Legal Eye for the Layperson

It is not very often an attorney comes out and admits being helpless against a certain fight for a noble cause. With the appropriate resources, an attorney ( in theory ) should be able to fight the battle of David versus Goliath (David being the attorney). There are instances where, admittedly or not, attorneys are roped in achieving their final goals. Today marks this day for me. The fight is not yet over but the tragic finish line is imminent. The story begins with two little African children, who both had difficult births and infancy development. These two children are full siblings. Let's call the first-born Mather and the second-born Arthur. Mather is eighteen months older than Arthur but Arthur was born HIV positive. Before long, they were declared as wards of the State and eventually became orphans. Marher is moved to a small baby sanctuary under the care of a particular house mother (let's call her Mother Hen). She identifies a suitable candidate for this child to ...

Isn't it uncanny how there is an element of truth in justice but truth does not necessarily encompass justice? One can define truth as the conformity to fact or reality – which is synonymous with declarations of righteousness and freedom from falsehoods. In all material understandings of the concept of truth, the foundational meaning lies in objectiveness of fact. On the other hand, if one had to define justice, a key element in true (or natural) justice is honesty and conformity with truth and reality. Put simply, justice is the integrity in the dealings between men. It is the strict compliance with moral obligations toward humanity and the Divine Law. It is in fact the basis upon which human rights were created. And is it not fascinating how justice and truth link when it comes to human rights? In what instances have truth and justice been linked in the arena of international human rights? One of the most famous examples of this is the creation of Truth Reconciliation C...

The dilemma that has been bothering me is how can we level (if ever) the requirements of an accused’s right to a fair trial and justice ? See the example I have found which could potentially be a step forward. In South Africa, & perhaps in the UK as well, the general rules for the admissibility of Admissions/Confessions is that it has to be: Given freely & voluntarily With no threat/act of violence And no undue influence In additional, the evidence has to have been obtained in a constitutional manner, meaning: It was obtained in a way that didn’t infringe your rights ; or If it is admitted, it would not render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice What I really want to discuss is the state of our law in relation to facts discovered in consequence of information given by the accused whether it be lawful or unlawful. The most common form of obtaining this evidence is through pointing out . The case of R v Sam...