Monday, 28 February

RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY

o Learning Objectives
After completing this study unit you should be able to:
a. Distinguish between the concepts “relevance,” “admissibility” and “assessment”;
b. Recognize and explain why the concept of relevance is one of the most important foundational
concepts in the Law of Evidence to master;                         
c. Evaluate the rationale for the concept of relevance;
d. Explain the relationship between relevance and admissibility;
e. Define the concept of relevance and explain each component of that definition;
f. Explain the concept of relevance in terms of the relation between an item of evidence and a material
fact at issue in the case, and apply the knowledge to a set of facts;
g. Explain, pursuant to the example in R v Dhlamini 1960 (1) SA 880 (N), the concept of relevance in
terms of the relation between an item of evidence and a material fact at issue in the case.

- Admissibility
o LoE (law of evidence) sets certain requirements before court can take evidence
into account
o Admissibility rules aimed at excluding certain types of evidence
o E.g. if a piece of evidence is here-say, it would be a very relevant piece of
evidence, but if it doesn’t comply with the rules against heresay, a court will
nevertheless will find that that piece of evidence is NOT admissible
- Assessment
o Once evidence has been deemed admissible, the rules of assessment assist the
court in how to evaluate the evidence
o Evidence assessment mean the court:
• Analyses all evidence
• makes credibility findings
• draws interferences
• considers probabilities

2. CONCEPT OF RELEVANCE
• One of most important foundational concepts in LoE to master
• Why?
• It is a Precondition for admissibility of evidence
 Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible (s 210 CPA (criminal procedure act)
[-]
  Courts: Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the case [+]

- Rationale
o Only information that can assist the court should be admissible (allowed into
evidence)
o Evidence is inadmissible if it:
• has the potential to confuse the issues
• causes undue delay
• wastes time
• leads to needless presentation of cumulative issues
• leads to incurring unnecessary expense etc.

o E.g., In a prosecution for assault, the court decides to admit evidence of the
results of a polygraph (lie detector) test with regard to the truthfulness of a
witness/party
o This will require the parties to lead evidence on a lot of issues not directly
related to the material facts of the case:
• Was the polygraphist competent?
• Was polygraphist an expert in this fairly novel “technique” of determining
credibility?
• Did the polygraphist ask appropriate questions during the session?
• Did the polygraph machine function properly?
• How reliable is the final result?
o Polygraph example cont’d]:
• Drawn-out and time-consuming investigation of collateral issues will
leave the court with the following unsatisfactory result :
o The opinion of third-party on whether witness / party is truthful /
untruthful according to test that has not yet received broad
acceptance in scientific world
o At any rate, it is the duty of the court to make findings of credibility

Relevance is the first — but not necessarily only — hurdle that evidence must
clear to be admissible
Thus: All admissible evidence is relevant
But not all relevant evidence is admissible
e.g., privileged information (even if highly relevant and the only evidence)

2
 e.g., evidence obtained in breach of constitutional right in violation of s35 of
the constitution

McMunigal “Using graphics to teach evidence” (2006) Saint Louis University Law
Journal 1177—1178

3
*NB FOR ASSIGNMENT
Relevance is not inherent characteristic of any item of evidence
Relevance exists only in relation between an item of evidence and material fact
(what is being focused on)
in the case(*)
Thus: relevance cannot be decided in a vacuum
Question of relevance cannot be divorced from the facts of the particular case
before court [S v Zuma 2006 W]

3. R V DHLAMINI [1960 N]: CRIMINAL CASE

- Prosecution (P) alleges that accused (A) stabbed deceased (D) to death in cul-
de-sac at around 22:00
- A raises alibi defence — at the time of murder, he was at a dance 16 km from cul-de-
sac where D was killed
- P wants to call witness (N)
- N’s testimony will be that, on the evening in question and some 140 m from the cul-
de-sac, at around 21:50, A also stabbed her with a knife after she had rejected his
advances
- A objects — basis of objection is that N’s evidence is irrelevant (and highly
prejudicial to A) because it relates to criminal conduct that was not part of the
charge against A (not charged with assault to N, thus unfair)
- As the judge, would you overrule or sustain A’s objection?
o It depends:
• If P wants to lead N’s evidence [item of evidence] to prove prior
misconduct [not material fact in issue] — N’s evidence inadmissible
because irrelevant to any issue in case
• If P wants to lead N’s evidence [item of evidence] to disprove alibi defence
[material fact in issue] — N’s evidence admissible because highly
relevant to question of alibi

EVIDENCE MUST RELATE TO THE MATERIAL FACT IN THE CASE!

• Study Units 3 — 6 :

4
  Previous consistent statements

 Similar fact evidence

 Character evidence

 Opinion evidence
• ALL Dependant on relevance for admissibility
• General rule = above are inadmissible because irrelevant
• Exceptions