Likelihood that accused will tamper with evidence (Zimbabwe): Difference between revisions
Ddemetriou (talk | contribs) 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�' |
|||
| 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. | 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. | ||
---- | |||
See [[Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual]] | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 3 August 2010
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.
