Witnesses and Data Messages

Extract

[...] Witnesses and Data Messages I. Data Messages as Evidence In terms of section 15 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (‘ECTA') the legal requirements for the admissibility and weight of data messages are stipulated by the Act. The term 'data message' means data generated, sent, received or stored by electronic means and includes a voice, where the voice is used in an automated transaction; and secondly a stored record. It is therefore evident that the photographs and voice recordings of the accused made by Mr. [...]

[...] The court held that the photographs were admissible against the accused and specifically called upon section 15 of ECTA in doing so. The decision in the case of Motata v Nair[4] (which was confirmed on appeal in S v Motata[5]) involved a complainant who took voice recordings and photographs on his cellular phone in an accident caused by his neighbour who, whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, crashed into the complainant's boundary wall. The recordings and photographs were downloaded onto the computer of the complainant thereafter but subsequently, the cellular phone was then stolen. [...]

[...] In S v Ndiki[2] the accused objected to the use of documentary evidence in the form of computer printouts on the basis that same would be considered hearsay. The court held that the statements of fact contained in the documents could be used to ascertain whether there was any truth to those facts contained in the evidence of the computer printouts. Therefore, the court, in having regard to section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, found the documentary evidence contained in the computer printouts to be admissible. [...]

[...] The court, however, held that such data messages and computer output were admissible as evidence against the accused. II. Evidence by a Single Witness In S v Webber[6] the court held that the evidence of a single witness should be treated with caution and that such evidence should not necessarily be dismissed because it contains an air of bias or interest displayed by such witness. The bias or interest itself in such a case should be assessed and the importance thereof in the light of the evidence as a whole should be taken into consideration when assessing the admissibility of such evidence in relation to the facts of the case. [...]

[...] Motata Johannesburg District Court case number 63/968/07 (unreported) at 622. S v Ndiki and Others 2008 SACR 252 S v Sauls and Others 1981 SA 172 S v Taylor 1991 SACR 69 S v Webber 1971 SA 754 R v Makoena 1932 OPD 79 Ndhlovu v Minister of Correctional Services and another [2006] 4 All SA 165 172 S v Ndiki and Others 2008 SACR 252 S v Brown 2016 SACR 206 (WCC) Motata v Nair No and Another 2009 SACR -,.789LM“”˜™ÚÜäç š Ú Ý ‹Œ™šœ?ž¥¦¼ÙÚp q r s y { îîîßÍÍ͹¨™Š™Š™Š™™™Š™ŠŠwŠ™™™™™Š™Š™¨¨™Š™™™™¨¨Š™Š$ho}~hôhVCJOJ[5]QJ[6]^J[7]mHsH ho}~hd~UCJ263 S v. [...]