QUESTION 1

A is charged with two counts, namely, housebreaking with the intention to steal, and secondly,
attempted rape of S. The incident that gave rise to the charges took place during the early
morning hours on 20 August 2011, at the house of an elderly couple, V (the husband) and S
(the wife) in Waverley, Pretoria.

(a) A pleads not guilty and during his plea explanation he informs the court that he has an
alibi defence for the time of the alleged break-in into the house of V and S, namely, that
he was in Polokwane, visiting his girlfriend. During the state‟s case the prosecutor wants
to lead evidence from W to the effect that A was involved in an assault at a club in
Sunnyside two hours before the break-in. Should the court allow it? Motivate your answer.

(b) What is the purpose when calling a witness, such as W, for examination-in-chief and
explain the most important rule the prosecutor should remember during this stage

(c) S is subpoenaed to testify against A about the attempted rape charge. During the
consultation prior to her court attendance, she tells the prosecutor that, since the incident
she has suffered from anxiety attacks and depression.
i. Explain in which way S can possibly be accommodated during the trial.
ii. What requirement(s) will be applicable for the use of this procedural option in order
to assist S in giving her evidence?

(d) Suppose that S‟s granddaughter of 12 years-old, K, was also present during the incident
and became a victim of sexual assault committed by A.
i. What procedural option is available to accommodate K during her testimony?

(e) E is a clinical psychologist whom the prosecutor wants to call as an expert witness to
explain why S disclosed the attempted rape incident only 6 months after the
housebreaking had been reported. Briefly explain whether the court would allow that and
motivate your answer by referring to case law..

(f) The doctor at the clinic that S visited the day after the event is called to testify. He
indicates that he needs to refresh his memory from his previous statement (report) made
to the police. Briefly explain the two different approaches regarding the use of previous
consistent statements in court.
QUESTION 2

List five examples of instances where a court may allow for the evidence of a lay person.

QUESTION 3

Colonel Sanreal, a police officer, is involved in a car accident with Mr Sly, a well-known attorney
from Gauteng. Colonel Sanreal’s car is badly damaged. The accident scene is attended by the
experienced Captain Richman, who takes down notes about the accident. Captain Richman
suggests that the drivers exchange contact details and encourages them to settle any possible
insurance claims. Neither driver’s blood is tested for alcohol. Shortly afterwards, the drivers
meet, and after some negotiation, Mr Sly undertakes to pay the damages for Colonel Sanreal’s
car. A day later, however, Mr Sly is arrested and charged with drunken driving. Answer the
following questions with reference to this set of facts:

(a) Mr Sly requests a copy of the police docket to prepare for his defence. Will he be
successful? Discuss with reference to applicable case law.

(b) During Mr Sly’s trial, the prosecution intends to call Captain Richman to testify as an
expert witness about whether Mr Sly was drunk at the time of the accident. Do you think
the court will allow this to happen? Fully discuss with reference to any possible
requirements for admissibility.

(c) It later emerges that Mr Sly made a statement without prejudice during the initial
negotiations between himself and Colonel Sanreal. In this statement he admitted to
having caused the accident. Colonel Sanreal intends to use this statement as evidence
against Mr Sly in a civil claim if Mr Sly fails to pay the damages for his car. Do you think
he will be successful? Discuss fully.

(d) Further investigation reveals that Mr Sly has previous convictions for reckless and
negligent driving as well as for drunken driving. Can this evidence be presented in court?
Explain fully.
QUESTION 4

Opinion of expert must be ignored (and should strictly speaking be considered inadmissible) if
based on some hypothetical situation that does not relate to the facts / that is entirely inconsistent
with the facts proved Deaver’s experiments ignored the estasblished facts and working
hypotheses of the prosecution regarding points of impact, where the defendant was standing,
how he would have swung the murder weapon etc. Deaver’s experiments and conclusions were
entirely 2 of 5 based on hypothetical situations.

QUESTION 5

You act on behalf of a young man in a claim for damages against the Motor Vehicle Accident
Fund. The claim is based on injuries which your client sustained in a motor vehicle accident. In
order to prove your claim, you intend calling a certain doctor Marius Britz, ‘n neuro surgeon, to
testify regarding your client’s injuries and his chances of leading a normal life again. Which
formal requirements have to be met in order to call doctor Britz as a witness? Discuss
comprehensively.

QUESTION 6

In the case of Holtzhauzen v Roodt 1997 (4) SA 766 (W), the court found that the opinion
evidence of the first expert, Wilkenson, was irrelevant and therefore not admissible. The opinion
of the second expert, Breslin, was however viewed in a different light.

(a) As a general principle or approach, it is required that a party seeking to adduce expert
opinion must lay a foundation or should satisfy the court that the evidence is relevant.
Explain what is meant by this requirement

(b) Briefly explain, with reference to the facts of the case, how the court reached the
conclusion that Breslin’s evidence was relevant and therefore admissible.
QUESTION 7

The police are called to a possible murder scene in the early hours of the morning. Upon arrival,
they find a woman's body in a bathroom inside the townhouse which belongs to her boyfriend.
Shots were fired at her through the bathroom's locked door and she was struck several times.
The boyfriend's defence is that he had thought she was a burglar. During the testimony the
accused testifies that he is an upstanding member of the community who has a lot of respect for
guns and that he has always handled his gun with extreme caution. The prosecution is aware of
previous incidents involving the negligent handling of guns that can disprove the accused's
testimony. Can the accused be cross-examined as to these incidents? Explain your answer with
reference to authority

QUESTION 8

The accused, a general practitioner, is charged with two counts of indecent assault on two female
patients. The first count alleges that he had sexually assaulted a woman, M, during a consultation
on 7 January 2020. The second count alleges that he had sexually assaulted a woman, J, on 20
December 2019. Fully discuss the admissibility of the following possible evidence:

(a) Evidence given on behalf of the accused by witnesses who testify about his good character

(b) Evidence given on behalf of the accused by witnesses who can testify about the previous
sexual conduct of M and J.

QUESTION 9

The accused is charged with receiving a stolen motor vehicle while knowing the vehicle to be
stolen. The state further proves that the accused was found in possession of the vehicle

(a) May the state present evidence that the accused was found guilty three years ago of
forging cheques? Motivate your answer.

(b) If your answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, which possible requirements
need to have been met in order for the state to lead such evidence?