Getuienis voortgebring deur middel van 'n toestel of apparaat (soos byvoorbeeld 'n foto) kan 6f as reele getuienis 6f as dokumentere getuienis, 6f as albei aangebied word. Die doel waarvoor dit aangebied word, bepaal die toelaatbaarheidsvereiste(s). Oudio- en Videobande as getuienis word vir doeleindes van bespreking oor dieselfde kam geskeer aangesien daar prinsipieel nie 'n onderskeid is nie. '1 am unabk to see any difference, in principk, between the admissibility of an audio tape recording and a video tape recording" rull Milne rp in S v Ramgobin and Others 1986 (4) SA 117 (N) p 129 I. Huidiglik is daar in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nie eenstemmigheid ten opsigte van die klassifikasie en/of toelaatbaarheidsvereistes van toestelle en apparate, soos byvoorbeeld videos, nie. In die bespreking wat volg sal gekyk word na die nodigheid van 'n klassifikasie en wat die omvang van toelaatbaarheidsvoorskrifte behoort te wees, in 'n akkusatoriese strafprosesstelsel soos die van Suid-Afrika en die Anglo-Amerikaanse regstelsels. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LLM

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 88-95).

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

Typescript (photocopy) Bibliography: leaves vii-xiv.

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

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

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Toulouse. Faculté de droit et des sciences ećonomiques, 1980. / At head of title: Universite de Toulouse. Includes bibliographical references.

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

Pas de résumé / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished