Recent Case: Evidence

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Pages400-407
AuthorP J Schwikkard
Published date24 May 2019
Citation(2002) 15 SACJ 400
Date24 May 2019
400
SACJ •
(2002) 15 •
SAS
Evidence
PJ Schwikkard
University of Cape Town
Admissibility
One of the issues that court in
S v Hlongwa
consider on review was the admissibility of a J88 form.(The form to be used
by district surgeons, medical officers and medical practitioners to record their
findings when conducting an examination resultant upon the commission of
a crime.) The accused had been convicted in the magistrates court on two
counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The record of the
proceedings reflected that the accused had indicated that he wished the
doctor who had completed the J88 in respect of the first complainant to be
called to testify. However, the magistrate purporting to exercise a discretion
conferred by s 212(12) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 admitted the J88
form without the doctor having been called as a witness. Stegmann J held
that the J88 form was neither an affidavit or certificate as contemplated by ss
212(4) and 212(12) of the Criminal Procedure Act and therefore had been
incorrectly admitted by the magistrate. The court held (at 44g-h) that before a
J88 could fall within the purview of ss 212(4) and (12) the person signing the
certificate would have to state the following on the form:
(2002) 15 SACJ 400
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT