When a court evaluates circumstantial evidence at the end of a trial, it must ensure to engage in logical inferential reasoning to accurately conclude which facts have been proved. In south African law of evidence
In what court case has the rules for logical inferential reasoning been drafted?
A.
Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at [5].
B.
R v De Villiers 1944 AD 493 at 508-509.
C.
R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202-203.
D.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne 1973 (1) All ER 440 at 456.
A.
Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at [5].
The correct answer is A. Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at [5].
To determine which court case has the rules for logical inferential reasoning been drafted in the South African law of evidence, we need to analyze the options provided.
A. Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at [5]: This case does not explicitly deal with the drafting of rules for logical inferential reasoning in the context of the South African law of evidence. It focuses on contractual interpretation and intellectual property rights.
B. R v De Villiers 1944 AD 493 at 508-509: This case does not specifically address the drafting of rules for logical inferential reasoning either. It revolves around the principles of criminal law, specifically related to the defense of automatism.
C. R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202-203: The case of R v Blom does not pertain to the drafting of rules for logical inferential reasoning. It concerns the determination of criminal liability based on mental state and capacity.
D. Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne 1973 (1) All ER 440 at 456: This case is not related to the drafting of rules for logical inferential reasoning either. It discusses the interpretation of the term "unlawfully killed" in English law.
None of the options provided directly correspond to the drafting of rules for logical inferential reasoning in the South African law of evidence. Therefore, the correct answer is none of the above options.