赞比亚通过侵犯人权获得的证据的可采性:重新审视Liswaniso诉人民(1976年)赞比亚法律报告277

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2019-03-06 DOI:10.1177/1365712719831716
J. D. Mujuzi
{"title":"赞比亚通过侵犯人权获得的证据的可采性:重新审视Liswaniso诉人民(1976年)赞比亚法律报告277","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.1177/1365712719831716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made to convince the Supreme Court and the High Court to reconsider this position, especially when the evidence in question has been obtained in violation of a right in the Bill of Rights. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court show that the court is unlikely to change its position on this issue. In this article, the author suggests ways in which the Supreme Court could relax, without necessarily overruling, its rule in the Liswaniso when dealing with evidence obtained through violating human rights.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"23 1","pages":"316 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712719831716","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations in Zambia: Revisiting Liswaniso v The People (1976) Zambia Law Reports 277\",\"authors\":\"J. D. Mujuzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1365712719831716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made to convince the Supreme Court and the High Court to reconsider this position, especially when the evidence in question has been obtained in violation of a right in the Bill of Rights. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court show that the court is unlikely to change its position on this issue. In this article, the author suggests ways in which the Supreme Court could relax, without necessarily overruling, its rule in the Liswaniso when dealing with evidence obtained through violating human rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"316 - 329\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712719831716\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719831716\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719831716","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在1976年的Liswaniso诉人民案中,赞比亚最高法院认为,只要是相关的,非法获得的证据是可以接受的。从那时起,曾多次试图说服最高法院和高等法院重新考虑这一立场,但都没有成功,特别是当有关证据是在侵犯《权利法案》中的一项权利的情况下获得的。最高法院最近的判决表明,最高法院不太可能改变在这个问题上的立场。在这篇文章中,作者提出了最高法院在处理通过侵犯人权获得的证据时可以放松而不一定推翻其在Liswaniso中的规则的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations in Zambia: Revisiting Liswaniso v The People (1976) Zambia Law Reports 277
In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made to convince the Supreme Court and the High Court to reconsider this position, especially when the evidence in question has been obtained in violation of a right in the Bill of Rights. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court show that the court is unlikely to change its position on this issue. In this article, the author suggests ways in which the Supreme Court could relax, without necessarily overruling, its rule in the Liswaniso when dealing with evidence obtained through violating human rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1