Reference no: EM133268088

Case: A final year law student is charged with the alleged rape of a fellow student. At his arrest, it is explained to him that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says, might later be used as evidence against him (section 35(1)(b) of the Constitution). He refuses to say anything and is detained in the police cells. A day later he calls the investigating officer (an inspector) and says that he wants to make a confession. The investigating officer takes him to a colleague (a captain), who takes down the confession after also warning the accused in terms of section 35(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Question 1 Discuss the basic characteristics of the process that is used to solve any dispute about the admissibility of a confession. Do not discuss the requirements for the admissibility of confessions in your answer.

Question 2 Accept that you are the magistrate. Fully explain how you will handle the accused's argument that the confession is inadmissible evidence.

During the trial, the girl testifies that the rape took place one night after a function on a deserted part of the campus. She explains that she was involved in a serious battle with her assailant and identifies the accused as her assailant. During cross-examination, it is put to the complainant that she is lying and that she could not have observed the assailant's identity properly, since there was no moon on the night in question and that that section of the campus has no lights. The accused also cross-examines her about her sexual relations with various other men. The prosecutor responds by calling the complainant's flat mate who testifies that the complainant described the events in question to her that very same night. She also testifies about what the complainant said about the identity of her assailant.

Question 3 Accept that you are the magistrate. Fully discuss whether you would allow the questions that were put to the complainant during cross-examination.

Question 4 Give a motivated judgement, as a magistrate, on the question of whether you would allow the flat mate's evidence.