Avoiding the pitfall encountered by the Canadian courts when assessing the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal trials in South Africa - a proposed alternative admissibility framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article undertakes a comparative analysis of s 24(2) of the Canadian Charter and s 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. These provisions govern the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal trials. The s 24(2) admissibility framework has on more than one occasion been adapted in order to strike a balance between the societal interest in rights protection and the societal interest in crime control. It is argued that s 35(5) seeks to achieve a similar goal. In order to achieve this purpose, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal has adopted two dissimilar admissibility frameworks. The author considers the strengths and the weaknesses of these admissibility structures and proposes an alternative admissibility framework by having regard to the primary rationale of the provision and the textual nuances that give particular meaning to specific phrases contained in s 35(5), and without disregarding the values it was designed to enhance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".