|
In ''S v Melani'', an important case in South African criminal procedure, three accused were on charges of murder, robbery and the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. At the court ''a quo'', the evidence tendered by the State consisted of alleged pointings out by the accused, and eyewitness evidence. Melani argued, ''inter alia'', that the accuseds' fundamental rights had been infringed as they had not been properly warned of their right to legal representation before the pointings out. The court held that the content of the right to legal representation had in fact not been properly conveyed. The right to consult with a legal practitioner and especially the right to be informed of this right, was found to be closely related to, and protective of, the presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the proscription of compelled confessions. Failure to recognize the importance of this right would have the effect of depriving persons, especially the uneducated, unsophisticated or poor, of the protection of their rights. This was found to offend not only the concept of substantive fairness, but also the right to equality before the law. The court held that accused No. 1 had merely been informed of his right to legal representation which was not explained to him at all and accused No. 2 had not been informed of his right at all. Therefore, in order to give proper effect to an accused's rights, he had to be informed of his right to consult with counsel in a manner that it could reasonably be supposed that he had understood the content of the right. == Notes == 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「S v Melani」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|