|
Informal admissions in South African law are part of the South African law of evidence. Briefly, an admission is a statement made by a party, in civil or criminal proceedings, which is adverse to that party’s case. Informal admissions, which are usually made out of court, must be distinguished from formal admissions, made in the pleadings or in court. Formal admissions are binding on the maker, and are generally made in order to reduce the number of issues before the court; an informal admission is merely an item of evidence that can be contradicted or explained away. Informal admissions may be admitted to prove the truth of their contents. The rationale for admitting such evidence would appear to be that a person is unlikely to make an admission adverse to his interests if the contents of that admission are not true. Since, however, a statement may constitute an admission even though a party is unaware that what he is saying is contrary to his interests,〔The test employed in determining whether a statement or conduct constitutes an admission is an objective one. See ''R v Barlin'' 1926 AD 459 at 465; ''S v Grove-Mitchell'' 1975 (3) SA 417 (A) 420.〕 ()t is probably better to say that admissions or confessions do not have some of the drawbacks inherent in hearsay because a party can hardly complain that when he made the statement he was not on oath or did not have an opportunity to cross-examine himself.〔Zeffertt, Paizes & Skeen 429.〕〔See ''Randfontein Transitional Council v ABSA Bank Ltd'' 2000 2 SA 1040 (W).〕 Nevertheless, informal admissions in many instances will be hearsay in nature. Section 3(4) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act〔Act 45 of 1988.〕 defines hearsay evidence as “evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence.” When the probative value of an informal admission depends primarily on its maker (which will almost invariably be the case), it will be a hearsay statement. As, however, section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act〔Act 45 of 1988.〕 is “subject to the provisions of any other law,”〔s 3(1).〕 existing statutory provisions will remain the primary route to admission, and the common law will remain “any other factor” to be taken into account by the court in the exercise of its discretion to admit hearsay in the interests of justice.〔s 3(1)(c)(vii).〕 While Paizes also takes the view that section 3(4) brings confessions and admissions within the hearsay rule, and that the probative value of a statement depends on the credibility of its maker,〔Paizes in Du Toit et al ''Commentary'' 24-50J.〕〔See Paizes 1985 ''SALJ'' 258.〕〔See ''S v Holshauzen'' 1984 (4) SA 852 (A).〕 he concludes that section 3 does not require any significant departure from the traditional approach to the admission of confessions and admissions, because the more contentious aspects of the problem of the admissibility of confessions or admissions are not the concern of s 3. And, since it is difficult to imagine how the interest of justice could be served by the exclusion of a relevant, voluntarily made admission or confession which satisfies the other statutory requirements, it is submitted that subjecting such evidence to the scrutiny required in s 3 will be a harmless but usually futile exercise. The hearsay objection will be met, in any event, should the accused himself testify at his trial.〔Paizes in Du Toit et al ''Commentary'' 24-50K.〕 Once part of a statement has been allowed into evidence as an admission, the maker is entitled to have the whole statement put before the court, even where it includes self-serving statements,〔''R v Valachia'' 1945 AD 826.〕〔''S v Cloete'' 1994 (1) SACR 420 (A).〕 provided the two components form part of a single statement.〔''R v Vather'' 1961 (1) SA 350 (A).〕〔See also ''S v Telani'' 1989 2 SA 43 (A).〕〔''S v Mkire'' 1992 (2) SACR 347 (A).〕 An informal admission, which is made extrajudicially, must also be distinguished from a statement made against a party’s interest during the course of a trial. The latter is treated as ordinary evidence. == Requirements for Admissibility == In civil matters, there is only one general requirement for admissibility: relevance.〔In respect of informal admissions, the effect of section 42 of the CPEA is to apply the English law as it was on May 30, 1961.〕 An additional requirement must be met where statements are made in the course of negotiations for the settlement of a dispute, in that such statements cannot be disclosed without the consent of both parties. In criminal matters, an admission must be proved to have been made voluntarily before it can be admitted into evidence. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Informal admissions in South African law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|