(a) Explain the concept of “similar fact evidence,” and appreciate that it involves two different sets of facts.
(b) Discuss and apply the admissibility of similar fact evidence including a reference to the Makin and DPP v Boardman formulations and critically consider the inadequacies of the Makin formulation.
(c) Evaluate the rationale for the general rule against the admissibility of similar fact
evidence, as well as its continued applicability after the abolishment of the jury system in South Africa.
(d) Explain and comment on the types of prejudice to the accused or a litigant that could result from the admission of similar fact evidence.
(e) Discuss and evaluate the evolution of the similar fact evidence rule pursuant to the following cases: Makin v Attorney-General of New South Wales 1894 AC 57 (PC) 65; R v Straffen (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 132; DPP v Boardman 1975 AC 421; and S v D 1991 (2) SACR 543 (A).
(f) Explain, and apply to a set of facts, the relationship between the nexus requirement and coincidence, in particular the test for coincidence, as well as examples from the following
cases: R v Bond 1906 2 KB 389; and R v Smith (1916) 11 Cr App Rep 229.
(g) Explain, and apply to a set of facts, the dependence of the relevance of similar fact
evidence on other available evidence pursuant to R v Ball 1911 AC 47 (HL).
(j) Know and understand the contents of Schwikkard & Mosaka: Chapter 7 (pages 71-84)
(h) Discuss, and apply to a set of facts, the exclusion of similar fact evidence in accordance with Laubscher v National Foods 1986 (1) SA 553 (ZS).
(i) Discuss the Similar Fact Evidence doctrine critically given that it was a system designed for a jury trial, with specific reference to the colonial heritage in which the jury loomed large.
