Relevance and admissibility
Reading List
Liswaniso v The people
Liswaniso v Mopani Copper Mines
The People v Chipawa and another
CK scientific group Zambia v Zambia wild life authority
Question one
“Apart from the rule of law relating to the admissibility of in voluntary confessions, evidence illegally
obtained, e.g. as a result of an illegal search and seizure or as a result of an in admissible confession is, if
relevant, admissible on the ground that such evidence is a fact regardless of whether or not it violates a
provision of the Constitution (or some other law).”
Discuss
Question two
On the 10th of December 2016 Dipsy was charged with murder contrary to s200 of the penal code. At
trial the prosecution seek to adduce:
1. A confession statement made by Dipsy. You are advised by Dipsy that no warn or caution statement
was administered prior to the confession in question.
2. An assault complaint filed against Dipsy in 2013 by a one Dorica, Dipsy was later charged, but nolle
prosecu was filled. Dipsy was then released.
3. Evidence given by Anne Tembo who alleges that she saw a person that looks like Dipsy at the home of
the deceased around the time of the murder being 21 hours. She said she was able to see Dipsy through
her window, although the deceased’s house did not have lighting.
4. Evidence given by Dabwiso, who alleges that his 5 year old son, saw Dipsy stab the deceased.
Instructions:
You as the new associate at UNILUS chambers, have been instructed by your supervisor to object to the
admissibility of the above evidence. Prepare submissions accordingly.
Burden of Proof
SALUWEMA v THE PEOPLE (1965) Z.R. 4 (C.A.)
Katundu v the people
Mwewa Murono v The People
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NORTHERN RHODESIA v SMART LYAMPALI AND EDWARD MUNGONI LISO
(1963-1964) Z. AND N.R.L.R. 121 (C.A.)
MWELWA v THE PEOPLE (1975) Z.R. 166 (S.C.)
THE PEOPLE V ROSS MORE ERNEST AND HASSEL SHAMALINE PATEL'S BAZAAR LIMITED v THE PEOPLE
(1965) Z.R. 84 (C.A.)
Question 2
On the 10th of October Mr Banda was charged with the offense of possession of an offensive weapon
contrary to s85 of the Penal code. The section reads as follows:
85. (1) Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie upon him, has in
his possession or in or upon any premises occupied by him any offensive weapon or any offensive
material is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding
seven years.
At trial the prosecution adduced as evidence the weapon in question through investigator general Zulu.
Mr Zulu testified to the effect that, the said weapon was seized at the house of the deceased. The
prosecution further sought to adduce a confession signed and confirmed to be an accurate statement by
the accused person. Counsel for the accused objected on ground that the same was obtained by duress.
The judge after holding a trial within a trial, ruled that, the confession was not given voluntarily and was
thus inadmissible.
At case to answer stage the accused person was found with a case to answer. He chose to give an
unsworn statement, stating that he had no knowledge of the said weapon, further he stated that, the
prosecution had no authority to search his premises.
The accused person was convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The judge cited as reasons,
the growing concern of gun crimes.
The accused person appealed. You are the new legal intern at University of Lusaka Chambers. Prepare
grounds of response thereof. (30 marks
