AG v S (A534/2013)
AG v S (A534/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 784 (18 August 2014)
The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in appointing an intermediary for the fourteen-year-old complainant, given the traumatic nature of the charges and the risk of undue mental stress. The court found that the trial court did not improperly refuse cross-examination regarding previous sexual experience, as such evidence was inadmissible under section 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and no application was made to admit it. The previous consistent statements made by the complainant were admissible and relevant to rebut fabrication, and the trial court correc…
Source excerpt
- Sexual Offences
- Indecent Assault
- Rape
- Appointment Of Intermediary
- Admissibility Of Evidence
- Previous Consistent Statements