%20(18).png)
Keya Iddi s/o Hassani v. R., Crim. App. 37-D-68, 13/3/68, Biron J.
The magistrate, upon being convinced that the child being offered as a witness understood the duty to speak the truth, swore him as a witness.
Held: The child should not have automatically been sworn. The matter is governed by section 127(2) of the Evidence Act. First it must be determined whether the child is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify receiving his Evidence, and that he understands the importance of speaking truthfully. If this requirement is fulfilled the child may testify, but before he is sworn it must be determined whether he understands and appreciates the nature of an oath, a far more complex matter than knowing that one should not lie. Only if the child understands both these concepts should he be sworn.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(18).png&description=Keya Iddi s/o Hassani v. R., Crim. App. 37-D-68, 13/3/68, Biron J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.