Recent Case: Evidence

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Pages: 400-407
• Author: P J Schwikkard
• Published date: 24 May 2019
• Citation: (2002) 15 SACJ 400
• Date: 24 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

2002 (2) SACR 37 (T) had to

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