The goal of this research was to determine the procedures used for conducting a search and seizure in a tax-related offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. Aspects that cause problems for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) investigators are the application for a search warrant and the activities that take place before, during and after the search and seizure. An introduction, definition and explanation are given of certain key concepts such as forensic and criminal investigations, as well as their objectives and purpose. The various search methods are also discussed and explained as are the chain of custody and evidence in general. A large part of this research deals with the legal requirements for a search and seizure in a tax-related offence and encompasses issues such as the procedures for obtaining a search warrant, pre-raid briefing, conducting the search, and the seizing of, marking, storage and disposal of documents. The findings of the research are discussed and recommendations subsequently made regarding the shortcomings identified. The findings that were made related to the process and procedure to obtain a search warrant, the actual execution of a search and seizure and the legislation that authorises searches and seizures in taxrelated offences. Further findings were made in respect of the mandate of SARS criminal investigators to investigate, the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search and seizure and the marking, recording, storage and disposal of seized items. Recommendations were made regarding training, improved communication and skills transfer to address the shortcomings identified. / Police Practice / (M.Tech. (Forensic investigation))

The goal of this research was to determine the procedures used for conducting a search and seizure in a tax-related offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. Aspects that cause problems for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) investigators are the application for a search warrant and the activities that take place before, during and after the search and seizure. An introduction, definition and explanation are given of certain key concepts such as forensic and criminal investigations, as well as their objectives and purpose. The various search methods are also discussed and explained as are the chain of custody and evidence in general. A large part of this research deals with the legal requirements for a search and seizure in a tax-related offence and encompasses issues such as the procedures for obtaining a search warrant, pre-raid briefing, conducting the search, and the seizing of, marking, storage and disposal of documents. The findings of the research are discussed and recommendations subsequently made regarding the shortcomings identified. The findings that were made related to the process and procedure to obtain a search warrant, the actual execution of a search and seizure and the legislation that authorises searches and seizures in taxrelated offences. Further findings were made in respect of the mandate of SARS criminal investigators to investigate, the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search and seizure and the marking, recording, storage and disposal of seized items. Recommendations were made regarding training, improved communication and skills transfer to address the shortcomings identified. / Police Practice / (M.Tech. (Forensic investigation))

Text in Afrikaans / "Free people expect much from their police. In such societies the police stand at the point of balance on the one hand securing human rights on the other exercising their lawful powers given to them by Governments in the name of the people, to protect people and their institutions" (J Alderson Human Rights and Police Rights. Publication of the Council of Europe.) This is no small expectation. It means that the police are expected to maintain and secure the principles of democracy and human rights, the principles upon which our Constitution is based. At the same time it is the duty of a police service to maintain law and order which sometimes require the exercise of power and the use of force which on the face of it may appear to violate human dignity and certain rights and freedoms which a police force is expected to maintain in a democratic society. The manner of exercising that power has an impact on the credibility and effectiveness of the police. Human rights law internationally accepts that a police service needs to be given the power to, at times restrict certain individual freedoms in the interests of the security of the community at large. These restrictions may take place only in a constitutional way. If it takes place in an unconstitutional way the courts must have the right to exclude evidence which is unconstitutionally obtained. At this stage the courts have to formulate such a qualified exclusionary rule, but the ultimate goal must be to include such an exclusionary rule in a future Constitution. / Department of Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M.

Text in Afrikaans / "Free people expect much from their police. In such societies the police stand at the point of balance on the one hand securing human rights on the other exercising their lawful powers given to them by Governments in the name of the people, to protect people and their institutions" (J Alderson Human Rights and Police Rights. Publication of the Council of Europe.) This is no small expectation. It means that the police are expected to maintain and secure the principles of democracy and human rights, the principles upon which our Constitution is based. At the same time it is the duty of a police service to maintain law and order which sometimes require the exercise of power and the use of force which on the face of it may appear to violate human dignity and certain rights and freedoms which a police force is expected to maintain in a democratic society. The manner of exercising that power has an impact on the credibility and effectiveness of the police. Human rights law internationally accepts that a police service needs to be given the power to, at times restrict certain individual freedoms in the interests of the security of the community at large. These restrictions may take place only in a constitutional way. If it takes place in an unconstitutional way the courts must have the right to exclude evidence which is unconstitutionally obtained. At this stage the courts have to formulate such a qualified exclusionary rule, but the ultimate goal must be to include such an exclusionary rule in a future Constitution. / Department of Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

Before 1994 criminal procedure was subject to the sovereignty of Parliament and the untrammelled law enforcement powers of the executive which resulted in the authoritarian and oppressive criminal justice system of the apartheid era. The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 has since created a democratic state based on the values of the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. The basic principles of criminal procedure are now constitutionalised in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects the fundamental rights of individuals when they come into contact with organs of the state which includes the police. The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 authorises the police to search for and to seize articles, and has long provided the only legal basis for obtaining warrants to search for and to seize articles and for performing such actions without a warrant in certain circumstances. Generally the standard for these measures and actions taken under their purview has been one of reasonableness. Since the birth of the Constitution there has been additional constraints on search and seizure powers. Not only are there now constitutionalised standards by which such legal powers are to be measured, but there is also the possibility of excluding evidence obtained in course of a violation of a constitutional right. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are now qualified by the Constitution. Where feasible a system of prior judicial authorisation in the form of a valid search warrant obtained on sworn information establishing reasonable grounds is a precondition for a valid search or seizure. Search and seizure without a warrant is permitted only in exceptional circumstances such as an immediate threat to person or property. By prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures the Constitution places important limits on police efforts to detect and investigate crime. The Constitution appreciates the need for legitimate law enforcement activity. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

The State as the representative of the victims of crime is expected to protect those vulnarable group of people with due regard to the rights of the perpetrators’s of crime. It is imperative that the law of general application which is aimed at protecting victims of crime, be sufficiently effective to protect the victims. The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is aimed at assisting the police to conduct pre-trial criminal procedure in order to bring perpetrators of crime to book. Sections 36A, 36B, 36C and 37 (both previous and as amended) of the Criminal Procedure Act including chapter 5A of the South African Police Act, 1995 are explored in this dissertation. This dissertation examines the areas in the Criminal Procedure Act that make it problematic for the police to conduct efficient and effective crime detection through the ascertainment of bodily features of the suspected or accused person. The law in three foreign jurisdictions relating to this topic are investigated and compared in order to make recommendations and suggest possible solutions. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M.

Before 1994 criminal procedure was subject to the sovereignty of Parliament and the untrammelled law enforcement powers of the executive which resulted in the authoritarian and oppressive criminal justice system of the apartheid era. The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 has since created a democratic state based on the values of the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. The basic principles of criminal procedure are now constitutionalised in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects the fundamental rights of individuals when they come into contact with organs of the state which includes the police. The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 authorises the police to search for and to seize articles, and has long provided the only legal basis for obtaining warrants to search for and to seize articles and for performing such actions without a warrant in certain circumstances. Generally the standard for these measures and actions taken under their purview has been one of reasonableness. Since the birth of the Constitution there has been additional constraints on search and seizure powers. Not only are there now constitutionalised standards by which such legal powers are to be measured, but there is also the possibility of excluding evidence obtained in course of a violation of a constitutional right. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are now qualified by the Constitution. Where feasible a system of prior judicial authorisation in the form of a valid search warrant obtained on sworn information establishing reasonable grounds is a precondition for a valid search or seizure. Search and seizure without a warrant is permitted only in exceptional circumstances such as an immediate threat to person or property. By prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures the Constitution places important limits on police efforts to detect and investigate crime. The Constitution appreciates the need for legitimate law enforcement activity. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

The State as the representative of the victims of crime is expected to protect those vulnarable group of people with due regard to the rights of the perpetrators’s of crime. It is imperative that the law of general application which is aimed at protecting victims of crime, be sufficiently effective to protect the victims. The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is aimed at assisting the police to conduct pre-trial criminal procedure in order to bring perpetrators of crime to book. Sections 36A, 36B, 36C and 37 (both previous and as amended) of the Criminal Procedure Act including chapter 5A of the South African Police Act, 1995 are explored in this dissertation. This dissertation examines the areas in the Criminal Procedure Act that make it problematic for the police to conduct efficient and effective crime detection through the ascertainment of bodily features of the suspected or accused person. The law in three foreign jurisdictions relating to this topic are investigated and compared in order to make recommendations and suggest possible solutions. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.

Crime has been around since the beginning of time. In an evolving society, and the methodology of crime also changes. The methodology of combating and preventing crime should aim to match the speed at which crime occurs. Criminal procedure deals with the powers of the police to investigate crimes.1 The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) contains the principles of search and seizure in chapter 2. The promulgation of the CPA was during a period where the computer was a new phenomenon. At this time, it was inconceivable that technology would ever advance and become so ubiquitous, to the point that technology would infiltrate every aspect of our lives, and laws. There has since been many developments in our law, especially a new Constitutional dispensation.2 There have been developments and technological advancements that have had a direct and indirect bearing on the CPA. People use technology to communicate, transact, and unfortunately, to commit crime. These developments require there to be amendments in the CPA. There has been no specific amendments relating to search and seizure which are of significance in addressing technological advances. It is recommended that the amendments to the CPA include definitions and guidelines for procedural aspects of collection of electronic evidence. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M. (Criminal and Procedural Law)

Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.