Anda di halaman 1dari 4



C was charged for theft. The Judge directed as to the burden and standard of proof:- it is for
the prosecution to prove the charge so that you are sure it has been made out to prove it beyond
all reasonable doubt, these being two different ways of saying what is really the same thing.
fter retirement of over three hours the !ury foreman said:- the problem seem to centre around
the "uestion of doubts we have. #everal of you, yourself included, your $onour, saw fit to point
out that if we had only doubts then we are to find him not guilty.
%n the above case the !ury is confused by the direction of the !udge as to the burden of proof
and standard of proof could you e&plain, the direction of the !udge in a language that be easily
understood by ''''
witness * ma+es a statement at the police station concerning a matter about which he is
subse"uently e&amined , in , chief in court. -uring the proceedings the public prosecutors
applies to the court that the witness be declared a hostile witness. The court grants the
i. What is meat !" a h#sti$e %itess&
hostile witness is a witness who had previously indicated that they would give
certain information or evidence, but who is then deliberately withholding that
evidence in an apparent effort to defeat the course of !ustice. %t is normally a
witness that you have called and you have called them because they have told you
that they would give some evidence and they get up in the witness bo& and they
give either completely different evidence or they fail to give evidence at all. This
is different to a witness who has simply not given the evidence it was hoped they
would give.

ii. Is his '(e)i#*s statemet %hi+h he ma,e at the '#$i+e stati# a,missi!$e i
.es. /ormally if a witness who was believed to be cooperative in the supplying of
evidence in a trial refuses to honor his promise, the prosecutor can apply to the
!udge to declare that particular witness a hostile witness. The reason for this
process is to allow the prosecutor to use the statement which the hostile witness
previously made. The statement will definitely become admissible in court. %n
such a case the witness will be regarded as belonging to the opposite party. This is
the only situation a lawyer can cross e&amine their own witness. The other side
will than also have an opportunity to cross e&amine the same witness.

b. was convicted of administering into&icating li"uor to a female with intent to facilitate
se&ual intercourse and rape. t the trial the victim gave evidence to the effect that she
could not remember material facts relating to the alleged offences. $owever, she had
made a statement to the police on the day after the offences were said to have been
committed in which she had incriminated . -efence Counsel cross-e&amined her by
reference to that statement whereupon the !udge e&ercised his discretion and allowed the
statement to be made an e&hibit.
i. -#( %hat '*('#se +#*$, the statemet !e *se,&
The statement can be used to as+ her 0plaintiff1 unlimited number of "uestions
intended to reduce plaintiff2s credibility in relation to her allegation against
0defendant1 and proof beyond reasonable doubt that indeed 0defendant1 is not
guilty of the alleged offence.
ii. Was the statemet e)i,e+e #. %hat ha, ha''ee,&
.es, !udging from this scenario the victim can adduce sufficient evidence to the
court to. $aving analy3ed this scenario the element of circumstantial evidence
dictates that the court will use the it to ma+e a rational verdict. This circumstantial
evidence is pointing to because it is indirectly pointing to the elements of the
offence which was believed to have been acted by . This is because no one saw
spi+ing the victim2s beverage. s a result the court will use its discretion to
deliver a reasonable and well calculated verdict. The circumstantial evidence
will help the court to assess other evidence.
iii. Is the statemet +a'a!$e #. +#((#!#(ati/ the +#m'$aiat0s e)i,e+e.

.es, the statement is relevant because alone or in con!unction with other facts.
%t has regard to the common course of this event.
%t tends to proof a fact in issue.
12 Dis+*ss the a,missi!i$it" i e)i,e+e #. the a,missi#s i the .#$$#%i/ +ases2-
i. A/ess3 a mai, se()at3 !ei/ +ha(/e, %ith the 4i$$i/ #. he( h*s!a,3 ma,e a
+#.essi# i +#se5*e+e #. a i,*+emet he$, #*t !" he( em'$#"e(.
/o confession which is tendered in evidence on any criminal proceeding shall be
received which has been induced by any threat or promise by some person in authority. %t
must be given voluntary.
The defendant must not have been offered an inducement to confess.
The defendant must not have been sub!ected to unreasonable oppression or
The defendant must not have been sub!ected to tric+ery.
4ne is not allowed to induce someone in order to have them confess on
$ence, this case will not be admissible in court due to the presence of inducement.
There is a mista+e of law in it. nd as such it is an unlawful case. The court will order
this case to be redone.

ii. Ma("3 a mai, se()at3 !ei/ +ha(/e, %ith setti/ .i(e t# he( em'$#"e(s0 h#*se ma,e
a +#.essi# %ith#*t a" i,*+emet he$, #*t !" he( em'$#"e(.
This case will be the opposite of the case in 0i1.
The evidence will be admissible because the confession was done voluntary and there
was no inducement at all. The ad!udicators will ad!udicate this case without any re!ection.
There is no mista+e of law. %t went through a lawful process.