dc.contributor.advisor |
Van Der Merwe, D. P.
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Kock, Wynand Louw
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2015-01-23T04:24:53Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2015-01-23T04:24:53Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
1996-09 |
en |
dc.identifier.citation |
Kock, Wynand Louw (1996) Hoorsê : 'n waardebepaling van die uitwerking van die 1988 wetgewing, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/17110> |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10500/17110 |
|
dc.description |
Summaries in English and Afrikaans |
|
dc.description |
Text in Afrikaans |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Until 1988, hearsay-evidence in our legal system was governed by common
law. During this period resistance developed regarding the practice that hearsay which complied
with certain exceptions could indeed be allowed. Case law excluded further exceptions being added.
Legislation was enacted in 1988 in which hearsay was defined, a total exclusionary rule retained,
but the Courts given a wide discretion to allow hearsay. Via this legislation a more accommodating stance towards hearsay was introduced.
This dissertation aimed at measuring whether the legislation achieved its objectives and consisted of analysing case law and interviewing Judges and Advocates.
The conclusion arrived at is that the legislation has only marginally changed the usage
of hearsay in our legal system. The major obstacle lies in the attitude of practitioners who
continue to distrust hearsay and do not utilize the mechanism provided by statute. |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Tot en met 1988, is hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel gemeenregtelik beheer. In
die tydperk bet besware egter geleidelik ontwikkel veral oor die gekunstelde wyse waarop hoorsê
as aan bepaalde uitsonderings voldoen is wel toegelaat is. Regspraak het voorts ook bepaal dat geen verdere uitsonderings toegevoeg kon word nie.
In 1988 is wetgewing uitgevaardig waarin hoorsê-getuienis omskryf word, 'n algehele
uitsluitingsreel behou word maar aan die howe 'n wye diskresie verleen word om na oorweging van
voorgeskrewe faktore, hoorsê wei toe te laat. Die oogmerk van hierdie wetgewing was om 'n
meganisme daar te stel om soos by die civil regstelsels en sekere ander Iande, 'n meer toeskietlike
houding jeens hoorsê te bewerkstellig.
Hierdie verhandeling se hoofdoel was om te bepaal of die wetgewing in die doel geslaag bet. Om tot
'n bevinding te kom is regspraak ontleed, en is onderhoude gevoer beide met Regters en die
Advokatuur.
Die slotsom bereik dui daarop dat die wetgewing maar weinig verander bet in die gebruikmaking van
hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel. Wat die wetgewing self betref, hoewel daar sekere besware
te make is oor sekere bepalings, verskaf dit tog 'n bruikbare instrument. Die grootste
struikelblok is gelee in die instelling van die praktisyns wat bly vasklou aan 'n gevestigde vrees
vir hoarse en nie gebruikmaak van die nuwe geleentheid nou deur die wetgewing daargestel nie. |
af |
dc.format.extent |
1 online resource ([6], 44 leaves) |
en |
dc.subject |
Traditional approach |
|
dc.subject |
Testimonailly |
|
dc.subject |
Circumstantiality |
|
dc.subject |
Common law exceptions |
|
dc.subject |
Total exclusion |
|
dc.subject |
Wide discretion |
|
dc.subject |
Probative value |
|
dc.subject |
Assertion-orientated |
|
dc.subject |
Depend upon |
|
dc.subject.ddc |
347.64068 |
en |
dc.subject.lcsh |
Evidence, Hearsay -- South Africa |
en |
dc.subject.lcsh |
Evidence (Law) -- South Africa |
en |
dc.title |
Hoorsê : 'n waardebepaling van die uitwerking van die 1988 wetgewing |
af |
dc.description.department |
Law |
|
dc.description.degree |
LL.M. |
en |