Die rol van diskresie by die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis wat in stryd met die grondwet verkry is
Loading...
Authors
Nel, F. (Francisca)
Issue Date
2000-11
Type
Language
af
Keywords
Unconstitionally obtained evidence , Exclusion , Admission , Discretion , Fair trial , determental to administration of justice , admissibility requirement , Common law position , Interim constitution , American approach
Alternative Title
Abstract
Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet 108 van 1996 handel oor die uitsluiting van
ongrondwetlike getuienis en bepaal dat sodanige getuienis uitgesluit moet word
indien toelating daarvan sal lei tot 'n onbillike verhoor of tot nadeel sal strek vir
die regspleging. Uit die bewoording van die artikel blyk dit dat die howe geen
diskresie het ten opsigte van die toelaatbaarheidsvraag nie en 'n streng
uitsluitingbenadering moet volg. Die doel van hierdie verha• ndeling is om
ondersoek in te stel na die mate van diskresie .en die wyse ·waarop diskresie
toepas word in hierdie besluitnemingsproses. Twee benaderings is deur die
howe gevolg, naamlik 'n benadering waar 'n wye diskresie uitgeoefen word en 'n
benadering waar 'n beperkte diskresie uitgeoefen word, dus 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsbenadering. Die skrywer doen aan die hand dat beide gronde vir
uitsluiting van belang is en dat die howe verkeie faktore moet oorweeg ten einde
'n beslissing te vel oor die insluiting of uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis. 'n
Balans moet dus gehandhaaf word tussen die belang van die beskuldigde op 'n
billike verhoor en die belang van die gemeenskap daarin dat regspleging nie
benadeel moet word nie en dat reg en geregtigheid moet geskied
Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail.
Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail.
Description
Text in Afrikaans
Citation
Nel, F. (Francisca) (2000) Die rol van diskresie by die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis wat in stryd met die grondwet verkry is, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/15597>