A comparative analysis of the "connection" and the standing threshold requirements under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter and section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, empowers the South African courts to exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal trials. This section is modelled on the terms of section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter. Before a court may consider the substantive phase of the admissibility assessment (whether to receive or exclude the disputed evidence) it must be satisfied that the threshold requirements have been complied with. This contribution consists of a comparative analysis of the connection and standing threshold requirements contained in sections 35(5) and 24(2). The connection threshold dictates that there must be an adequate link between the violation and the discovery of the evidence, while the standing threshold requires that an accused should demonstrate that his or her fundamental rights have been infringed, before he or she may challenge the admissibility of the disputed evidence. Failure to satisfy any of these threshold requirements entails that an accused may not rely on section 35(5). This article concludes that the South African and Canadian position in regard to the connection threshold is noticeably comparable, but that the Canadian approach relating to the standing threshold requirement should not be adopted by the courts of South Africa.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".