QUESTION 5
When evaluating the probative value of evidence, the court will consider whether certain 'facts' have been corroborated. If self-corroboration is disallowed, why can it still be adduced in trials? In South African law of evidence
A.
Self-corroborative evidence is only allowed at trial if the party who adduces the evidence can prove that the evidence has not been manufactured.
B.
Self-corroborative evidence is not evidence of corroboration, rather evidence that someone has been consistent, for example, where a dock identification is made together with evidence of previous identification in an identification parade.
C.
Self-corroborative evidence strengthens the support for specific testimony by a witness over that of the accused.
D.
Self-corroborative evidence may never be adduced. It is unconditionally inadmissible.
B.
B.
Self-corroborative evidence is not evidence of corroboration, rather evidence that someone has been consistent, for example, where a dock identification is made together with evidence of previous identification in an identification parade.
To determine the correct answer to this question, we need to understand the concept of self-corroboration in the South African law of evidence.
Self-corroborative evidence refers to evidence that supports and confirms itself, without the involvement of any external or independent sources of evidence. In other words, it is evidence that is based solely on the word or actions of the person giving the evidence, without any additional supporting evidence.
The question asks why self-corroborative evidence can still be adduced in trials, even though it is generally disallowed.
Option A suggests that self-corroborative evidence is only allowed if the party presenting the evidence can prove that it has not been fabricated. This option implies that the court may allow self-corroborative evidence if there is sufficient proof that it is genuine and not manufactured. However, this answer is incorrect because it does not accurately reflect the general rule that self-corroborative evidence is disallowed.
Option B suggests that self-corroborative evidence is not considered evidence of corroboration, but rather evidence that someone has been consistent in their testimony. For example, if a witness identifies the accused in court and there is previous evidence of them also identifying the accused in an identification parade, this would be considered self-corroborative evidence. This option explains that self-corroborative evidence can be adduced in trials to demonstrate consistency in testimony, rather than as direct proof of the facts in question. Thus, option B is a possible answer.
Option C suggests that self-corroborative evidence strengthens the support for the testimony of a witness over that of the accused. This option implies that self-corroborative evidence can be used to enhance the credibility and reliability of a witness's testimony. However, this option does not adequately address the fact that self-corroborative evidence is generally disallowed, making it an incorrect answer.
Option D states that self-corroborative evidence may never be adduced and is unconditionally inadmissible. This option is incorrect because it contradicts the fact that self-corroborative evidence can still be allowed in certain circumstances, as discussed in option B.
Therefore, the correct answer is B. Self-corroborative evidence is not considered evidence of corroboration, but rather evidence of consistency in testimony. It can be adduced in trials when there is evidence of consistent identification, for example.