|
''Minister van Polisie v Van der Vyver'' is an important case in South African law. == Facts == Frederik van der Vyver was charged with the murder of Inge Lotz in 2005. The trial was "one of the most publicised in recent times, having all the material of great drama: a beautiful young woman student brutally murdered in leafy, conservative Stellenbosch and her lover charged with the murder."〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 Van der Vyver was finally acquitted. Van der Vyver then sued the minister of police for damages on the grounds of malicious prosecution. Judge Anton Veldhuizen found for Van der Vyver on the merits of the claim, a decision taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The most important issue concerned a link between a bloodstain on the floor of the deceased's bathroom, and a pair of sneakers worn by the accused. The latter had claimed as an alibi that he was at his office in Pinelands when the murder had taken place. If the State could prove that the bloodstain on the bathroom floor was made by the accused's shoe, that evidence would have destroyed his alibi. The police forensic expert, Superintendent Bruce Bartholomew, claimed that the bloodstain was definitely made by the accused's shoe. The police experts in Pretoria were not so sure. Bartholomew was, however, "a determined man."〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 He sought and obtained permission to travel to the United States to consult "the leading expert on footprints,"〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 WJ Bodziak. Although Bodziak strongly disagreed with Bartholomew's findings and told him so,〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 the tenacious police officer returned home claiming the opposite: that Bodziak agreed with his findings. A few months later, police legal representatives spoke to Bodziak, who informed them that, in his opinion, there was no link between the shoe and the bloodstain. The state prosecutors were informed accordingly, and met Bartholomew to discuss the matter. He admitted he had misrepresented Bodziak's position.〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 Still, the State persisted with its case, and Bartholomew continued with his original theory, which formed the basis of his testimony to the court. Only after "great expense" incurred by the Van der Vyver family did the court hear the truth, when Bodziak was flown out to give evidence and "totally discredited" Bartholomew's testimony.〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 The trial court held that, in the absence of this disingenuous evidence, the state would have concluded that there was no basis on which to continue the prosecution.〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 On appeal, Judge Fritz Brand held that the evidence of the State prosecutor was that he would have continued the prosecution, notwithstanding the absence of the Bartholomew evidence about the shoe and its connection to the bloodstain. Brand found the test adopted by the court, of whether or not the prosecutor's conduct was unreasonable, not to be applicable; the critical point was whether his evidence, tested without the benefit of hindsight, could be rejected by the court. That finding allowed the appeal court to conclude that a causal link sufficient to support Van der Vyver's claim of malicious prosecution had not, on the probabilities, been proved. In arriving at this conclusion, the court was confronted with a Constitutional Court decision concerning a claim for damages from a prisoner who had contracted tuberculosis in prison. In that case,〔''Lee v Minister of Correctional Services''.〕 the Constitutional Court, in finding for the prisoner, had held that the necessary causal link was not to be determined with mathematical precision, but rather through the exercise of common sense, based on the practical way in which the ordinary person's mind works against the background of everyday life experience.〔Serjeant at the Bar 2013.〕 Brand asserted that this test, although flexible, was in essence no different from the traditional "but-for" or '' 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「Minister van Polisie v Van der Vyver」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|