Online Reporter
Trust Maanda
Legal Position
EVIDENCE is used to prove a fact in a court or judicial proceedings.
In legal proceedings, evidence is required in determining the truth, uncovering facts, and arriving at justice decisions.
It is the basis on which finding of fact and conclusions of law are made. Evidence assist the courts in making informed decisions based on the available facts and information.
In order for it to be accepted, it must meet certain standards for it to become inadmissible.
However, not all evidence is admissible.
Inadmissible evidence is evidence that is not allowed or worthy of being admitted.
In the rules of evidence, inadmissible means evidence that will be excluded in a court of law. Inadmissible evidence is unfit evidence in each legal action. Admissible evidence, is evidence that meets specific standards for it to be accepted by the court.
If the evidence does not meet standards of relevance, the privilege or public policy exists, the qualification of witnesses or the authentication of evidence is at issue, or the evidence is unlawfully gathered, then it is inadmissible.
Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act speaks about inadmissibility of irrelevant evidence.
It says: “No evidence as to any fact, matter or thing shall be admissible which is irrelevant or immaterial and cannot conduce to prove or disprove any point or fact at issue in the case which is being tried.”
Some evidence is inadmissible for being irrelevant.
Relevant evidence is evidence that advances the cause or proves an issue. If the issue that needs to be proved is the death of a human being it is irrelevant for witness to lead evidence on how a cow died.
That piece of evidence has no relationship to the issue that is being decided. A witness has to know what he needs to prove, what issue is before the court on which a decision is required to be made. If he does not know, he may rumble on and on, giving information that is not necessary in the proceedings. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. This is when you see the court or opposing party objecting to the evidence as being irrelevant.
Opinion evidence is not admissible, unless it is coming from an expert.
For example, a witness cannot give an opinion on what could have caused the death of a deceased.
That is a conclusion to be made by an expert and by the court on analysing the evidence.
An ordinary witness must just state what he observed or directly heard, but not from a third party.
It is from what the witness observed that the court will make a finding of fact. A witness generally answers question about when, where, what, who, why and how.
A prosecutor or lawyer must not ask his ordinary witness a question that elicits his opinion. That question can be objected to.
Another type of evidence that is inadmissible is hearsay evidence.
Hearsay is evidence you tell the court what you heard someone else saying. It is evidence you heard from someone who heard from someone. Or evidence you tell the court that “he told me”, when the person who told you is not coming to give evidence to that effect.
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, though.
Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act says: (1) No evidence which is of the nature of hearsay evidence shall be admissible in any case in which such evidence would be inadmissible in any similar case depending in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England.
Exclusion of hearsay evidence is based on the principle that unreliable or prejudicial evidence should not be used to determine a person’s guilt or innocence.
Illegally obtained evidence is another type of inadmissible evidence.
Section 70 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that: “In any criminal trial, evidence that has been obtained in a manner that violates any provision of this Chapter must be excluded if the admission of the evidence would render the trial unfair or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest.”
This means that evidence obtained through torture, for example, is inadmissible. However, the exclusion of that evidence is not absolute.
The section says it is not admissible if its admission renders the trial unfair or be detrimental to the admiration of justice.
The court then has to decide if the admission will not lead to unfairness or detriment to the administration of justice. The factors that the court considers on whether illegally obtained evidence should in the circumstances be considered are in Section 258A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.
The above are not the only types of inadmissible evidence. It is up to the court to be a gate keeper see what is admissible and what is not. But you should know when to object to evidence on any ground of inadmissibility.
TRUST MAANDA is a legal practitioner and a partner at Maunga Maanda And Associates. He writes in his personal capacity. He can be contacted on +263772432646 or [email protected].
Ends
