the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence

153 Pages·2014·56.01 MB·English

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED
EVIDENCE: ISSUES CONCERNING IMPEACHMENT
GYSBERT NIESING
Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Law at the
University of Stellenbosch.
SUPERVISOR: PROF SE VANDER MERWE
APRIL 2005
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Declaration
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original
work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it at any university for
a degree.
Signature:
.
Date
11
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Summary
The law regarding the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence for
impeaching the accused's testimony is still undeveloped. This work discusses three of the
options available to South African courts and the difficulties inherent in each. The first is to
follow the approach of the Supreme Court of the United States. The American approach
regarding the exclusion of evidence from the case in chief is strict. Courts are not bestowed
with a discretion to admit unconstitutionally obtained evidence: Unless one of the accepted
exceptions exist, a court must exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence in order to deter
unconstitutional behaviour by the authorities. Deterrence of unconstitutional police behaviour
is however no longer considered controlling when cross-examining the accused.
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence - both real and testimonial communications - is
therefore admissible for impeachment purposes despite being excluded from the case in chief.
The rationale is to prevent the accused giving perjurious testimony in the face of the
prosecution's inability to impeach the accused's veracity in the usual manner. The application
of the American approach in South Africa has however already been rejected in S v
Makhathini.1
The second possibility is for South African courts to follow the position of the Supreme
Court of Canada in R v Calder.2 The admissibility of impeachment evidence in Canada - as
with evidence in chief - is based on the effect of its admission of the repute of the
administration ofjustice. However, evidence excluded from the case in chief will only in very
rare circumstances be admitted in cross-examination of the accused.
Finally, the option suggested by this thesis, is to continue the trend started by s 35(5) of
the South African Constitution, which has already been applied with great success in cases
where the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in the case in chief is in issue.
Section 35(5), like the Canadian s 24(2) it bears some resemblance to, gives courts a
discretion to exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence on the basis of unfairness to the
accused or the effect admission will have on the administration of justice. It is submitted in
this thesis that, because of the interlocutory nature of a ruling on admissibility, this approach
adapts easily to the admission of limited purpose evidence such as impeachment evidence: If
the admission of the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, regardless of whether it was
ID 1997-11-21 Case no CC73/97.
2 (1996) 46 CR (4th)133 (SCC).
111
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
previously excluded from the case in chief, renders the trial unfair or would otherwise be
detrimental to the administration ofjustice it must be excluded.
Opsomming
Die reg in verband met die toelaatbaarheid van ongrondwetlik verkree getuienis vir 'n
geloofwaardigheidsaanval op die beskuldigde is nog in 'n vroee stadium van ontwikkeling.
Hierdie tesis bespreek drie moontlikhede beskikbaar aan Suid-Afrikaanse howe en die
probleme inherent aan elkeen. Die eerste is om die posisie van die Amerikaanse
Hooggeregshof te volg. Die Amerikaanse posisie betreffende die toelaatbaarheid van
getuienis tydens die staat se saak is streng. Howe het geen diskresie om ongrondwetlik
verkree getuienis toe te laat nie: Behalwe in gevalle waar aanvaarde uitsonderings bestaan,
moet 'n hof dus ongrondwetlik verkree getuienis uitsluit om ongrondwetlike optrede deur die
owerhede te voorkom. Voorkoming van ongrondwetlike optrede aan die kant van die polisie
is egter nie meer die beherende oorweging wanneer die beskuldigde in kruis-ondervraging
geneem word nie. Ongrondwetlik verkree getuienins - beide reel en verklarend van aard - is
gevolglik toelaatbaar vir doeleindes van 'n geloofwaardigheidsaanval, ten spyte daarvan dat
dit moontlik ontoelaatbaar was tydens die staat se saak. Die rede is om te voorkom dat die
beskuldigde meinedige getuienis lewer terwyl die staat verhoed word om the bekuldigde se
geloofwaardigheid op die gewone manier te toets. Hierdie posisie is egter al verwerp in S v
Makhathini. 3
Die tweede moontlikheid is om die posisie soos uitgele deur die Hooggeregshof van
Kanada, in R v Calder4 te volg. In Kanada word die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis rakende
geloofwaardigheid - sowel as getuienis rakende skuld - bepaal deur die invloed wat die
toelating daarvan op die reputasie van die regspleging het. Getuienis wat ontoelaatbaar is
tydens die staat se saak sal egter slegs in baie beperkte omstandighed toegalaat word tydens
kruisondervraging van die beskuldigde.
Laastens, die opsie wat voorgestel word deur hierdie tesis, is om voort te gaan met die
patroon wat ontwikkel is deur art. 35(5) van die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika, wat alreeds met
groot sukses toegepas is in sake waar die toelaatbaarheid van ongrondwetlik verkree getuienis
in die staat se saak ter sprake was. Artikel 35(5), soos Kanada se art 24(2) waarmee dit tot 'n
3D 1997-11-21 Case no CC73/97.
4 (1996) 46 CR (4th)133 (SCC).
IV
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
mate ooreenstem, gee howe 'n diskresie om ongrondwetlik verkree getuienis uit te sluit op
grond van onregverdigheid teenoor die beskuldigde of indien die toelating daarvan 'n
negatiewe invloed op die regspleging sal he. Omdat 'n beslissing oor die toelaatbaarheid van
getuienis tussenstyds van aard is, pas dit goed aan by die verdere ondersoek na die
toelaatbaarheid van getuienis wat slegs VIr 'n beperkte doel aangebied word: Indien die
toelating van ongrondwetlik verkree getuienis, ongeag of dit voorheen uitgesluit was uit die
staat se saak, die verhoor onregverdig maak of die regspleging negatiefbeinvloed, moet sulke
getuienis uitgesluit word.
v
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[Penal law] is the law on which men place their ultimate reliance for protection against all
the deepest injuries that human conduct can inflict on individuals and institutions. By the
same token, penal law governs the strongest force that wepermit official agencies to bring to
bear on individuals. Its promise as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to
If If
destroy. penal law is weak or ineffective, basic human interests are in jeopardy. it is
harsh or arbitrary in its impact, it works a gross injustice on those caught within its toils. The
law that carries such responsibilities should surely be as rational and just as law can be.
Nowhere in the entire legal field is more at stake for the community and the individual
- Wechsler "The Challenge ofa Model Penal Code" 1952 Harvard LR 1097, 1098
FORLIEZEL
VI
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
" .
1 1 INTROD_UCTION 11
12 STANDING ::~ - . : ; ~ .17
13 IMPEACHMENT : 17
.i.:.: ~ : .,
14 HISTORY 20
CHAPTER TWO
EXCLUSION IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
2 1 .INTRODUCTION ::.: ~ 2-3
i4
yNITED ST-A'I'l:s:
2 2 .. THE THE~EXCLUSIONARY RULE ~.: ;..; :.:
2 2.1 .'INTRODUCTION·:~ .: :.c.::•.•............................................................................... : ;...• 24
~ •-' • _..~ • 'S;. • _ -.;.. .., _ ~ ~ _ _ ,~
222 'EXCLUSION'AND-THE FbuRTH AMENDMENT : -.:~25
2 2 21~~'-'~.:;~-,J~h~ .~~~t~~,., ;.._.:~.....: _: ~..25
22'22,,"-:.,.. .,~#app.Y _Qhio·:~.~.:..:.,: -..:.2,6
2 22'2::1.;: .;/~THe.·trend ;.•. - : 26
2 2 22_2.~._.-.j;:.JudiCialintegrity : : 2?
2 2 2 3}' :··~;Iesxclusion-really constitutionally mandated? : 29
z
4:±
222 .;~:}~Exc~ptionsW: hen Unconstitutionally obtained real evidencewill not be .
_-c~
., _.'_.',:_ ;:~..'excl~de([ ::: ; • ....:~.O
2 2 2 4:1-, ':;··Generizl: :...................................................................................•.. :30
2 A·i" .~.-
2 2 :'.d'G~·odfaith : :.:.:..:•..;..~ ::.•:.~:.~O
22 2 4~3- :_".;P_i:JJi(o!thpeoisonous tree - ~.~..~:.31
223 '-MlRAND:4,.VAjirz.ONA AND THE:PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION ••.....•....• :.::;,:::}2
223l~' '.'.~}l~i:.i!~ _.:..:-..,.:: :.._.;~':~~
2 2·3 2 '·Mir.anda vArizona .'.;';.; ~ ~.<.·~33
Ex~~ii~lis':
223 3 ~. Whel1~iranda warnings are not required, : , ~·;.;·:.~~~6
t.;:;:·.;.~ ,.:.,
2233 1 Publie"iafety: :.. :.~.:.36
2 2 3 3.2 Covert fo,tstoaial iht.etrogation ; :..~..:; : ·...37
2 2 3 3 3' . Fruit oiihe poiSoni;ius tree -.;~7
2 ~~ :;~:10.R9FCO~.sTITIif!~NAf- RIGHTS ••••.•••.••...•••.:•.••...••...•••••...•..•.••.• :••.•••.••••.•••.••:•.•~<l}8
2 3. .""CAN.MA: SE<=UQN24(2Lf?E THE CHARTER ~.~..: :'.~.~.~.:l;~J2
i~.~!
INrR~b~c;;t::7.::::::::::j~t::;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~L::::::::::::::~:i~
23 12. .' TJ:l~th,~!Y;: ~.:•".~~.:..~,~,~ ~;; ~ .- 40
r:
2 3 2 THEPAACTI~E~iR;VCOT.[;Tjj§.?:0 ...: :.., ~A 1
fa1n.e~.J.;~,.;~r~~ ; :..~ ;.~..'.~;~.: :.;.~.
232.1._ ,- ." :trial :4i
232,1:1:·. . -Cbnscriptive 'evide;;c-e ; :.:: :.,.~•....: 42
;:!.•••
232:}~' 'Non"-coizscriptive:ei;dence ............•...................... ;~ : :.;..-.~; ; ;..~..-:~.:~~~
-:""c-::"~. ~ ~ . -- - • -f • -_-_ .' _ ~". • .,_ ..."..~-
2 3 2:2 " :"Senousness ofthe-Charter violation : ; L : : ~.~~;~46
"1 =. -.-. ,,_f.:y<- ",-"~~- z: - r:.", _. .:,_ . ~. r, _. _ ":" ~:::--'.-"-
2.3·22 1 ··.':.'?Goodfalth ~:.;!.; ~•.!,.:;.;;..- ;.....•46
." ~ ,.,....,._,-._~ ....::._.~: ~ .."r--.... . .:..1?
2 3-2'3 - .' 'oTlieeffect ofexcl~si~n ::~~..~:' : :..
VB
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Table of Contents
233 --:FRUITOFTHEPOISONOUSTREE ~ :..48
234 ,·.THE'RESULT.. ; '..: 49
, . ." - .
2'~ SUMMARY .. 49
CHAPTER THREE
IMPEACHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
3.1' INTRODUCTION .. 50
- . ..-.
3'2.'';,'.'. THE UNITED STATES ~ 51
321 " WHAT LIESBENEATH? :· ;:~ 51
3 iii . Deterrence first but only if the price is right.; ~ : 51
i'
3 2 <THE FOURTH: AMENDMENT OR FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 'AGAINST SELF-
,'~.~-':~~SRIMIN~ TION: SHOULDITMAKE'ADIFFERENCEWHICHRIGHTSWEREVi6~~TED? .....53
3.2'2,1"'" .' .Introduction: Real evidence compared to testimonial collin!unjc~tions.:.53
3.222 ~~'; '.;'.< Trial rightfand non-trial rights : ;.: ~.:..~:;: : .55
~;s-6
32.3.·' 'IT'SHOJ}LD.·BUT'IiDOESNOT ; ; : ~;..;.:.;:.~.~: ;..
3'2 s-r :·'\·~~:¥-(Jit~o<!ifttion~ : :..;..:.·:·.::;.~:.r.;..'.<?6
3'2.3-2 .?~ifgnelld..v··.UnitedStates ::.-.::-.:..~ ;.,~,:·5~
.~!
3 ~ 3'3' ff'~ld~,.~~United States : ~:~:.:.,.:-.~::::)7
3234 »Harris vNew York , ; ::58
.~ .'-.. :.£<;-!. ,f;~"'.f ••.•~'''J . " ,\,'
~ 2.3 5· "'~'W.i~dell;VRhay ~ :..:..: '.:64
3'23 6. ", '. ~Oregon vHass .: :.:..:.h64
3 2 ~7_ '. Uri/tedStates vHavens ; : ~:.: (j7
'f v ;
3 2 3 8 . .ijfi:kerson v United States: An ill-considered confirmation ofMiranda
,:'!4.rizon~ ,
·.67
c? .
j 'J'itrodu~tion .: ; ~ :.67
2'3'8 1
;...,'- -
3 2 3 82 .' .' The,traditional test.. ~ : ~..: : 68
3~2:4 ·WRAPPIN6,riP: No MOREANALOGIES :;· ~,;: 69
33~/~:C'~~ADA .; L .; .: , ::.~~~?::.~ ;69
~ 3 f.' IMPEACHMENTBYMEANSOFPREVIOUSLYEXCLUDEDEVIDENCE:.k VGAijj)ER ;.69
3311:- General. ;..: : :..~..;.).;; :69
331~•.". .Inadmissible"in general also means inadmissible for a limitedp~j_:P9se:.::7i
.. 'C , _ ,,_ ~ .. .. • __•
33 13':.t'~.~..:..~T:he testimony at trial:' Truth vs perjury .,..:..:~:1:~;;·./.T~
33 l';V -::';; Not t~e"~ar1fully instructed jury but the well-informed citizen,:.:..:L ':..74
33_2 EvrD~N€E TENDEREDONLYFORIMPEACHMENT:R vCOOK ;...: ;: ;· : 76
'3-i·~:.2··o1~:· - ~,T1:'~du''c'''''-otin'"' ~. . ";:''';i!.-'jf,':,L"', -. -76
. ;J:. '.1.1.11...0
b3.. -,';~.l.~..;..-,,'e;;_•-~~2---.-'~ • ~~~R' ...;y~ .C...-o,.o...k: C-ollms re.vi•s•ite-d • - ~~.'~j.£~sf;:;;~~.~. :"fr...7~
u..~~·;_..:;:;:~:;~.; ••; ,:; ••
j 3'~ ~ Evidence notpreviously excluded ; ~..:.:.:.i:·.:,.:..·~-.~,::~.;7;?
3 -.~.7~.
3 3-';iIN CON~LlJSION.:; ~;'.::... : : .- .: :..:~.~·...~:·
Vlll
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Table of Contents
CHAPTER FOUR
IMPEACHMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
'4 1 ~;,:~/INTRODUCTION : :- :~.;.:.: 79
e•••••• ~••••••••••••••
4.1. r·:~::IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE COMMON LAW :..; ;..: 79
i
41 ~~~.·SECTION39(1)(c) OF THE CONSTITUTION: RELIANCE ONH)REIGN PRECEDENT ..; 83
4 2 ~.'SECTION 35(5): IMPEACHMENT ::;v.,, ; 87
421 . INTRODUCTION: EXCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBT_AINEDEVIDENCE :...•..... 87
~ 2 1_1 The threshold ::...:.:: :., :.87
'42 1·2· Trial fairness -.;.:..";:::; 89
~-i
13 Detriment to the administration ofjustice ~ _...- ; 92
4',2:.2 -.!J vMAKHATHINI ,...- ;:..:~..:.~ _ 95
4·2·2,1 ' Introduction: The case ,· : : : 95
4 2~2'2\ "Principles of exclusion: The rationales behind Makhathini.. 98
4 _22 2·'J. -.Introduction ::.:: 98
4 2 2'.2..·2. R li bility . ..>. 98
s:~~!l~;i~i~~;i~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::~::::.:~:::;::::.::::,:;~.:.:~:.:'::::~~~:::::::'i
4 2 2 22:3.' -; 00
4222"4 Protection of constitutional rights ';:.,.:.:.:.:: ;.y ' ~.:: 102
4 2 ii~5' ~.Po/i.c: di~cipli~e ::~.~.~~;:;.~;..~:::£~..~.~u:::~:•~:..,;.105
422.2.6! .' Judicial integrity : ,.:.:·; : \.: =;..,:•.... 107
42 2-27 Crime control l : : l09
u ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :••••• :•• u••••
'4'2~3'·~~vsAlMES : :.:;..;.:.T~~:;.:;~~ ~.:..~.~,~ u.L12
r CAPE::.~:u.u.u.;u.:uu.;.;.u :..
424 .WESSO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, WESTERN 114
CHAPTER FIVE
IMPEACHMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA: BEYOND MAKHATHINI
5~1 INTROD1JCTION 'j'. ;.: : 117
i; " u u :;': ~ :·..
5
::THE IMPQRi~CE OF STAYING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SECT~():N:35(5).OFTHE
~~ 4i't".. ~ :.~. ':'~.' - _,' t_·. :"'-_"~Ir.~,_" ~,.-':.~,.' ,
._.,.CONSTITUTION ", ; ;·.~~· _;.;..~ 119
is~
5~ :'.':,CoNscfuuvE EVIDENCE (SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS)' OPP.oSED 'TO
,.' . :',~~REAi:"EVIDENCE ; ~ ~:.:.: :.: ::::.-.~ 121
~.~.-1."TRIAL.FAIRNESS : :.::~.-:~.~.: :· ;.,..:r+:': 122
032.· .DETRIMENTAL TO iHE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .:..~ L:.;:.;;:; .. ::.:.:..·:.....125
~~ . ~-$ . ~. ,_'-.- ~.: ,.';.. - -' -'_-;. '.".'-: -', _. '. " ",'
~~'. _}11E~'NOLIQ~~CE TO PERMIT PERJURY" ARGUMENT:.;~~:·.:.:;:....E.;:,.~;~:.~..;..:,;;~.·.:.~...)26
5}5~' ·LOCAL RELEVANCE OF THE MINORITY'S ARGUMENT rN11Aillus vNE.wTaitK:.~'.:::..1-27
5~"-5Q£~-1.s.-4·_--~I~N••T,~,E.RFEREN~•.eE",.:..~.,_,'_W', ITH AN ACCUSED'S UNFETTER"E'l'D R_~I;:G:l.:.H.:,'.T,;._::..\,,TO-ELE·.:C!_..':L,-"·--·~W_-f";H-74E:r:THE-R,>: 'T_.O
f>:'~_~.' ··-.rr-¥.·-~:-·, ~ ~_--: _ :.-.;..1 .::~ ..
<t,~!ESTI~,QN HIS OWN BEHALF : :: :;: ,•.: ;: )28
~ 5 2.-·.1BLuRjUN~G·..<lIm tINE BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL REQUlREMENTS ANI? TIffi'90MMON
'~'. ': ·"LAwEVIDENTIARY RULE OF RELEVANCE ~ :.~~ ~ ~.~~..: ..; 129
s_ 5.'3 'SAFEGa~ING THE.INTEGRITY OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM_:,.~]:<; .: .. ; ~.~ 129
5 5,4~,;l!NPERMININGTHE.pETERRENCE O.BJECTIVE :;.: ;.~..;:.;'; :.:.~.::;., :~.::'.:~.:::1:_3.1
5.6. LOCAL RELE-v~CE OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH_ .: ;::::;,: ..:::.::..;: .: :.:132
IX
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of Contents
57 SECTION 35(5): TIlE RELEVANCE OF LO~AL DEVEL0J>MENTS REGARDING THE
DISCRETION : ~ : :~.~,::;:'.,=:.:~:.\ :......................•... ....: :· 133
5 7 1. T:R.I-AL FAIRNESS .-...•. : ,'_ -.. :..: :.:~:..~,.:., --: ; 134
5 7Tl·!· Waiver ofconstitutional rights .:~ :~ :~ : !.,~ : ; , 134
5 7 1i Real evidence conscripted fr6m the acctis~d :::· :.~..":,.~ : · 134
5713 .Identification evidence ~......•......:. ; :;..~~~~..;::..~...:;:.~ 136
572 DETRIMENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OFJUSTICE ......•....•.••... ;..•..:................•........... :.136
5721 The crime wave ; ~ ; : 136
5722' Good faith ..; : : .: · ; 136
of
5723 Exigentclrcumstances. Public (policejsafety and Imminentdestruction
evidence ..:..:~:.: ~.: . : 137
57··24 Lawful or lessintrusive means ~fse~urin:gthe.eviden~e~.:.~ " 137
'57 k 5 Seriousness ofthe violation :: ;;.; :-::.:...: ;.: : .'; .138
57'26 Real evidence i.; : ;.•..:.:.:~ ·..~ :·..: 138
58' .REMARKS IN CONCLUSION ~••:., ~~.•,....... ~ r,•..; · 138
x