Test 1

● Discuss the difference(s), if any, between assessors and juries.

● In Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa v Public Protector and Others 2020
(5) SA 179 (GP) and in Graham v Park Mews Body Corporate and Another; 2012 (1)
SA 355 (WCC), the High Court approached the applicability of the Hollington Rule to
the findings of a civil court or tribunal differently. Which of the two approaches do
you agree with and why?

● Bob and Jimmy are family friends. Last year Bob allegedly raped Jimmy’s wife,
Sarah. Sarah did not disclose to Jimmy that Bob had raped her. Jimmy got know
about it when he checked the messages in Sarah’s phone. He confronted Sarah who
denied knowledge of the messages. Not convinced with Sarah’s denial, Jimmy
assaulted her. As a result of the assault, she informed him that indeed Bob had
raped her. Jimmy reports this to the police and Bob is arrested. Sarah does not
come to court as a witness at Jimmy’s trial. However, the magistrate admits the
statement Sarah reportedly made to Jimmy as proof that Bob had raped her.
Discuss whether or not the magistrate made the correct decision.

● in January last year, Bob stabbed Jimmy after a heated argument. A few hours after
the incident, Jimmy was admitted to hospital and Bob was arrested. At his trial,
which took place a week after the incident, John pleaded guilty to the charge of
attempted murder and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. While still
serving his sentence, a fire broke out at the prison and Bob used that opportunity
to escape. He is now being prosecuted for escaping from lawfully custody and the
prosecution would like to adduce evidence of his conviction for attempted murder
at his trial. Discuss whether or not that evidence is admissible.

● Last year, Bob allegedly raped his friend, Sarah. Two days after the incident, Sarah
informed her father that Bob had raped her. Bob is being prosecuted for rape. At
his trial, Bob denied the allegation and argued that had he raped Sarah, “why
didn’t she report the incident immediately?” The magistrate is not sure whether or
not the statement Sarah made to her father is admissible in evidence. Advise the
magistrate accordingly.

● Cissy was a student activist in her home country – Nauru. After a violent student
protest, she was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of malicious damage to
property. The court in Nauru sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. She now
lives in South Africa where she works as a taxi driver. A few weeks ago, she
committed a traffic offence and at her trial, she argued that she is a person of good
character who has never been convicted of any offence. The prosecution would like
to question her on her conviction in Nauru. Discuss whether or not the prosecution
should be allowed.
 ● A robbery was committed at one of the shopping malls in Cape Town. After the
robbery, the police, based on the CCTV footage, identified James as one of the
suspects. Before his arrest, James approached his lawyer, Mark, for legal advice.
During the consultation, James informed Mark that he had committed the robbery
and that Mark should do his best to ensure that he is acquitted. Mark informed
him that it was against his conscience to defend people who terrorise communities.
He therefore declined to defend James. After his arrest, James asked another
lawyer, Bob, to defend him. The prosecution is of the view that Mark should be one
of the state witnesses. Advise the prosecution on the way forward.

Test 2

‘The constitutional court has been consistent in its approach regarding the
constitutionality of legal and evidential burdens’. Discuss the difference between the two
burdens and use constitutional cases to evaluate this statement.

Mark would like to get a driving licence. He approaches John, a police officer, and informs
him that he was prepared to do the driving test to get the licence. John informs his friend,
Jimmy, a traffic officer, about it. Jimmy informs John that he should inform Mark that if he
pays R5000, he will get a licence without doing the test. Mark informs John that he was
not interested in bribing Jimmy. John, because he did not want to “embarrass” Jimmy,
threatens Mark with arrest on trumped up charges if he did not accept the “deal.” To avoid
the arrest, Mark accepts to buy the licence. John records the “transaction” and the
conversation between himself and Mark. Mark is arrested and prosecuted for bribery.
Discuss whether the evidence in question is admissible.

Mark is suspected of stealing a pig. He is arrested by the police. At the time of arrest, he is
asked to make a statement implicating him in the commission of the offence. However, he
refuses to do so. The police torture him. As a result of the torture, he makes a statement
implicating John in the theft. Based on that statement, John is arrested. John takes the
police to his home where he hid the pig. He is prosecuted for theft. Explain whether the
evidence in question is admissible against John.

A robbery was committed at one of the shopping malls in Cape Town. After the robbery,
the police, based on their informers and tracking devices, identified James as one of the
suspects. The police submitted the docket to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). In
preparation for his defence, James has requested the NPA to avail him the whole docket.
The prosecution informs him that it is not in the interests of justice to accede to James’
request. Advise James on the way forward.
You are a prosecutor in a case of assault and your witnesses should testify. While you wish
to cross examine your witness, the court states that it should lead evidence on its own
motion. The accused’s attorney wants to lead evidence in the prosecution case at the
beginning of the trial. Advise on the issues arising.

On the basis of information from a confession of Zando before a Senior Professor at the
Faculty of Law, a search was instituted and the gun was recovered and analysed by the
Ballistic Expert. The confession also incriminated Nkusi. Advise on the admissibility of the
evidence.

Jimmy is arrested for allegedly stealing Mike’s laptop. He is prosecuted accordingly. The
prosecution calls Mike as a state witness. In his testimony (defence), Jimmy informs court
that he did not steal the laptop and that Mike is a ‘notorious liar.’ The prosecution would
like to adduce evidence to challenge Jimmy’s ‘fabrication.’ Discuss the option(s) available
at the prosecution’s disposal.

Mark would like to get a driving licence. He approaches John, a police officer, and informs
him that he was prepared to do the driving test to get the licence. John informs his friend,
Jimmy, a traffic officer, about it. Jimmy informs John that he should inform Mark that if he
pays R5000, he will get a licence without doing the test. Mark informs John that he was
not interested in bribing Jimmy. John, because he did not want to “embarrass” Jimmy,
threatens Mark with arrest on trumped up charges if he did not accept the “deal.” To avoid
the arrest, Mark accepts to buy the licence. John records the “transaction” and the
conversation between himself and Mark. Mark is arrested and prosecuted for bribery.
Discuss whether the evidence in question is admissible.

Test 3
Following the arrest of Sipho for the murder of her boyfriend, one Nido, the police has
various pieces of evidence. These include Nido’s phone with data messages on WhatsApp
with an emoji of a knife, fingerprints that were lifted of the knife recovered from the scene
of crime. However, Sipho claims that she was intoxicated and does not remember
murdering Nido. Advise on the admissibility of the evidence.
I will be discussing discuss two concerns raised by the scenario in order to provide advise I
will use various legislation, case law and all relevant applicable legal sources to
substantiate my position.

You are leading evidence in a murder case and you have the following witnesses. A
member of the National Assembly who has obtained permission from the President to
come and testify, a magistrate who was present at the scene of crime and the spouse of
the deceased. Advise on the issues arising.

Before Zando could make a confession on charges of murder, the police station
commander said “hi” to him, brought him very good breakfast to the cells where he was
being held, and he wished him well. He spoke in isiXhosa and the Magistrate recorded the
confession in English. He said that he shot the victim six times in his chest. Advise on the
admissibility of the evidence.

Before Zando could make a confession on charges of murder, the police station
commander said “hi” to him, brought him very good breakfast to the cells where he was
being held, and he wished him well. He spoke in isiXhosa and the Magistrate recorded the
confession in English. He said that he shot the victim six times in his chest. Advise on the
admissibility of the evidence.

Bob contracted Jimmy to repair his car. However, the car broke down a few hours after the
repair. Bob asked Jimmy to repair it again and he refused unless Bob paid him more money
for the second task. John, one of Jimmy’s employees, allegedly informed Bob that Jimmy
had used poor quality spare parts to repair his car. Bob has sued Jimmy for breach of
contract. Bob has asked John to come to court and give evidence that Jimmy had used
poor quality spare parts to repair the car. A month before the hearing, Jimmy terminates
John’s employment. John gets another job out of the Province and he is not readily
available to give evidence. Bob’s lawyer would like the court to admit John’s statement in
evidence. Jimmy’s lawyer objects. What options does the presiding officer have?

A robbery was committed at one of the shopping malls in Cape Town. After the robbery,
the police, based on the CCTV footage, identified James as one of the suspects. The
prosecution has lined up three witnesses including the mall manager, Karl, and Bob, the
police officer who arrested James. James informs the prosecution that he would like to
speak to Karl and Bob in preparation for his defence. The prosecution informs him that it is
not in the interests of justice to accede to James’ request. Advise James on the way
forward.

In a case of murder, the prosecution seeks to adduce the evidence of Ogwang who has no
birth certificate but looks to be 12 years old. He was born in Zimbabwe, when his family
was travelling from Kenya to South Africa to seek asylum. The parents have no birth
certificate to reflect his age. Ogwang witnessed the murder and does not want testify
because of trauma. The occurrence was captured on a CCTV Camera at ABSA, Bellville.
Advise on the admissibility of the evidence.

Test 4

'Evaluation of evidence requires the court to look at corroboration, credibility and

circumstantial evidence only'. Analyse this statement.
For evidence to be evaluated, the court must weight every piece of evidence, firstly, on its
own and then in context with all the other evidence. In the Chabalala case, the Supreme
court of appeal stated that the correct approach in evaluating evidence is to weigh up all
the elements that point towards guilt, against all the elements that point towards
innocence, taking into account all factors, and then to decide whether or not the evidence
is such that it balances so heavily in favor of the state that it excludes any reasonable
doubt about the accused’s guilt.

John was charged with assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm. He swore that
he was innocent. At the closing of the state’s case it was apparent that the evidence does
not indicate that he committed the crime. John is nervous, however. He knows that many
years ago, his uncle Frank, was also an accused in a criminal case and the state also
appeared to have a weak case. Uncle Frank then testified and his own testimony
contributed to his conviction. John wants to know from you if the same would happen to
him. As a judicial officer, advise John on at least five legal principles that direct court on
the evaluation of evidence.

Section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 places the burden of proof
on an accused to show that his confession was made involuntarily. Discuss the
constitutionality of this section

Discuss the principles that underscore the evaluation of evidence in South Africa.

The concept of a presumption is not one with which many people are familiar. You have to
explain this concept to a first year law student. Explain the concept as well as the
difference between an irrebuttable and a rebuttable presumption and why presumptions
are used in our law . You may also use examples for purposes of clarity in your answer

'The application of judicial notice should be limited to the law, and should not extend to
facts' . Discuss this statement.