The hostile witness in English and South African law of evidence
| dc.contributor.advisor | Van der Merwe, S. E. | en_ZA |
| dc.contributor.author | Marler, Lee Gary | en_ZA |
| dc.contributor.other | Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law. | en_ZA |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-08-27T12:26:53Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-08-27T12:26:53Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1990-12 | |
| dc.description | Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 1990. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The objective of this thesis is to analyse the contemporary validity of the hostile witness exception both under English and South African Law. The procedural and evidential rules pertaining to the hostile witness represent an exception to the general rule that a party cannot impeach the credibility of his own witness. What follows below represents a synopsis of the conclusions and recommendations that can be found in Chapter 6 of this thesis. Four general points can be made: First, the general rule evolved at a time when witnesses were perceived as partisans or oath helpers. A party was prohibited from attacking the credibility of his own witness, as he was taken as being morally bound by what that witness said. With the advent of the accusatorial system of trial, the argument that a party was morally bound by the general rule had disappeared, but the general rule remained, kept alive artificially by arguments such as the theory of guarantee and non-coercion. It is submitted that the general rule in operation today has no sound conceptual base and accordingly should be abolished in its entirety. Such a move would allow a party to cross-examine freely his own witness, subject to the judges discretion. Secondly, the hostile witness exception to the general rule evolved because of a fait accompli faced by the prosecution. The prosecution was obliged to call all material witnesses, but it was prohibited by the operation of the general rule from attacking such witnesses as proved adverse to its case. Once the fait accompli had been resolved, the need for the hostile witness exception theoretically disappeared. However, the exception was retained. Jurists argued that its retention was necessary in order to combat elements such as surprise, malice and dishonesty. In truth, the exception was retained purely to subvert the full force of the general rule. It is submitted that the hostile witness exception is anachronistic and should technically be abolished. However, if the general rule is retained, it is further submitted that the existing hostile witness exception be liberalised, thereby permitting counsel to cross-examine his own witness as to bad character or previous misconduct. Thirdly, it is submitted that in England 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 should be repealed and replaced by a provision similar to that prevalent in South Africa, ie: by a provision which provides for the admissibility of previous inconsistent statements in the absence of finding of hostility. Fourthly, it is submitted that in England and South Africa previous inconsistent statements should in criminal as well as civil proceedings be admissible as substantive evidence of any fact contained therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible. No distinction should be drawn between the type of proceedings into which the statements are admitted or the form in which they are admitted. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vyandige getuie in die Engelse en Suid-Afrikaanse bewysreg. Die oogmerk van hierdie verhandeling is om die eietydse geldigheid van die Engelse en Suid-Afrikaanse reëls wat ten opsigte van die vyandige getuie geld, verteenwoordig eintlik 'n uitsondering op die algemene reël dat 'n party nie die geloofwaardigheid van sy eie getuie deur middel van kruisvrae mag aanval nie. Wat hieronder volg, is 'n samevatting van gevolgtrekkings en aanevelings wat in hoofstuk 6 van hierdie verhandeling aangtref word. Vier breë stellings kan gemaak word. In die eerste plek het die algemene reël ontwikkel in 'n stadium toe getuies as eedhelpers opgetree het en daar van hulle verwag is om 'n eensydige weergawe te gee in die guns van die party wat hulle opgeroep het. 'n Party kon nie sy eedhelper (getuie) se geloofwaardigheid aanval nie aangesien hy op morele gronde gebonde geag was om die waarheid van die weergawe te aanvaar. Met die vestiging van die akkusatoriale prosesmodel, het hierdie argument geldigheid verloor. Die grondslag van die algemene reël het verdwyn, maar die reël het behoue gebly as gevolg van kunsmatige argumente soos die "waarborg-teorie" ("theory of guarantee") en die "teorie van geen dwang" ("theory of non-coercion"). In oorweging word gegee dat die hedendaagse algemene reël nie 'n gesonde basis het nie en bygevolg in sy geheel afgeskaf moet word. 'n Party behoort sy eie getuie te kan kruisvra, onderhewig aan die regter se diskresie. In die tweede plek kan gesê word dat die algemene reël ook gespruit het uit die feit dat in vroeë dae die vervolging verplig was om alle wesenlike getuies op te roep. Terselfdertyd kon die vervolging geen aanval loods op die vervolging was om alle getuies te roep nie, het die verbod vervolging was om alle getuies te roep nie, het die verbod teen 'n geloofwaardigheidsaanval op 'n eie getuie steeds voortbestaan. Sommige juriste het aangevoer dat die verbod steeds nodig was ten einde "surprize, malice and dishonesty" (verassing, kwade trou en oneerlikheid) te bekamp. in werklikheid was die uitsondering behou om die volle effek van die algemene reël te ondergrawe. Die submissie is dat die "vyandige getuie-uitsondering" 'n anachronisme is. Maar as die algemene reël behou word, moet die uitsondering steeds geld. Geregtigheid vereis dit. As die algemene reël behoue bly, behoort die uitsondering se reëls verslap te word sodat 'n party sy eie getuie kan kruisvra met betrekking tot swak karakter en vorige veroordelings. In die derde plek word in oorweging gegee dat artikel 3 van die Engelse "Criminal Procedure Act" 1865 herroep moet word en vervang moet word met 'n bepaling soos wat in Suid-Afrika geld, naamlik dat vorige teenstrydige verklarings bewys kan word selfs in die afwesigheid van 'n bevinding van vyandigheid. Laastens word aangevoer dat vorige ooreenstemmende verklarings in sowel straf- as siviele sake toelaatbaar moet wees om die inhoud daarvan te kan bewys - en nie blote teenstrydigheid nie. Geen onderskeid behoort getref te word tussen straf- en siviele sake nie. Die vorm van die verklaring (mondeling of skriftelik) behoort ook nie saak te maak nie. | af_ZA |
| dc.description.version | Masters | en_ZA |
| dc.format.extent | 184 pages | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/69020 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_ZA | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | Stellenbosch University | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Witnesses -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Witnesses -- Great Britain | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dissertations, Academic -- Law and legislation | en_ZA |
| dc.title | The hostile witness in English and South African law of evidence | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_ZA |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- marler_hostile_1990.pdf
- Size:
- 124.7 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- Download thesis