) A person is charged with fraud in that he made a false statement to a financial institution. Evidence that this person has, on previous occasions, made similar false statements to other financial institutions, is evidence about previous consistent statements. (c) The accused, in trying to dispute the admissibility of a confession made while he was in detention, wants to tender evidence that, on other occasions, the police have used improper means to get statements from him. This evidence is evidence of previous consistent statements. (d) The accused is charged with dealing in dagga. The fact that the accused has previously been convicted of dealing in dagga is hearsay evidence. (1) Only statement (a) is correct. (2) Only statement (b) is correct. (3) Only statement (c) is correct. (4) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct. (5) None of the statements is correct. Question 4 (a) A similar fact may be distinguished from a previous consistent statement in that a similar fact will seldom, if ever, take the form of a statement. Downloaded by Neo Lemao () lOMoARcPSD| EVI301-A Page 2 of 27 (b) Similar fact evidence can only be used by the state, since the law prohibits the accused from using similar fact evidence to his advantage. (c) Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 protects an accused against answering certain questions during cross-examination, but this protection falls away where the accused gives evidence against any other person charged with the same offence or an offence in respect of the same facts. (d) When evidence about someone’s character is important for purposes of the law of evidence, the common law states that only evidence of the general reputation of such a person may be presented. (1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct. (2) Only statement (c) is correct. (3) Only statements (a), (c) and (d) are correct. (4) Only statement (d) is correct. (5) All the statements are correct. Question 5 Section 35(5) of the Constitution reads as follows: (a) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights can be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.” (b) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights should be excluded if the admission of that evidence would be detrimental to the administration of justice or otherwise render the trial unfair.” (c) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.” (d) “Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair and also be detrimental to the administration of justice.” (1) Only statement (a) is correct. (2) Only statement (b) is correct. (3) Only statement (c) is correct. (4) Only statement (d) is correct. Question 6 (a) In the case of an alleged offence of a sexual nature, evidence of a previous consistent statement will inter alia be admissible if the complaint was made at the first reasonable opportunity, but not later than 48 hours after the offence was committed. (b) A number of principles have over time developed to ensure the fairness of an identification parade. One principle is that it is important that the people in the line-up do not wear similar clothes. (c) There is question of a previous consistent statement when, during testimony in court, a witness repeats a statement consistent with one made on a previous occasion, in order to corroborate his evidence. (d) There is question of a previous consistent statement when a witness repeats a consistent statement made by another witness on a previous occasion, which serves as self-corroboration for the other witness. (1) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. (2) Only statements (b), (c) and (d) are correct. (3) Only statement (c) is correct. (4) Only statements (c) and (d) are correct. (5) Only statement (d) is correct. Question 7 In the course of a civil matter the plaintiff wants to present the record of a witness’ testimony in a criminal trial based on the same facts, as evidence against the defendant. Consider the following statements: (a) The evidence will be hearsay evidence.