Ibjadmin: /* Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual */

2010-08-03T14:06:31Z

Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Even where there is no evidence of attempts already made of this description, the court may still refuse bail on the basis of police testimony that such attempts are likely to be made. In Hlogwa 1979 (4) SA 112 (D) the court stated that it may, in appropriate circumstances, rely on the investigating officer's assertion that X was likely to tamper with evidence if he were to be released, even if this assertion is unsupported by any direct evidence. The defence lawyer will obviously want to question the police officer as to the basis upon he holds his belief and will seek to establish to the court that this belief has no reasonable foundation. However, in Hussey 1991 (2) ZLR 187 (S) the Supreme Court held that a bald assertion by the State that X was likely to interfere with witnesses is not enough. The State must produce some information which establishes that this assertion is well grounded.
-== Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual ==
+----
-'''Table of Contents'''
+See [[Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual]]

Ddemetriou: Created page with 'The argument that there is a likelihood of interference with evidence will obviously be strong if the State can show that there have already been attempts by X to do this. This w�'

2010-05-28T12:58:34Z

Created page with 'The argument that there is a likelihood of interference with evidence will obviously be strong if the State can show that there have already been attempts by X to do this. This w�'

New page

The argument that there is a likelihood of interference with evidence will obviously be strong if the State can show that there have already been attempts by X to do this. This was the situation in Maharaj 1976 (3) SA 205 (D) where X had already tried to persuade a State witness to disappear, in Chiadzwa 1988 (2) ZLR 19 (S) where there was evidence suggesting X had attempted to bribe a police officer and had composed a plan whilst in prison to discredit witnesses against him and in Maratera S-93-91 where there was evidence that there had been an interference with the course of justice. See also Bennett 1976 (3) SA 652 (C).

Even where there is no evidence of attempts already made of this description, the court may still refuse bail on the basis of police testimony that such attempts are likely to be made. In Hlogwa 1979 (4) SA 112 (D) the court stated that it may, in appropriate circumstances, rely on the investigating officer's assertion that X was likely to tamper with evidence if he were to be released, even if this assertion is unsupported by any direct evidence. The defence lawyer will obviously want to question the police officer as to the basis upon he holds his belief and will seek to establish to the court that this belief has no reasonable foundation. However, in Hussey 1991 (2) ZLR 187 (S) the Supreme Court held that a bald assertion by the State that X was likely to interfere with witnesses is not enough. The State must produce some information which establishes that this assertion is well grounded.

== Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual ==
'''Table of Contents'''
* [[Introduction (Zimbabwe)| Introduction]]
* [[Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities (Zimbabwe)|Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities]]
* [[Pre-Trial Matters (Zimbabwe)|Pre-Trial Matters]]
* [[Jurisdiction of Courts (Zimbabwe)|Jurisdiction of Courts]]
* [[Preparing for Trial (Zimbabwe)| Preparing for Trial]]
* [[Trial (Zimbabwe)|Trials]]
* [[Rules of Evidence (Zimbabwe)| Rules of Evidence]]
* [[Criminal Law Code (Zimbabwe)| Criminal Law Code]]
* [[Verdict (Zimbabwe)|Verdict]]
* [[Sentence (Zimbabwe)|Sentence]]
* [[Record of Proceedings (Zimbabwe)|Record of Proceedings]]
* [[Appeals (Zimbabwe)|Appeals]]
* [[Automatic Review and Scrutiny (Zimbabwe)| Automatic Review and Scrutiny]]
* [[Miscellaneous Matters (Zimbabwe)|Miscellaneous Matters]]

Likelihood that accused will tamper with evidence (Zimbabwe) - Revision history

Ibjadmin: /* Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual */

Ddemetriou: Created page with 'The argument that there is a likelihood of interference with evidence will obviously be strong if the State can show that there have already been attempts by X to do this. This w�'