The judge had referred to the triad of factors from S v Zinn which consists of the person of the accused, the nature of the offence and the interests of society. Since no report by a probation officer or a correctional officer was put before the court, the judge could not impose a sentence of correctional supervision and had decided to a direct period of 1 year imprisonment in terms of s 276 (1)(i) .
THE HEARSAY ISSUE.
ISSUE.
Should the hearsay evidence be admitted in terms of s 3 (c) of the Law of Amendment Act.
RULE OF LAW.
Under the rule of law section, statutes that are appropriate and that apply to this case would be discussed and listed as well as other cases that have some relevance to this case. These cases are similar to S v Singh in that they also decide whether hearsay evidence should be admitted or not. .
STATUTE.
This rule of law points out to the court the conditions under which it can give discretion to admit hearsay evidence.
Section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act ,.
3. Hearsay Evidence. - .
(1) Subject to the provisions of any other law, hearsay evidence shall not be admitted as evidence at criminal or civil-proceedings, unless.
(a) each party against whom the evidence is to be adduced agrees to the admission thereof as evidence at such proceedings;.
(b) the person upon whose credibility the probative value of such evidence depends, himself testifies at such proceedings; or.
.
(c) the court having regard to -.
(i) the nature of the proceedings.
(ii) the nature of the evidence.
(iii) the purpose for which the evidence is tendered.
(iv) the probative value of the evidence.
(v) the reason why the evidence is not given by the person upon whose credibility the probative value of such evidence depends;.
(vi) any prejudice to a party which is the admission of such evidence might entail; and.
(vii) any other factor which should in the opinion of the court be taken into account,.