NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

NAME: ADILIYA SAKALA

COMPUTER NO.: 28028511

PROGRAM: MASTER OF LAWS IN CRIMINAL LAW

AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

MODE: BLOCK RELEASE

COURSE: LCJ 822, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

YEAR: FIRST

SEMESTER: SECOND

TAKE HOME TEST

LECTURER: MS.KASONGO

DUE DATE: 8th December, 2022

1
QUESTION 1

The cases of Charles Phiri v The People, David Zulu v The People and Saidi Banda v The

People are cases whose ruling were mainly based on circumstantial evidence in general. It is

evidence of some fact not actually in issue, but relevant to the fact in issue, from which a

fact in issue may be inferred. Where circumstantial evidence is the evidence tendered to

prove the commission of the offence, intent is proved by the acts committed for example from

the evidence of planning and preparations made; and from evidence of avoidance of

detection, that is, destruction of evidence or flight from the scene of crime, as was the basis

of the evidence in the case of Charles Phiri. However, the case of David Zulu brought the case

into a realm of conjecture so that it was probably him or probably some other person

that committed the murder, it was this doubt which led the Supreme Court to acquit

him of the murder and hence highlighted the weaknesses of circumstantial evidence and also

held that The judge must be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence had taken the case out of

the realm of conjecture so that it attains such a degree of cogency which can permit only an

inference of guilt.

Lastly, in case of Saidi Banda finally invoked the general rules applicable to circumstantial

evidence that the court should infer from a combination of established facts that implicate the

accused person in a matter that points to nothing else than their guilt.

Question 2

The demeanor of the witness is the appearance of credibility or non-credibility that the witness

has during testimony and examination at trial or hearing considered to be real and physical

evidence. The High Court case of Kambafwile v The People' stated "Equally, if the court

2
observed a witness to be hesitant or uncomfortable when asked certain questions or unwilling to

look the court or counsel in the eye, these are items of evidence which must be recorded if

conclusions are to be drawn from them.”

Question 3

Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Section 2

of The Evidence Act CAP 43 provides that a document includes “any device by which

information is recorded or stored and includes books marks and drawings.” In case of

documentary evidence the relevancy, admissibility, proof i.e. execution of document, proof of

contents (both put together is the proof) and probative value of the document will be credible and

important.

Question 4

Corroboration can be defined as evidence which confirms or supports other evidence. If the

evidence given is not sufficient to support a conviction, then the court must seek additional

evidence. In order to support or confirm other evidence, corroborating evidence must be

independent evidence.

Question 5

Judicial notice is invoked to relieve parties from having to prove facts that are not in dispute.

Thus, when judicial notice is taken of a fact, no formal evidence of that fact must be introduced

at the trial or hearing. The essential basis for taking judicial notice is that the fact involved is of a

class that is so generally known as to give rise to the presumption that all reasonably intelligent

3
persons are aware of it, therefore, the purpose of taking judicial notice is to shorten the

proceeding.

Question 6

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS-Such a presumption operates where a party against whom

it operates is barred from adducing any evidence in rebuttal. A good example of an irrebuttable

presumption of law is section 14 of the Penal Code, which provides that a person below the age

of 8 is not capable of any criminal act or omission. They are presumptions on which there is no

requirement to prove a basic fact such as the presumption of innocence, and sanity.

PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT-These are sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence.

They are logical inferences that are drawn by the court once a party has proved a basic fact and

there is no evidence to the contrary. Unlike presumptions of law, they do not place a burden of

proof, legal or evidential, on the other party.

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW-A rebuttable presumption is one that can be

challenged by producing evidence to the contrary. Where a rebuttable presumption of law

operates, upon proof or admission of a basic or primary fact, another fact must be presumed

unless there is contrary produced.

QUESTION 7

There are many exceptions to the rule against hearsay allowing hearsay evidence to be admitted

at trial. The range of these exceptions and the flexible interpretation of the exceptions have

contributed to the difficulties in applying the rule. Facts differ so greatly that it is impossible to

lay down any precise general rule.

4
5