Inadmissible Evidence Research Articles

The Role of the Advocate's Motions and Complaints in a Criminal Trial: A Scoping Review

Given the realities of criminal court development, motions and complaints for the protection of rights play an important role. However, the study of these advocacy tools is an under-researched issue. This requires further consideration, since these mechanisms can be really effective in different situations. The purpose of the study is to determine the importance of attorneys' motions and complaints for the purpose of implementing modern justice. For this Scoping Review, the PRISMA approach was used. Date range for inclusion of scientific literature: 2014-2024 (i.e., the last 10 years). To select the scientific literature, the following search databases were selected: Scopus and Google Scholar. The criteria for including literature were based on 5 items related to content, scientific novelty, methodology, and language. A total of 52 items of scientific literature, legislative acts and reports were included in the study. The results show that different countries use different models of advocacy, however, such tools as motions and complaints are common around the world. The purposes of attorneys' motions and complaints are not based on making a specific decision or performing a specific action, but on the realization of rights and legitimate interests existing in connection with the procedural or real status of a person. The conclusions determine that motions and complaints have an impact on further proceedings in a criminal court; in particular, they may affect the exclusion of inadmissible evidence, disclosure of additional evidence, protection of the rights of the accused, fulfillment of strategic tasks and recording of violations of procedural rights.

PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF WAR CRIMES

This article examines the problematic aspects that arise during the investigation of war crimes, focusing on identifying the main challenges and developing recommendations to overcome them. It analyzes the difficulties faced by investigative bodies in collecting evidence, the legal and procedural barriers that complicate the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators. Special attention is given to the role of international law and the cooperation of interstate organizations in improving the effectiveness of investigations. As a result of the research, specific recommendations are proposed to enhance the quality of war crime investigations and strengthen the rule of law at the international level. The research on this topic analyzes the works of scholars such as I. Hlovyuk, V. Zavtur, N. Lashchuk, V. Navrotskaya, M. Pashkovsky, R. Serkevich, N. Ustritskaya, and others. Greater attention is paid to current legislative acts and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The issue of exchanging prisoners of war in Ukraine is regulated by various normative legal acts, including the ICC RS and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPCU). The appendix to Article 3 of the CPCU establishes that a person who has the procedural status of a suspect, accused, or convicted can be exchanged as a prisoner of war. Amendments to the CPCU regarding the interrogation of persons for whom a decision on exchange has been made do not contain substantive additions or clarifications, which may lead to inappropriate application of these provisions. Although the CPCU does not contain a separate norm regarding the procedural status of prisoners of war, the legislator has made changes to regulate the exchange of persons during martial law, which became possible thanks to the law dated July 28, 2022. Despite the legislator’s attempts to improve the procedure for exchanging prisoners of war, some aspects remain complex, which may violate the principle of legality and the rule of law. Ukraine, even without being a state party to the ICC RS, is obliged to cooperate with this international body in accordance with Article 12(3) of this statute. The presence of implementing legislation that regulates national cooperation procedures is a prerequisite for the comprehensive fulfilment of Ukraine’s obligations to the ICC. Better definition of the statuses of participants in criminal proceedings, particularly those for whom the ICC’s request for co-operation has been received, as well as the regulatory establishment of the status of prisoners of war, is needed. Ukrainian prosecutors and pre-trial investigation bodies should adhere to the specifics provided by the ICC Rules of Evidence when conducting interrogations of witnesses, suspects, and victims. Failure to take appropriate actions during interrogations may lead to the recognition of interrogation protocols as inadmissible evidence, which will reduce the number of high-quality evidence on the part of the prosecution.

Exploring the rule of admissibility in the criminal process: theoretical and practical analysis

Respecting the rule of admissibility of evidence is essential for a criminal process, certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence being established in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and incorporated into national legislation. Generally, the principle of admissibility of evidence means that in principle any evidence is admissible, except in cases where legal limitations and limitations imposed by general principles intervene. This article analyzes the rules of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings provided at the European and national levels, paying attention to the functions of admissibility in the criminal process, especially the guarantee function. At the same time, the article reflects the state of scientific discussion regarding the recognition of illegally obtained evidence as “inadmissible evidence”, as well as the authors’ opinions on this issue.

The use of video and audio recordings provided by victims of domestic violence as evidence

The relevance of the study lies in the urgent need to develop scientifically grounded and practically applicable criteria for the admissibility of using secret audio and video recordings made by victims in criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence. The purpose of the study is to establish whether the information contained in secret audio and video recordings made by victims can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence. The main research methods are systemic, analysis and synthesis, historical, heuristic, formal-legal methods. The issues of providing recordings by victims, witnesses, and other persons for criminal investigation purposes; general criteria for restricting the right to privacy in criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence; problems of evidence presentation by victims and applicants; issues of documenting domestic violence facts; the issue of admissibility of documentation are investigated. It is proved that aspects of the legality test for limiting the offenderʼs right to privacy in cases of conducting criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence may involve inquiries concerning the importance of evidence gathered through covert recordings and the exclusivity of the necessity of such measures. It is argued that when considering the criterion of a secret operation, which is identified as a condition for recognising audio and video recordings as inadmissible evidence, it should be acknowledged that in criminal proceedings related to domestic violence, video and audio recordings provided by victims cannot meet this condition in the vast majority of cases. The practical value of the study lies in the possibility of unifying judicial practice in determining the admissibility of evidence contained in audio and video recordings made secretly by victims in criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence

Проблемы рассмотрения судами заключений негосударственных экспертов - автотехников

The article reveals the problems that arise when appointing automotive technical examinations by courts, as well as the reasons for the recognition by some courts of the conclusions of automotive technical examinations as inadmissible evidence, since they were performed by experts not included in the Unified Register of Expert Technicians, although these experts have special knowledge in automotive engineering.

The Purpose Of Audit And Evidentiary Significance Of The Results Of Audit In Criminal Proceedings Of The Republic Of Armenia

The article deals with the essence of the institute of appointment of inspection in the criminal proceedings of the Republic of Armenia, the history of its development, as well as the evidentiary value of the act of inspection. The article analyzes the provision enshrined in the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, according to which the results of the audit can be recognized as evidence “only if it is objectively impossible to establish any circumstance relevant to the proceedings”. The authors disclose situations that imply impossibility and, accordingly, present when, in criminal proceedings, the results of verification may be recognized as an extraprocedural document. The article touches upon the criminal procedural mechanism for appealing the investigator’s decision, the procedural consequences of cancelling the investigator’s decision to order an inspection by the supervising prosecutor, as well as the inter-sectoral issues of appealing the inspection act in the administrative court of the RA. The question is also considered as to what criminal procedural consequences may result from the invalidation of an inspection act in administrative or judicial proceedings. As a result of the analysis, the authors came to the conclusion that recognition of the inspection act as invalid, which is not related to violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, in criminal proceedings is not a basis for recognising this act and other data obtained on its basis as inadmissible evidence on the basis of point 3, part 3, Article 97 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code. However, the inspection act as a non-production document or other data obtained on its basis may be recognized as inadmissible evidence on the other basis of Article 97 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code.

Формирование экспертной комиссии – еще одна «канцелярская ошибка» или недопустимое доказательство

In this article, the author considers the current practice of forming expert commissions in the production of commission and comprehensive examinations. Analyzes the normative acts containing the provisions regulating this process, demonstrating both positive examples of their implementation and negative ones, leading to the recognition of the expert's opinion as inadmissible evidence.

On the questioning of the lawyer as a witness

The article discusses such concepts as witness immunity and the prohibition of questioning a person as a witness. This issue is being investigated in the context of the fact that these are two independent concepts and the allocation of each of them has its own basis: persons with witness immunity are exempt from the obligation to testify due to the presence of kinship and family relations, and the prohibition of questioning a person as a witness is associated with the implementation of certain activities by this person. The main focus is on the prohibition of interrogation as a witness by a lawyer. Based on the study of judicial practice, including the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the author notes a gradual transition from an absolute ban on questioning a lawyer to giving courts the opportunity to interrogate a lawyer as a witness without his consent and the consent of the client. The article gives a critical assessment of the approach to solving this issue, which has developed in practice, which changes the position of a lawyer in criminal proceedings: from the position of a representative, a defender to the position of an eyewitness to certain events. It is noted that this approach is obviously incorrect, and this position is justified. The author comes to the conclusion that lawyers are involved in criminal proceedings in order to combat procedural violations of the rights of their principals as lawyers (persons with the necessary professional knowledge and skills), and not in order to subsequently testify about the violations seen as a witness. It is unacceptable to constantly consider a lawyer as an eyewitness of illegal actions, and not as a defender of his clients from these illegal actions, otherwise lawyers will not be able to provide qualified legal assistance. The authors of the article consider the position of the courts to be correct, in which the courts recognize the interrogation of a lawyer as a witness as illegal with the recognition of the testimony received from the lawyer as inadmissible evidence.

Certain aspects of the definition of the concept of “evidence” and its properties in criminal proceedings under martial law

The authors of the article studied the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, defined and clarified the concept of “evidence”, its properties, the procedural mechanism for obtaining and evaluating in the conditions of martial law. It has been proven that despite the positive results of legal reform and improvement of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, the study revealed a number of gaps in the issues related to the definition and clarification of the concept of “evidence”, its properties and the procedural mechanism for obtaining and evaluating it under martial law. The provisions of Art. 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes that evidence is considered admissible if it is obtained in accordance with the procedure established by law. Inadmissible evidence cannot be used when making procedural decisions, it cannot be referred to by the court when passing a court decision. In contrast to the norms of the Rome Statute of the ICC, the established wording is quite categorical and does not provide “flexibility” to the process when resolving this issue by the court. At the same time, the legislator’s position on this issue, which is defined in the provisions of Art. 87 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and stipulates that evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, international treaties, the consent of which is binding by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as well as any other evidence obtained thanks to information obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms. In the conditions of martial law, the provisions of this article are applied taking into account the features specified in Art. 615 of the CCP of Ukraine. It has been determined that the specified provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine provide for a procedural approach to the issue of admissibility of evidence, but do not have the primary goal of establishing the truth and, accordingly, achieving justice, which significantly distinguishes this approach from that enshrined in the Rome Statute of the ICC. There was a need to depart from the formal procedural position enshrined in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, to provide courts with flexibility in accepting and evaluating evidence to establish the truth.

Trial by Design

Abstract The future of trial lies in customization. Throughout the Anglo-American world, the public model of criminal and civil procedure is gradually giving way to a private contractual paradigm, one which allows the litigating parties to tailor the evidentiary and procedural landscape of trial to fit their specific needs and preferences. Procedural and evidence rules are shifting from mandatory safeguards of public values to default rules and bargaining chips within the hands of the litigating parties. There is growing recognition in the ability of litigating parties in civil trials and of defendants in criminal trials to waive evidentiary and procedural rights, such as the right of cross-examination, the right to trial by jury, or the right to appeal. Courts are exhibiting a willingness to enforce choice of procedure and choice of evidence agreements, such as agreements to restrict the presentation of otherwise admissible evidence or to allow for presentation of otherwise inadmissible evidence.

Моделирование юридической категории недопустимого доказательства в уголовно-процессуальном праве России

The article deals with the problems of uncertainty of such a legal category as the definition of «inadmissible evidence in criminal procedure law». This term has not been reflected either in the Basic Law of the State or in the current criminal procedure legislation. This circumstance gave rise to a corresponding discussion in his scientific works. In this study, using the method of two-level triadic decryption, the definition of the required legal category of inadmissible evidence is obtained, which reflects the legal essence of this procedural term with the necessary and sufficient degree of completeness. The author also proposed fixing the found legal category as a basic legal term in part 1 of Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Wybrane kryminalistyczne aspekty okazania

In the article the author deals with several significant items, and especially with the practical ones, pertinent to conducting an act in connection with legal proceedings and criminalistics – viz. presentation. He advocates the idea of endowing this institution with features of an independent act of legal procedure. Moreover, he persuades that in justified cases, the result of presentation may constitute the only evidence basis which enables calling a perpetrator of an offence [crime] to penal responsibility. An essential value added of the text is an analysis of the so-called operational presentation and an attempt to demonstrate there are some legal instruments allowing one to acknowledge that the result of such an operational action constitutes a real proof which may be included in the set of evidence in criminal proceedings. The author persuades that an operational presentation – if conducted correctly in view of tactics and provided that it is documented – may become a base for recognizing its results as a proof; in consequence, the fundamental principle of this action – viz. its uniqueness – will not be infringed. The postulated solution that so far has not been found in the source literature – which should be emphasized – will allow avoiding the creation of inadmissible evidence illusion which consists in conducting a procedural presentation after operational presentation, previously performed and inappropriately documented Key words: procedural presentation, operational presentation, criminal responsibility, investigative operation, proof, criminal proceedings

Using the Results of Rosfinmonitorings Work in Criminal Proceedings

The Federal Financial Monitoring Service (Rosfinmonitoring) currently possesses complete and comprehensive information whose analysis makes it possible to monitor the whole chain of financial transactions, links, agreements through which criminal gains are legalized, transformed into other assets and the capital is then transferred abroad. However, to date the procedure for giving the results of Rosfinmonitorings financial investigations the status of evidence in the criminal process has not been legally regulated. Since Rosfinmonitoring is not a law enforcement body, or a subject of operative search and evidence-collection work, the materials of its financial investigations cannot be directly used as evidence in a criminal case and need legalization. As the information in the materials of a financial investigation constitutes bank secrecy, a direct attempt to use it as proof could be dismissed by the court as inadmissible evidence because it was obtained by law enforcement bodies without a court sanction. In order to give the status of admissible evidence to the information obtained during a financial investigation of the deposits and accounts of the persons involved, the investigator, with the agreement of the head of the investigation agency, or an inquiry officer, with the agreement of the prosecutor, should petition the court about the initiation of investigatory actions according to the procedure stated in Art. 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and attach all the documents obtained from credit organizations as a result of the courts ruling to the materials of the criminal case. The authors present a comparative analysis of financial and preliminary investigations, describe the specifics of using the materials of financial investigations in criminal proceedings and the procedure of Rosfinmonitorings cooperation with law enforcement bodies with the goal of investigating and solving crimes.

Space to Grieve: An irreducible legacy

Space to GrieveAn irreducible legacy Latipa (bio) i was introduced to Theresa Hak Kyung Cha's Dictee as an undergraduate student in the late 1990s and was immediately struck by the work's radical relationship to its audience. Cha never spoon-fed the experiences of colonialism and diaspora to a white readership. She was not trapped in the straitjacket of "multiculturalism" that reduces artists of color to an "identity" defined by the white gaze. It was the first time I had encountered an Asian woman who tried to write her life as it bled across oceans, generations, and political histories, poetically undoing the rigid categories by which the world is normally structured. It was only years later, as a graduate student at UC Berkeley, that I learned she had been raped and murdered in New York City [End Page 153] shortly after Dictee was released. Later editions of Dictee would include the fact of Cha's murder in her bio on the back cover, but I am of a generation of students who were protected from that knowledge. For those of us who love Cha's work—who have been altered forever by her capacity to dwell in the layered complexities of time, space, and memory—it is often difficult to separate her murder from her art. Dictee spills over with a death that is both premonitory and already past. When we try to engage with Cha's art on its own terms—as I was encouraged to do in college, by professors who did not acknowledge her rape or murder—we do not allow ourselves sufficient space to grieve. Just as humanities scholars continue to study and write about Cha, she continues to be discussed in another discursive realm: that of the law. There, Cha exists as a legal case that highlights the foundational patriarchy that infuses every aspect of our culture and its institutions. ________ to begin with, the investigation of Cha's rape and murder was inept. A 1986 opinion from the New York Supreme Court, where the case against her murderer had arrived on appeal, states: "The police were initially unable to ascertain where Mrs. Cha had been murdered. However, her husband and her brother searched the building where defendant worked and found a room the police evidently had overlooked"—a room full of evidence related to Cha's murder, including missing articles of clothing. Without the work of her family, key evidence against her murderer, who was a security guard in a building where Cha's husband had been working, might never have been found. Even after that evidence had been gathered and her killer convicted, Cha's posthumous existence in the juridical system did not end. The first conviction was thrown out by the New York Supreme Court, which ruled that inadmissible evidence had been used in the trial. This evidence comprised testimonies from three women who had also been raped by the same assailant; he had pleaded guilty to each of these acts, which he committed in Florida [End Page 154] years before he murdered Cha. On appeal, the court deemed the inclusion of these testimonies to be in defiance of the Molineux Rule, which states that it is inadmissible to use evidence of a defendant's prior crimes merely to establish "criminal propensity." In the end, it took three trials, and a total of five years, for Cha's murderer to finally be convicted. Cha's case continues to haunt the system; in the intervening years, it has been cited in other cases involving sexual violence, including one in early 2022. Both realms—that of the public intellectuals who write about Cha's art while eliding her murder, and that of the legal scholars for whom she is only "Mrs. Cha"—in some way need her not to be a whole person in order for the discourse to function. In the field of art, we would like Cha's vibrant and expansive practice to remain unsullied by the brutality of her death. Meanwhile, in law, Cha is not an artist, poet, or editor; she is simply a victim of sexual violence. Between these two types of discourse is an inexorable silence...

A Universal Definition of Procedural Inspection as a Measure to Enforce the Proceedings in Administrative Cases: The Legal Essence and Problems of Legislative Regulation

The paper is devoted to the problems of applying such a security measure in cases of administrative offenses as inspection. The author explores the essence and potential of inspection as a procedural means of recording and documenting evidence in the framework of proceedings on administrative offenses. The current administrative procedure legislation provides for two types of inspections: inspection of the place of commission of an administrative offense (Article 28.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation) and inspection of premises, territories and objects located on them belonging to a legal entity or individual entrepreneur (Article 27.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the content of these procedural actions, their procedural goals and grounds for application are not clearly defined in the law. In addition, the legal regulation of the inspection as a procedural action in the framework of an administrative case leaves open the question of all possible objects of such an inspection. Currently, the peculiarities of the legal regulation of the inspection do not allow the appropriate measure to be applied in all necessary cases. Moreover, its application carries high risks of recognizing the results obtained during the examination of the case as inadmissible evidence. As a solution to the above problems, it is proposed to consolidate in the administrative legislation a single unified concept — procedural inspection. Developing this proposal, the author provides the definition of a procedural inspection, develops general procedural requirements for its conduct. In addition, the paper substantiates the thesis about the need for special legal regulation and consolidation of special procedural requirements for conducting a procedural inspection of web pages (pages in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet).

PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE PRINCIPLE OF INVESTIGATOR INDEPENDENCE

The principle of independeence and autonomy of such a subject of investigation as an investigator is the principle of criminal procedure law, on which the stage of preliminary investigation is based. This principle guarantees no interference in the work of the investigator when he fulfills his responsibilities, and following the letter of the law, as it is stated in the Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the investigator has the authority to independently direct the course of the investigation, to take the decision about investigation and other procedural actions. Apart from it, according to the Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the investigator is a subject of evaluation of evidence, through the prism of his own inner conviction, which is based on all the evidence collected, following the law and his conscience. And therefore, the clear functioning of this principle allows to solve the problem of objectivity, being an essential guarantee of stabilization of criminal procedural functions, an additional means of minimizing possible judicial errors, as well as a filter of inadmissible evidence. The article identifies the problems of implementing the principle of investigator ‘s independence, the issues of limiting this principle are touched upon and the ways of solving the above problems are proposed.

Механізм оскарження та способи перевірки висновку експерта в кримінальному провадженні

The article is devoted to the study mechanisms of appeal and methods of verification of the expert opinion in criminal proceedings. It is proved that the expert opinion, as well as other collected evidence, should be verified for its compliance with the requirements of the legislation and consistency with the case materials, and if violations are detected during its preparation, such an opinion should be subject to appeal. It is indicated that the methods of verifying the expert opinion are defined by articles 332 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, the peculiarity of carrying out this verification of the expert opinion is that such verification is possible only at the stage of judicial proceedings, while the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for a mechanism for verifying the expert opinion at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Attention is drawn to the fact that despite the absence of a legally defined mechanism for appealing an expert opinion in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a party to criminal proceedings is not deprived of the right to appeal against such an opinion in a different order, namely by submitting to the Central Expert Qualification Commission of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine an application for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an expert who violated the current legislation during the relevant expert examination. The grounds for submitting this application for initiation of disciplinary proceedings are: non-compliance of the expert’s specialty with the type of expert examination conducted by it; non-compliance of the content of questions put to the expert’s decision with the requirements of scientific and methodological recommendations; application by an expert of improper methodology of forensic examination; conducting expert research to clarify issues of law. It is argued that if, as a result of a review of the disciplinary responsibility of a forensic expert, it is found that he violates the norms of current law, then such an expert will be held disciplinarily liable, and the expert’s expert opinion drawn up by such an expert will be considered inadmissible evidence.

О правовом регулировании признания недопустимыми доказательств по делам об административных правонарушениях

Evidence is vitally important in the proceedings on administrative violation cases, which allows identifying the signs of the constituent elements of an offense and reaching the truth. In this regard, it is important to collect evidence in strict accordance with the norms of the law. The institution of inadmissible evidence serves this purpose. At the same time, based on a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the author concludes on the insufficiency of legal regulation of this institution in the current legislation on administrative offenses. The paper formulates two hypotheses that may cause this problem: the presence of a gap in the law (“real gap”) or the case of the legislator’s intentional silence (“imaginary gap”). The author emphasizes the possibility and necessity to regulate the relations associated with the recognition of evidence in administrative violation cases as inadmissible. It is stated that the importance of the institution of inadmissible evidence in the proceedings on administrative violation cases excludes the possibility of the legislator’s qualified silence. Based on the above arguments, the author substantiates the validity of the first hypothesis. While discussing the results of the study, issues requiring additional legal regulation are identified. The author proposes to include in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation a definition of the concept of inadmissible evidence, the additional legislative regulation in the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of cases of recognition as inadmissible of administrative offense protocols, the testimony of a victim and witnesses, as well as an evidence obtained during control and supervisory activities. In this regard, the author proposes supplementing the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with Article 26.2.1 “Inadmissible Evidence”, which disposition, to the author’s opinion, can be constructed based on a similar norm of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, taking into account the specifics of administrative-delictual legislation.

Violations of the Criminal Law and Procedure, Entailing the Exemption of Inadmissible Evidence

Violations of the Criminal Law and Procedure, Entailing the Exemption of Inadmissible Evidence

The importance of explicit reasons when overturning a conviction: Non-compliance with the competency test or the requirement to admonish complainants

There are numerous cases in which magistrates failed to properly administer the competency test or to admonish complainants in terms of s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. In many of these cases, the magistrates nonetheless found the accused guilty based on the inadmissible evidence of the complainants. On review or appeal, however, the higher courts set the decisions of the magistrates aside because the magistrates’ decisions were based on the unreliable evidence of the complainants. While the rulings of the higher courts were legally sound, if not explained explicitly and thoroughly, they may appear unjust, clinical, harsh, inconsiderate, or even nonsensical. Such matters involve the fundamental rights of complainants and accused persons. They also result in severe consequences for complainants and accused persons, and they involve vulnerable groups such as children and mentally-ill individuals. It is therefore important that the higher courts reviewing the procedural errors of magistrates provide explicit and thorough explanations for their findings. To avoid perceptions that the decisions of the higher courts are unjust, the rulings of the courts should expressly acknowledge and address the unfortunate consequences suffered by both complainants and accused persons when a magistrate’s conviction is unsustainable because it was based on evidence that was not properly admitted. Acknowledging and addressing the injustices may help courts provide reasons for their decisions that go beyond merely stating that the complainants’ evidence is excluded because it is unreliable. Explicit reasons in such instances would go a long way in engendering and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and enhancing public scrutiny of the current legal position.