ITEM VIEW

Die toelaatbaarheid van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis

dc.contributor.advisorVan der Merwe, S. E.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorLangenhoven, Marthinus Jacobusen_ZA
dc.contributor.otherStellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Lawen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-10T12:18:45Z
dc.date.available2018-01-10T12:18:45Z
dc.date.issued1999-12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/103034
dc.descriptionThesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 1999en_ZA
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108of1996 provides that 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 interests of justice. The exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence promotes legality, protects fundamental rights and preserves the integrity of the administration of justice. Section 35(5) can be described as a "qualified exclusionary" rule. It differs markedly from the early common law inclusionary approach as formulated in England in 1861: "It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible." Various broad issues concerning the application of section 35(5) are identified in Chapter 1. Given our constitutional dispensation, the enforcement of legality is of the utmost importance. However, any evidential rule which promotes the acquittal of factually guilty accused, must be critically examined and assessed. It is an indisputable fact that there is a pressing and valid demand - especially at present in South Africa - that the rules of substantive criminal law should be enforced. It is necessary to strike a balance between due process and crime control. The rights, values and interests protected by section 35(5) should also be weighed against the rights, values and interests which are (or may be) affected by the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The evolution and principles of the English common law inclusionary approach are examined in Chapter 2. This inclusionary approach was later curbed by an extremely limited discretionary rule. In 1984 the English courts received a statutory discretion to exclude evidence if the admission of that evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the courts ought not to admit it. The country from which the inclusionary rule originated, therefore also took a different tack. But the English courts exercise their statutory discretion rather haphazardly - and it is therefore difficult to identify principles. Chapter 3 deals with the exclusionary rule which developed in the USA on account of various historical incidents, political considerations and constitutional provisions. The American Constitution does not contain an exclusionary rule. In 1886 a limited and tentative exclusionary rule was created by the Supreme Court of the USA. This rule was linked to constitutional provisions. The exclusionary rule was progressively developed until 1961. In 1961 the Supreme Court created a wide and rigid exclusionary rule. However, over the past three decades various exceptions to the rule have been created, for example the "bona fide exception." The American experience indicates that the rigid exclusion of all unconstitutionally obtained evidence is unrealistic and detrimental to the administration of justice. South Africa should take cognisance of this. The comparative perspective is continued.in Chapter 4. Most of the countries which belong to the Anglo-American "law of evidence family," initially relied heavily on the English inclusionary approach. However, through case law - and in some instances legislation - they all accepted a discretion to exclude evidence procured unlawfully or unconstitutionally. A similar development took place in continental systems. Even in an inquisitorial procedure and free system of evidence, a court cannot have untrammelled access to evidence obtained in breach of fundamental rights.The American exclusionary rule not only had an international impact, but also a supra-national impact. The rules of ad hoc international criminal tribunals provide for the exclusion of evidence obtained in breach of fundamental rights. The Canadian position is dealt with in Chapter 5. The English law of evidence serves as the common law of Canada. But in Canada - as in South Africa - the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence is governed by a qualified exclusionary rule contained in a justiciable Bill of Rights. Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 determines, inter alia, that unconstitutionally obtained evidence must be excluded "if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." The Canadian courts essentially rely on three criteria in interpreting section 24(2). Would admission of the evidence affect the fairness of the trial? How serious was the violation of the constitutional right? What impact would exclusion have on the repute of the administration of justice? The last two criteria would be useful in interpreting the requirement "detrimental to the administration of justice" as set in section 35(5). Chapter 6 covers the South African position prior to and since constitutionalization. In the preconstitutional period the common law discretion to exclude evidence, was applied in an erratic and inconsistent manner. The interim Constitution (the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200of1993) did not contain an exclusionary provision in respect of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The courts developed their own exclusionary rule. Conflicting and confusing results were achieved. Section 35(5) of the present Constitution is to a large extent an attempt to provide clarity. In the final chapter it is recommended, inter a/ia, that considerations of public policy ought to play a role in the interpretation of section 35(5); that a trial is unfair where the prosecution relies on selfincriminating unconstitutionally obtained evidence in order to prove its case; that - in contradistinction to the position in the USA and Canada - the infringement of a third party's constitutional right may in some instances, also activate consideration of the exclusionary rule; that the courts should be conservative in excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence; that the good faith and reasonable conduct of the police should play a role; and, further, that a statutory form of compensation should be available to victims of crime in those instances where an accused is acquitted on account of the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika Wet 108 van 1996, bepaal dat getuienis wat verkry is op 'n wyse wat enige reg in die Handves van Regte skend, uitgesluit moet word indien toelating daarvan die verhoor onbillik sou maak of andersins vir die regspleging nadelig sou wees. Die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis is primer daarop gemik om legaliteit te bevorder, grondwetlike regte teen owerheidskending te beskerm en die integriteit van die regspleging te handhaaf. Artikel 35(5) kan as 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsreel ("exclusionary rule") beskryfword. Dit verskil radikaal van die Engelse gemene bewysreg se vroee toelatingsbenadering wat in 1861 soos volg geformuleer is: "It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence." In hoofstuk 1 word verskeie bree twispunte rakende die toepassing van artikel 35(5) ge1dentifiseer. Gegewe ons grondwetlike bedeling, is die legaliteitsbeginsel van die allergrootste belang. Maar enige bewysregtelike reel wat die vryspraak van feitelike skuldige persone bevorder, moet streng krities betrag en beoordeel word. Dit is 'n onbetwisbare feit dat daar - veral in die huidige tydsgewrig in Suid-Afrika - 'n dringende en geldige gemeenskapsbehoefte en -aanspraak is dat die materiele strafreg effektief afgedwing moet word. 'n Kompromie tussen oorwegings van "due process" en "crime control" word bepleit. Daar moet dus nie slegs na die regte, waardes en belange wat deur 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsreel soos vervat in artikel 35(5) beskerm word, gekyk word nie. Daar moet ook gekyk word na watter waardes en belange deur die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis aangetas (kan) word. In hoofstuk 2 word die evolusie en beginsels van die Engelse gemenereg se toelatingsbenaderinguiteengesit. Hierdie benadering is later deur 'n baie beperkte gemeenregtelike uitsluitingsdiskresie ingekort. In 1984 het Engelse wetgewing aan die howe 'n diskresie verleen om getuienis uit te sluit indien toelating daarvan so 'n nadelige effek op die die billikheid van die verhoor sal he, dat die hof die getuienis nie behoort toe te laat nie. Die land wat die oorspronklike bron van die toelatingsbenadering was, het dus geleidelik tot ander insigte gekom. Die Engelse howe oefen hulle statutere uitsluitingsdiskresie egter betreklik lukraak uit. Dit is derhalwe moeilik om beginsels te identifiseer. Soos in hoofstuk 3 blyk, het die uitsluitingsreel in die VSA ontwikkel op grond van 'n sameloop van historiese gebeure, politiese oorwegings en grondwetlike bepalings. Die Amerikaanse Grondwet bevat nie 'n uitsluitingsreel nie. 'n Beperkte en tentatiewe uitsluitingsreel is in 1886 vir die eerste keer deur die Hooggeregshofvan die VSA geskep. Grondwetlike bepalings is vir hierdie doel ingespan. Tot 1961 is hierdie uitsluitingsreel progressief verder ontwikkel. In 1961 is die ontwikkeling van 'n wye en rigiede uitsluitingsreel voltooi. Oor die afgelope drie dekades is weer geleidelik - en om goeie redes - sekere uitsonderings op die reel, soos byvoorbeeld die goeie-trou-uitsondering, geskep. Die Amerikaanse ervaring dui daarop dat die rigiede uitsluiting van alle ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis onrealisties is en die regspleging skaad. Suid-Afrika moet hiervan kennis neem. In hoofstuk 4 word die regsvergelykende perspektiefverder gevoer. Die meeste lande wat tot die Anglo-Amerikaanse "bewysreg-familie" behoort, het aanvanklik sterk op die Engelsregtelike toelatingsbenadering gesteun. Maar deur middel van regspraak - en in sommige gevalle wetgewing - is beweeg na 'n uitsluitingsdiskresie ten opsigte van getuienis wat onregmatig of ongrondwetlik bekom is. Wat die kontinentale regstelsels betref, het 'n soortgelyke ontwikkeling plaasgevind: Selfs 'n inkwisitoriale prosedure en vrye bewysregstelsel kan nie op absolute waarheidsvasstelling aandring wanneer dit gaan om getuienis wat in stryd met fundamentele regte bekom is nie. Baie duidelik bet die Amerikaanse uitsluitingsreel nie net 'n intemasionale impak gehad nie, maar ook 'n supra-nasionale impak: Die reels van hedendaagse ad hoc intemasionale straftribunale maak by\ioorbeeld voorsiening vir 'n uitsluitingsdiskresie ten opsigte van getuienis wat in stryd met fundamentele regte bekom is. Hoofstuk 5 word benut om die Kanadese posisie te behandel. Soos Suid-Afrika, bet Kanada ook die Engelse bewysreg as gemenereg. In Kanada, soos in Suid-Afrika, word die toelaatbaarheid van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis ook beheer deur 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsreel wat in 'n beregbare Handves van Regte vervat is. Artikel 24(2) van die Kanadese Charter of Rights and Freedoms van 1982 bepaal onder andere dat ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis uitgesluit moet word "if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." Bondig gestel, gebruik die Kanadese howe drie kriteria by die uitleg van artikel 24(2). Sal toelating van die getuienis 'n effek op die billikheid van die verhoor he? Hoe emstig is die skending van die grondwetlike reg? Watter effek sal uitsluiting van die getuienis op die aansien van die regspleging he? Die laaste twee kriteria is ook nuttig by die uitleg van ons artikel 35(5) wanneer dit gaan oor die vraag of toelating van die getuienis nadelig vir die regspleging sal wees. In hoofstuk 6 word die regsposisie in Suid-Afrika v66r en sedert konstitusionalisering bespreek en word bevind dat die gemeenregtelike uitsluitingsdiskresie, wat in die pre-konstitusionele era ontwikkel het, 'n onsekere inhoud gehad het en inkonsekwent toegepas is. Die Oorgangsgrondwet (die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika Wet 200 van 1993) het geen uitsluitingsbepaling bevat nie. Die howe het hulle eie uitsluitingsreel ontwikkel - met botsende en verwarrende resultate. Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet is in 'n groot mate 'n poging om helderheid te bring. In die slothoofstuk word onder andere aanbeveel dat oorwegings van openbare beleid 'n rol by interpretasie van artikel 35(5) moet speel; dat 'n onbillike verhoor plaasvind wanneer die vervolging op selfinkriminerende ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis steun om sy saak te bewys; dat - anders as in die VSA en Kanada - skending van 'n derde se grondwetlike regte in sommige gevalle ook oorweging van die uitsluitingsreel aktiveer; dat die howe nie te kwistig moet wees met die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis nie; dat die polisie se goeie trou (wat ook redelik is) 'n rol behoort te speel; en, voorts, dat 'n statutere remedie geskep moet word sodat slagoffers van misdaad vergoed kan word indien 'n beskuldigde as gevolg van die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienis vrygespreek word.en_ZA
dc.format.extentxviii, 412 pagesen_ZA
dc.language.isoaf_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.subjectConstitutional law -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectSouth Africa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 -- Section 35(5)en_ZA
dc.subjectEvidence (Law) -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectEvidence (Law) -- United Statesen_ZA
dc.subjectEvidence (Law) -- Great Britainen_ZA
dc.subjectEvidence (Law) -- Canadaen_ZA
dc.subjectExclusionary rule (Evidence)en_ZA
dc.subjectPrivilege (evidence)en_ZA
dc.titleDie toelaatbaarheid van ongrondwetlik-verkree getuienisaf_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
dc.rights.holderStellenbosch Universityen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW