TOWARDS A CLEARER CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING OF THE “BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE TEST” IN SECTION 3(1) (C) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT 45 OF 1988 (THE LEAA)
M. Monyakane. ETRA, 1, page 173-176. ACM, (June 2010)
Abstract
The “best interest of justice” denotes the best use of discretion by a person in authority. It is a familiar
principle in International law prescripts. By its nature of being soft law- the international law assumes this
principle as a guide for the enforcement of particular principles in different domestic law legal
environments. To this end this principle means that the enforced domestic justice must serve the
internationally prescribed interest of law, within domestic legal requirements. It is this principle that
influences international child law inclined perspective in domestic legislation. This article explains the
rationale for the best interest of justice test in the South African Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of
1988 (the LEAA). The article, interprets this test in the light of South African law evolution from the preconstitutional era -to- constitutional era. It argues that the application of this principle within common law
interpretation of the LEAA would not be similar to the constitutional era interpretation. It draws on
Constitutional criminal justice improvements to devise a constitutional interpretation of the best interest of
justice test in hearsay evidence law.
%0 Conference Paper
%1 conf/etra/BeeldersB10
%A Monyakane, Mampolokeng ’Mathuso Mary-Elizabeth
%B ETRA
%D 2010
%E Morimoto, Carlos Hitoshi
%E Istance, Howell O.
%E Hyrskykari, Aulikki
%E Ji, Qiang
%I ACM
%K (LEAA) 1988 45 Act African Amendment Common Constitutional Evidence Law South The best era evidence hearsay interest interpretation justice law of test
%N 15-23
%P 173-176
%T TOWARDS A CLEARER CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING OF THE “BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE TEST” IN SECTION 3(1) (C) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT 45 OF 1988 (THE LEAA)
%U http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/etra/etra2010.html#BeeldersB10
%V 1
%X The “best interest of justice” denotes the best use of discretion by a person in authority. It is a familiar
principle in International law prescripts. By its nature of being soft law- the international law assumes this
principle as a guide for the enforcement of particular principles in different domestic law legal
environments. To this end this principle means that the enforced domestic justice must serve the
internationally prescribed interest of law, within domestic legal requirements. It is this principle that
influences international child law inclined perspective in domestic legislation. This article explains the
rationale for the best interest of justice test in the South African Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of
1988 (the LEAA). The article, interprets this test in the light of South African law evolution from the preconstitutional era -to- constitutional era. It argues that the application of this principle within common law
interpretation of the LEAA would not be similar to the constitutional era interpretation. It draws on
Constitutional criminal justice improvements to devise a constitutional interpretation of the best interest of
justice test in hearsay evidence law.
%@ 978-1-60558-994-7
@inproceedings{conf/etra/BeeldersB10,
abstract = {The “best interest of justice” denotes the best use of discretion by a person in authority. It is a familiar
principle in International law prescripts. By its nature of being soft law- the international law assumes this
principle as a guide for the enforcement of particular principles in different domestic law legal
environments. To this end this principle means that the enforced domestic justice must serve the
internationally prescribed interest of law, within domestic legal requirements. It is this principle that
influences international child law inclined perspective in domestic legislation. This article explains the
rationale for the best interest of justice test in the South African Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of
1988 (the LEAA). The article, interprets this test in the light of South African law evolution from the preconstitutional era -to- constitutional era. It argues that the application of this principle within common law
interpretation of the LEAA would not be similar to the constitutional era interpretation. It draws on
Constitutional criminal justice improvements to devise a constitutional interpretation of the best interest of
justice test in hearsay evidence law.
},
added-at = {2022-07-13T10:35:28.000+0200},
author = {Monyakane, Mampolokeng ’Mathuso Mary-Elizabeth},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/29384d422cb352be2cf7e6b7c35bdc117/claure},
booktitle = {ETRA},
crossref = {conf/etra/2010},
editor = {Morimoto, Carlos Hitoshi and Istance, Howell O. and Hyrskykari, Aulikki and Ji, Qiang},
ee = {https://doi.org/10.1145/1743666.1743709},
interhash = {449a4304311016ca5042f3cce30825b1},
intrahash = {9384d422cb352be2cf7e6b7c35bdc117},
isbn = {978-1-60558-994-7},
keywords = {(LEAA) 1988 45 Act African Amendment Common Constitutional Evidence Law South The best era evidence hearsay interest interpretation justice law of test},
month = {JUNE},
number = {15-23},
pages = {173-176},
publisher = {ACM},
timestamp = {2022-07-13T10:35:28.000+0200},
title = {TOWARDS A CLEARER CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING OF THE “BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE TEST” IN SECTION 3(1) (C) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT 45 OF 1988 (THE LEAA)},
url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/etra/etra2010.html#BeeldersB10},
volume = 1,
year = 2010
}