Difference between revisions of "Material contained in police docket (Zimbabwe)"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with 'The High Court ruling in the case of Sithole 1996 (2) ZLR 575 (H) is important. The court decided that X is normally entitled to have access to the witness statements contained i�')
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The High Court ruling in the case of Sithole 1996 (2) ZLR 575 (H) is important. The court decided that X is normally entitled to have access to the witness statements contained in the police docket unless the State claims privilege for this material and discharges the onus of establishing that the State interests in protecting that material from disclosure outweighs the right of X to a fair trial.
 
The High Court ruling in the case of Sithole 1996 (2) ZLR 575 (H) is important. The court decided that X is normally entitled to have access to the witness statements contained in the police docket unless the State claims privilege for this material and discharges the onus of establishing that the State interests in protecting that material from disclosure outweighs the right of X to a fair trial.
 +
 +
----
 +
See [[Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual]]

Latest revision as of 21:22, 28 June 2010

The High Court ruling in the case of Sithole 1996 (2) ZLR 575 (H) is important. The court decided that X is normally entitled to have access to the witness statements contained in the police docket unless the State claims privilege for this material and discharges the onus of establishing that the State interests in protecting that material from disclosure outweighs the right of X to a fair trial.


See Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual