QUESTION 3
Each person has a unique set of genetic material inherited from both parents.
Can the court take judicial notice of this 'fact'? In South African law of evidence
A.
No. If the court wants any information, it must ensure it is received by way of evidence presented by the parties.
B.
Yes, but only on condition that it can later be rebutted.
C.
Yes, but only if it is done with reference to authority that cannot be disputed and if it is done to help the court form a complete picture of knowledge about genetics.
D.
Yes, but only once it has received evidence from both parties and once cross-examination has been finalised.
A. No. If the court wants any information, it must ensure it is received by way of evidence presented by the parties.
A.
No. If the court wants any information, it must ensure it is received by way of evidence presented by the parties.
To determine the correct answer to this question, we need to understand the concept of judicial notice in the South African law of evidence.
Judicial notice is when a court accepts a particular fact as true without requiring formal proof. In other words, the court takes notice of commonly known or easily verifiable facts as part of general knowledge.
In this case, the fact that each person has a unique set of genetic material inherited from both parents is a scientific fact that can be considered general knowledge. So, can the court take judicial notice of this fact in South African law of evidence?
Option A states that the court cannot take judicial notice of any information; however, this is not entirely accurate. Courts can take judicial notice of certain facts.
Option B states that the court can take judicial notice, but only if it can later be rebutted. Rebuttal means providing evidence to challenge or disprove the fact that was previously noticed by the court. In this case, since the fact of unique genetic material inheritance is a generally accepted scientific fact, it cannot be easily rebutted. Therefore, option B is not the correct answer.
Option C states that the court can take judicial notice if it is done with reference to an authority that cannot be disputed and if it helps the court form a complete picture of knowledge about genetics. This option seems more reasonable; if the court relies on a reputable scientific authority to establish the fact about genetics, it can be considered as judicial notice. This means that option C is a possible correct answer.
Option D states that the court can take judicial notice only after receiving evidence from both parties and completing cross-examination. However, this contradicts the concept of judicial notice, which is based on accepting certain facts without formal evidence being presented. Therefore, option D is not the correct answer.
Based on our analysis, the correct answer to the question is option C: Yes, but only if it is done with reference to an authority that cannot be disputed and if it helps the court form a complete picture of knowledge about genetics.