Thesis (doctoral)--Universitẗ Tübingen.

The rule against hearsay of evidence law, and its exceptions, can be explained with a simple heuristic device. Where the circumstances surrounding the making of the hearsay statement indicate that the declarant perceived the matters reported accurately, believed and remembered what she saw when she reported it, and intended to accurately report it, the evidence appears reliable and is admissible in court. This theory is used as the basis for building an expert system to advise lawyers about admissibility of hearsay evidence. The expert whose knowledge forms the basis of this expert system is Professor M. T. MacCrimmon of the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Law, 1983.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M. )- University of Natal, Durban, 1987.

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 2006. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-65). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:MR19685

Public, Constitutional and International Law / LLM (with specialization in Criminal and Procedural Law)

To know your law and not to understand it is like a legal barbarian lost in the battlefield of legal theory. A proper and thorough understanding of the law of evidence and hearsay evidence in particular, is of paramount importance not only for lawyers but also for persons who regard themselves as labour law experts. It takes a great deal of experience before a lawyer truly becomes confident with the law of evidence and its application. The only way one becomes good at it is firstly to know the law. (Where does it come from and why is it there?) Then one must get to understand it by looking at examples and apply it in practice. Only then will a person gain practical experience. The aim of this treatise is not to try and educate experienced lawyers. This article is aimed at those that need some motivation to pursue their journey in the labour law process. Remember we all assume that lawyers know and understand their subject until they proof the contrary. In this work I shall try to highlight the importance of the law of evidence in labour law proceedings. Firstly the meaning of the law of evidence and hearsay evidence is considered. Further emphasis will be on the approach and application of the law of evidence, and in particular the hearsay rule, in labour law proceedings.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Until 1988, hearsay-evidence in our legal system was governed by common law. During this period resistance developed regarding the practice that hearsay which complied with certain exceptions could indeed be allowed. Case law excluded further exceptions being added. Legislation was enacted in 1988 in which hearsay was defined, a total exclusionary rule retained, but the Courts given a wide discretion to allow hearsay. Via this legislation a more accommodating stance towards hearsay was introduced. This dissertation aimed at measuring whether the legislation achieved its objectives and consisted of analysing case law and interviewing Judges and Advocates. The conclusion arrived at is that the legislation has only marginally changed the usage of hearsay in our legal system. The major obstacle lies in the attitude of practitioners who continue to distrust hearsay and do not utilize the mechanism provided by statute. / Tot en met 1988, is hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel gemeenregtelik beheer. In die tydperk bet besware egter geleidelik ontwikkel veral oor die gekunstelde wyse waarop hoorsê as aan bepaalde uitsonderings voldoen is wel toegelaat is. Regspraak het voorts ook bepaal dat geen verdere uitsonderings toegevoeg kon word nie. In 1988 is wetgewing uitgevaardig waarin hoorsê-getuienis omskryf word, 'n algehele uitsluitingsreel behou word maar aan die howe 'n wye diskresie verleen word om na oorweging van voorgeskrewe faktore, hoorsê wei toe te laat. Die oogmerk van hierdie wetgewing was om 'n meganisme daar te stel om soos by die civil regstelsels en sekere ander Iande, 'n meer toeskietlike houding jeens hoorsê te bewerkstellig. Hierdie verhandeling se hoofdoel was om te bepaal of die wetgewing in die doel geslaag bet. Om tot 'n bevinding te kom is regspraak ontleed, en is onderhoude gevoer beide met Regters en die Advokatuur. Die slotsom bereik dui daarop dat die wetgewing maar weinig verander bet in die gebruikmaking van hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel. Wat die wetgewing self betref, hoewel daar sekere besware te make is oor sekere bepalings, verskaf dit tog 'n bruikbare instrument. Die grootste struikelblok is gelee in die instelling van die praktisyns wat bly vasklou aan 'n gevestigde vrees vir hoarse en nie gebruikmaak van die nuwe geleentheid nou deur die wetgewing daargestel nie. / Law / LL.M.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Until 1988, hearsay-evidence in our legal system was governed by common law. During this period resistance developed regarding the practice that hearsay which complied with certain exceptions could indeed be allowed. Case law excluded further exceptions being added. Legislation was enacted in 1988 in which hearsay was defined, a total exclusionary rule retained, but the Courts given a wide discretion to allow hearsay. Via this legislation a more accommodating stance towards hearsay was introduced. This dissertation aimed at measuring whether the legislation achieved its objectives and consisted of analysing case law and interviewing Judges and Advocates. The conclusion arrived at is that the legislation has only marginally changed the usage of hearsay in our legal system. The major obstacle lies in the attitude of practitioners who continue to distrust hearsay and do not utilize the mechanism provided by statute. / Tot en met 1988, is hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel gemeenregtelik beheer. In die tydperk bet besware egter geleidelik ontwikkel veral oor die gekunstelde wyse waarop hoorsê as aan bepaalde uitsonderings voldoen is wel toegelaat is. Regspraak het voorts ook bepaal dat geen verdere uitsonderings toegevoeg kon word nie. In 1988 is wetgewing uitgevaardig waarin hoorsê-getuienis omskryf word, 'n algehele uitsluitingsreel behou word maar aan die howe 'n wye diskresie verleen word om na oorweging van voorgeskrewe faktore, hoorsê wei toe te laat. Die oogmerk van hierdie wetgewing was om 'n meganisme daar te stel om soos by die civil regstelsels en sekere ander Iande, 'n meer toeskietlike houding jeens hoorsê te bewerkstellig. Hierdie verhandeling se hoofdoel was om te bepaal of die wetgewing in die doel geslaag bet. Om tot 'n bevinding te kom is regspraak ontleed, en is onderhoude gevoer beide met Regters en die Advokatuur. Die slotsom bereik dui daarop dat die wetgewing maar weinig verander bet in die gebruikmaking van hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel. Wat die wetgewing self betref, hoewel daar sekere besware te make is oor sekere bepalings, verskaf dit tog 'n bruikbare instrument. Die grootste struikelblok is gelee in die instelling van die praktisyns wat bly vasklou aan 'n gevestigde vrees vir hoarse en nie gebruikmaak van die nuwe geleentheid nou deur die wetgewing daargestel nie. / Law / LL.M.