as is pointed out by Wigmore in his Code of Evidence para 568 ‘Trustworthiness, at 128, depends on factors such as the of observation, his power of child’s power recollection, and his power of narration on the specific matter to be testified. In each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated. His capacity of observation will depend on whether he appears to “intelligent enough observe”. Whether he has the capacity of recollection will depend again on whether he has sufficient years of what while the capacity of discretion “to remember occurs” narration or communication raises the question whether the child has capacity “the to understand the questions put, and to frame and express intelligent answers” (Wigmore on Evidence vol II para 506 at 596). There are other factors as well which the Court will take into account in assessing the in the child’s trustworthiness witness-box. Does he appear to be honest is there a consciousness of the duty – to speak the truth? Then also of the evidence given by the child may be of a simple kind and may “the nature relate to a subject-matter clearly within the field of its understanding and interest and the circumstances may be such as practically to exclude the risks arising from suggestibility.” (per Schreiner JA in R v Manda) [1951(3) SA 158(A) at 163 A-C.] See also Minister of Basic Education Sport and Culture v Vivier No 2012(2) NR 613 (SC) at I must confess that the young witnesses testified on a subject too complicated for a child to understand. They had difficulties to describe insufficient details what the appellant had done to them and refer to private parts by name, but made demonstrations to illustrate or clarify what they referred to as ‘tsu-tsu’ and/or of evidence and decided cases requires that the courts should ‘pie pie’. Our law approach evidence in sexual offences involving minors and single witnesses with caution. In counts 1 - 4 the appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the complainants but with their consent. The complainants in those counts were only
‘Trustworthiness, as is pointed out by Wigmore in his Code of Evidence para 568 at 128, depends on factors such as the child’s power of observation, his power of recollection, and his power of narration on the specific matter to be testified. In each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated. His capacity of observation will depend on whether he appears “intelligent enough to observe”. Whether he has the capacity of recollection will depend again on whether he has sufficient years of discretion “to remember what occurs” while the capacity of narration or communication raises the question whether the child has “the capacity to understand the questions put, and to frame and express intelligent answers” (Wigmore on Evidence vol II para 506 at 596). There are other factors as well which the Court will take into account in assessing the child’s trustworthiness in the witness-box. Does he appear to be honest – is there a consciousness of the duty to speak the truth? Then also “the nature of the evidence given by the child may be of a simple kind and may relate to a subject-matter clearly within the field of its understanding and interest and the circumstances may be such as practically to exclude the risks arising from suggestibility.” (per Schreiner JA in R v Manda) [1951(3) SA 158(A) at 163 A-C.] See also Minister of Basic Education Sport and Culture v Vivier No 2012(2) NR 613 (SC) at I must confess that the young witnesses testified on a subject too complicated for a child to understand. They had difficulties to describe insufficient details what the appellant had done to them and refer to private parts by name, but made demonstrations to illustrate or clarify what they referred to as ‘tsu-tsu’ and/or ‘pie pie’. Our law of evidence and decided cases requires that the courts should approach evidence in sexual offences involving minors and single witnesses with caution. In counts 1 - 4 the appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the complainants but with their consent. The complainants in those counts were only
TA%20v%20S%20(SA%2030%20-%202008)[2017]NASC%20(26%20October%202017).docx