UNDERSTANDING OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 INVESTIGATION OF MURDER IN SOUTH AFRICA

INTRODUCTION

“Suspect released in Richmond murder case, investigation continues: Police …” (Petersen, 2017:1). This was the headline on the Web site of East Coast Radio on 6 April 2017, referring to the release of a 36-year old suspect from custody who had been arrested in connection with the murder of Richmond Municipality’s Deputy Mayor. Petersen (2017:1) further states that the suspect was released from custody due to lack of evidence linking him to the murder.
The headline above is one of many shocking incidents that various media houses continuously report about in South Africa. According to Muncie, Talbot and Walters (2010:2), crime appears to be a constant source of anxiety, fascination and national and international despair. For many years, criminal investigation has proved to be one of the difficult tasks in the CJS. Far more problematic are the intangible processes that have a critical impact on the way an investigation proceeds (Monckton-Smith, Adams, Hart & Webb, 2013:1). In the context of this study, the headline above indicates that there is a problem in the investigation of murder cases. Notably, not much has been said about formulating strategies to curb this problem. Violent crime is a deeply emotive topic, and graphic illustrations of it abound on television and cinema screens and in newspapers, colouring the political and criminal justice responses not just to violence but to crime in general (Levi & Maguire (in Maguire, Morgan & Reiner, 2002:795)).
The continuous negative reports by various media houses regarding the manner in which murder investigations is conducted by the SAPS and subsequent release of the suspects, justify the importance of understanding the current murder investigation model used by the SAPS. While criminal investigation has been widely described and explained by various authors, there is no evidence that suggests that the current murder investigation model used by the SAPS has been thoroughly researched.
This chapter will explore and provide a descriptive analysis of the investigation of murder in South Africa. It will endeavor to answer the sub-research question: “How does the current investigation model used by the SAPS in murder cases compare to the intelligence-led investigation model?” as described in paragraph 1.6 of Chapter 1. To put the discussion into perspective, the researcher firstly discusses the origins of criminal investigation, the development of criminal law in South Africa, and the SAPS’ legislative and policy framework relating to criminal investigation. This is followed by the discussion on an understanding of criminal investigation, a definition of murder, the elements of murder and the investigation phases in murder. Furthermore, the skills required to be a competent investigator, the duties and functions of the investigator in a murder investigation, the current murder investigation model used by the SAPS, and the intelligence-led investigation model will be discussed. In the conclusion to the chapter, the current investigation model used by the SAPS in murder cases versus the intelligence-led investigation model will also be discussed. The following discussion relates to the origins of criminal investigation.

ORIGINS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

It would be impractical to attempt to accurately determine the origins of criminal investigation. However, various authors have tried to make sense of what might be accepted as the origins of criminal investigation. Gilbert (2010:2) states that the vast history of criminal investigation can be appreciated only in the light of our distant past. Long ago, the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ meant that criminals were punished in the same manner as their offence (Anderson, Dodd & Roos, 2012:7). Gilbert (2010:2) further states that in ancient times, criminal investigation started by the groups known as tribes or clans. If a member of a particular family violated the moral code of a tribe, the other family members were held responsible for detection, apprehension, and even execution of the offending member (Gilbert, 2010:2).
This practice meant that entire communities could be held responsible for the criminal conduct of individual family members. As a result, communities were then obliged to investigate among themselves and identify the responsible family member who had committed the criminal act. Gilbert (2010:2) goes further to state that as civilization developed, social and cultural traditions were codified into formal laws, and countries such as Egypt and Greece assigned criminal detection responsibilities almost exclusively to military units.
According to Osterburg and Ward (2014:13), the concept of criminal investigation can be traced back thousands of years to early times in China and other parts of Asia, as well as the Middle East, where agents of governments used illegal means of identifying transgressors of public order, based on confessions. According to Bryant (in Tong, Bryant & Horvath, 2009:13), in the past, criminal investigation was dominated by a reactive model of investigation. Bryant (in Tong et al., 2009:13) further asserts that this model relied on confessions as a means to secure a conviction.
While it is almost impossible to establish the exact origins of criminal investigation, most scholars agree that European countries played a major role in discovering and shaping criminal investigation to what it is today (Hale, 1994:3; Gaines & Miller, 2005:109 and Reid, 2003:11). According to Jones and Johnstone (2012:15), the roots of Western civilization reach deep into antiquity, as do the problems of crime and punishment. It is significant that the idea of criminal investigation was born out of crime and violence. However, according to Reid (2003:9), to be convicted of crime, a person must violate the criminal law.
During ancient times, the punishment for a crime was very harsh and criminals were punished without facts surrounding the incidents being ascertained. It became increasingly clear that a new and more organized approach to dealing with crime was needed (Hale, 1994:3). Historical development of criminal investigation can therefore be studied by looking at some key figures that were involved in general investigative activities and provided innovative ways that changed the way criminal investigation was conducted by succeeding generations.

Jonathan Wild – England

During the eighteenth century, major population movements began to occur in Europe. According to Gilbert (2007:2), people moved from rural areas to metropolitan cities in search of better opportunities, and the most affected cities were London in England, and Paris in France. Gilbert (2010:3) states that these population shifts were called the ‘Industrial Revolution.’ In this regard, Gunter and Hertig (2005:3) assert that Jonathan Wild was a buckle-maker who was living in rural England and then moved to London.
The migration of the masses came with challenges such as increased levels of crime. Gilbert (2010:4) states that during this period, people could not venture into the streets of London without the fear of being victimized. The increased levels of crime caused the governments to move beyond traditional night-watches and use the military units to maintain law and order and combat crime. The government of England, in an attempt to stop the floodtide of crime, introduced a system for refunding the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses, known as the ‘Parliamentary Reward System’ (Gilbert, 2010:3). Lushbaugh and Weston (2012:4) submit that the Parliamentary Reward System was established in 1689 for the conviction of crimes such as robbery, burglary, and counterfeiting.
According to Gilbert (2007:3), the intention of the Parliamentary Reward System was to reward the officials and the victims who made efforts to catch and prosecute those responsible for these crimes. In essence, the Parliamentary Reward System paid for the apprehension of criminals. London authorities later realized that the System was being abused by the police officials, and as a result it was abolished in 1818 (Gilbert, 2007:3). To counter this problem, Gilbert (2007:3) states, London authorities introduced modern criminal investigation, which was widely known as “Thief-takers.” Thief-takers were private individuals who charged a fee to trace the thief and recover the stolen property (Gilbert, 2010:3).
Gunter and Hertig (2005:3) assert that Jonathan Wild, who came to London to run a brothel, was recruited by the police officials as a Thief-taker. He became London’s most effective investigator in the 1720s and died in 1748. His method of operation was, upon learning of the theft, to persuade the thieves to give him the stolen goods in return for a portion of the money paid by the victim for the return of the property. According to Gilbert (2010:3), Jonathan Wild’s actions made popular the logic of “sending a thief to catch a thief.” He, like other Thief-takers to follow, was found guilty of stealing the very items returned to grateful owners (Gilbert, 2010:4).

Henry Fielding – England

According to Osterburg and Ward (2014:14), Henry Fielding, a well-known writer, was appointed as the magistrate of the Bow Street court in London in 1748. During this time, London’s streets were rife with criminal activities that were escalating on an almost daily basis. Henry Fielding tried to deal with the rising crime rate by enlarging the scope of the government’s crime-fighting methods and assigning to his court a few constables who had been accustomed to night-watchman duties, to perform some criminal investigative functions (Osterburg & Ward, 2014:14).
These Runners, as they came to be known, were also used to guard the King and to investigate various crimes such as robbery and murder (Lushbaugh & Weston, 2012:4). According to Tong (in Tong et al., 2009:3), the Runners were considered to be one of the first organized attempts at policing and provided the basis on which to create the Detective Branch of the Metropolitan Police. Gilbert (2010:6) states that Henry Fielding relinquished control of the Bow Street court to his brother, Sir John Fielding, in 1753. Sir John Fielding also served as magistrate of the Bow Street court for more than twenty-five years and was knighted for his efforts in fighting crime (Lushbaugh & Weston, 2012:4). Although Henry Fielding played a significant role in developing criminal investigation functions, his brother, Sir John Fielding, took the credit and was considered the father of the modern police detective (Lushbaugh & Weston, 2012:4).

Eugene Vidocq – France

According to Dempsey (2003:4), Eugene Francois Vidocq, a former convict, voluntarily became a police informer in Paris after his release from prison in 1809. He used his knowledge of the underworld and provided information to the police regarding the activities of the criminals and later on, authorised by the police, to arrest criminals. At that time, like in any other industrialisation that was taking place in Europe, France had a very serious problem of crime. In particular, the streets of Paris were inaccessible due to the high level of crime. As a result of Eugene Francois Vidocq’s unprecedented success in criminal investigation, more than eight hundred criminals were arrested. The Police de Sûreté (Security Police), France’s new police detective bureau, was created in Paris in 1817 under the leadership of Eugene Francois Vidocq (Dempsey, 2003:4 and Gilbert, 2010:5).
According to Dempsey (2003:4), Eugene Francois Vidocq believed that serious crimes could best be fought by the criminals through his investigative methods. He employed twenty discharged convicts from whom he later created the nucleus of his private investigation company. Dempsey (2003:4) further states that Eugene Francois Vidocq would then arrest his own men on bogus charges and send them to prison, where they served as spies, gathering information on crimes and criminals inside and outside of prison. As a result of his investigative methods, police officials in Paris grew envious of Eugene Francois Vidocq’s ability to trace and arrest criminals.
After ten years of active detective work, Eugene Francois Vidocq resigned from his post, much to the relief of the Paris police, and started his own private investigative business; however, he was arrested a number of times for suspected criminal conduct (Gilbert, 2010:5). Gilbert (2010:5) further states that Eugene Francois Vidocq’s mémoires, which were published in Paris in 1829, did much to popularise his methods of criminal investigation. The following discussion looks at the development of criminal law in South Africa and its link to the investigation of crime.

DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA

First of all, it is necessary to define criminal law before its development in South Africa be discussed. This is because a criminal investigation cannot be conducted if there is no violation of criminal law. For this reason, criminal investigation cannot be isolated from criminal law.

Definition of Criminal Law

The study of criminal law generally focuses on substantive law, namely the principles of law according to which criminal liability (guilt or innocence) is determined, while the law of criminal procedure, together with the law of evidence, generally focus on the procedures used to determine criminal liability and develop theories concerning punishment (Kemp, Walker, Palmer, Baqwa, Gevers, Leslie & Steynberg, 2015:4). Kleyn and Viljoen (2010:98) and Burchell (2011:1) define criminal law as the branch of national law that defines certain human conduct as crimes and provides for the punishment of those persons with criminal capacities who unlawfully and with a guilty mind commit crime.
While the researcher understands the existence of international criminal law and its role in the South African legal system, this study is focused more on the national legal system that describes the circumstances and procedures according to which the State may punish a person who has committed an offence. Kemp et al. (2015:4), state that criminal law usually refers to internal or domestic criminal law, which is governed by the legal system of the country concerned. For this reason, international criminal law is excluded.
Various authors on the subject of criminal law differ significantly among themselves as to where exactly some divisions of the law fit into the overall classification. However, Jordaan and Dintwe (in Zinn & Dintwe, 2015:257) state that criminal law falls within the sphere of public law. In agreement, Kemp et al. (2015:5), state that criminal law and its place in the South African legal system form part of public law. Kemp et al. (2015:5), further illustrate their point as per Figure 3.1 below:
Looking at the location of criminal law in Figure 3.1 above, it is clear that it prohibits certain human conduct. Murder as a prohibited conduct is clearly highlighted in the common-law crimes segment. According to Snyman (2015:5), criminally punishable human conduct is sometimes referred to as a “crime” and sometimes as an “offence.” Essentially, the criminalisation of human conduct in modern societies arises in response to four main factors or pressures:
The protection of basic human interests; Public morality;
The promotion of public welfare; and
The need to ensure the preservation of the State (Kemp et al., 2015:7).
Meintjes-Van der Walt, Singh, du Preez, de Freitas, Chinnian, Barrat, Govindjee, lya, de Bruin, & Van Coller (2011:218) argue that the aim of criminal law is to define individual behaviour that goes against the law, so that offenders who break the law can be punished. Anything done outside the mandate of the law is unlawful (illegal) and may, depending on the facts, constitute a crime, which is punishable by the State (SAPS, 2015a:5). According to Burchell (2011:10), criminal law can be regarded as an administrative system that involves the following functions:
Law enforcement: This function involves the monitoring of the public’s observance of the law and, where necessary or appropriate, the enforcement of laws through the use of force, the investigation of crime and the arrest and interrogation of suspected offenders.
Prosecution of offenders: This is a process involving various procedures for determining whether a person, said by the police to have committed a crime, did indeed do so, and the determination of the punishment to be inflicted for having done so.
Punishment of the convicted: Since punishment involves deprivation of liberty, property or the infliction of suffering, the elementary principles of fairness require that only those that deserve punishment should suffer it.
In the South African context, crimes are classified as common-law crimes or statutory-law crimes. Common laws are those laws that are not codified, originating from Roman-Dutch and English laws. Kleyn and Viljoen (2010:80) classify murder, robbery and rape as common-law crimes. Statutory-law crimes can be defined as written laws that are passed by Parliament in order to prohibit certain types of conduct. For example, offences relating to the driving of a motor vehicle are classified as statutory offences. Joubert (2014:2) states that common law is the historical component of the South African law, evolving from a variety of older legal systems in Europe. This author further submits that common-law and statutory-law crimes form part of criminal law. According to Kemp et al. (2015:6), criminal law was developed because of two main factors, namely:
The desire for vengeance; and
The pervasive influence of religious beliefs and practices.

READ  Organization of the Workplace to Promote CoOperation

Old South Africa and law

South Africa is one of the African countries that were previously colonised. According to Meintjes-Van der Walt et al. (2011:33), the colonisation of South Africa started with the arrival of settlers who wanted to protect themselves against those who were suspected of stealing their property. The old South Africa was made up of four provinces, namely: Cape Colony, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal. These provinces are discussed below as follows:

Cape Colony

According to Kleyn and Viljoen (2010:31), the territory of the Netherlands lies in Western Europe and first formed part of the Western Roman Empire. These authors further submit that in 1579, the independence of the Republic of the United Netherlands, which consisted of seven provinces, namely Holland (Dutch), Utrecht, Zeeland, Gelderland, Groningen, Friesland and Overijssel, came into existence. From this submission, it can be argued that the Republic of the United Netherlands was influenced by Roman law since it was initially part of the Western Roman Empire. However, according to Joubert (2014:3), in Holland, the Roman law was incorporated and adjusted to become the law of that province and referred to as “Roman-Dutch law.”
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Dutch parliament delegated its authority over foreign territories to the Dutch East India Company (Rautenbach, 2012:13). The criminal law of Holland, as it was in the year 1652, was the seed of the modern South African criminal law when it was planted in the Cape of Good Hope by Dutch settlers who had come to colonise this part of Africa (Burchell, 2011:32). One of the settlers to arrive in South Africa was Jan van Riebeeck in April 1652. It can therefore be argued that the industrialisation in South Africa started during the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, who was an employee of the Dutch East India Company, the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC). According to Meintjes-Van der Walt et al. (2011:18), the VOC introduced the legal system of Holland to the Cape Colony and later to the interior of Southern Africa. The arrival of more Dutch settlers necessitated the formation of Dutch Watch, a paramilitary organisation, to protect themselves against any potential attacks. Lochner (2014:4) submits that the main purpose of Dutch Watch was to guard the Cape Colony’s borders and to combat and investigate stock theft.
After the British occupation of the Cape Colony, English law started to influence the legal development in Southern Africa (Meintjes-Van der Walt et al., 2011:31). According to Swanepoel, Lötter and Karels (2014:6), when the British colonised the Cape in 1795, they promulgated the first Charter of Justice in terms of which a court system was implemented and English court procedures were introduced. In order to exert their influence further, British settlers took control of Dutch Watch, which later became Cape Town Police Force.
As in any other industrial development in the world, the Cape Colony experienced an increase in various crimes. During this period, the form of court procedures that were used to fight crime was inquisitorial. Burchell (2011:32) states that in 1795 the British settlers replaced this form of procedure with the accusatorial procedure that was applied in England without formally replacing the Roman-Dutch law. The basic system of criminal law remained Roman-Dutch, but the English influence was significant, at least initially, in both form and substance (Burchell, 2013:8).
Defining inquisitional procedure, Ally and Mokoena (2013:2) state that it is the process in a criminal procedure where the presiding officer actively participates in the proceedings, which include determining the order in which cross-examining is to proceed, the scope and the type of questions that may be asked, and the witnesses who may testify in court. In agreement, Schwikkard and Van der Merwe (2002:10) assert that the inquisitorial model is judge-centred; it proceeds from the premise that a trial is not a contest between two opposing parties but essentially an inquiry to establish the material truth.
Explaining the accusatorial procedure, Swanepoel, Mokoena, Karels and Basdeo (2012:5) assert that the presiding officer is in the role of detached umpire who should not enter the arena of the fight between the prosecution and the defence, for fear of not being impartial or losing perspective as a result of all the dust caused by the fray. When the police complete their investigation, they pass the case docket to the prosecution to decide on the appropriate charges. In court, the criminal trial takes the form of a contest between two theoretically equal parties (the prosecution and the defence) who do the questioning, in turn leading their own witnesses and cross-examining the opposition’s witnesses (Swanepoel et al., 2012:5).

Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal

Meintjes-Van der Walt et al. (2011:33), state that the Dutch settlers who were not happy to live under British rule decided to leave the Cape Colony and went on to establish the independent territories of Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal. The migration of the Dutch settlers to other parts of Southern Africa ensured that the Roman-Dutch law did not diminish. However, their independence was short-lived, as British settlers invaded them, in the process extending the English law practices. On 1 April 1883, trafficking and smuggling in firearms and stock theft led to the creation of the police force in Natal, and this police force was tasked with investigating and combating these crimes (Lochner, 2014:4). This author goes further to state that the discovery of gold in the then Transvaal and Orange Free State led to the establishment of police forces under the Locale Wetten der Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Act No. 1 of 1871. Later on, these police forces were reorganised to conform to the Metropolitan Police model and shifted their functions from military to that of a police function, including criminal investigation.

Union of South Africa

Meintjes-Van der Walt et al. (2011:34), state that the territories of Natal, Orange Free State, Cape Colony and Transvaal united in 1910 to form the Union of South Africa. According to Kleyn and Viljoen (2010:32-33), the Union was established by an Act passed by the British Parliament and proclaimed as the Union of South Africa. Section 59 of the Union of South African Act of 1909 prescribed that the British Parliament was the sovereign legislative authority in South Africa. In terms of this arrangement, the police, prosecution, courts and correctional services (prisons) reported to one minister, namely the Minister of Justice. In 1961, the Union of South Africa became a Republic in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 32 of 1961 (Rautenbach, 2012:15). This author goes further to state that the Citizenship of National States Act, No. 26 of 1970, an Act passed by the South African parliament, linked blacks for internal constitutional purposes to the self-governing territories of the various black groups by means of citizenship.
The discussion above indicates that criminal law in South Africa is a truly mixed system. In this regard, Burchell (2013:8-9) and Ally and Mokoena (2013:6) assert that it blends Roman-Dutch, English and uniquely South African elements, which all require testing against the norms and values of a justifiable Bill of Rights. Anderson et al. (2012:7), point out that some acts have been recognised as crimes for many centuries. These crimes include murder, theft and assault, and are considered common-law crimes. In the following discussion, the researcher explores the SAPS legislative and policy framework relating to criminal investigation.

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK RELATING TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Statistics have shown that over the years, the crime problem has exceeded the capabilities of the CJS. It appears that the deterrent majors such as risks of being arrested and sentences posed after the conclusion of court trials are not enough to curb criminal conduct. Just as in most countries of the world, the South African CJS is based on four pillars, namely: the police, the prosecution service, the courts and the prison system. These pillars provide direction as to how the law should be applied by the State. Meintjes-Van der Walt et al. (2011:5), list the following main functions of law:
Setting pre-existing, impartial rules, based on criteria that can be used to judge and settle conflicts;
Protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual; Facilitating, or making change possible; Protecting society by serving as a framework that defines orderly conduct; Providing a mechanism to legitimise actions by the State;
Protecting and preserving the legal system; and
Providing institutions and procedures to settle disputes.
Even though the responsibility of crime lies within the CJS as a whole, the first line of defence against criminal conduct is the SAPS. This means that police officials have to be professional and disciplined in the execution of their duties. According to Swanepoel et al. (2014:3), the police officials’ role in the proper functioning of the CJS cannot be overstated. These authors further assert that without police officials, criminal law, criminal procedure and the law of evidence would become moot, and a sovereign State would descend into chaos. Commenting on the legislative and policy framework, Newburn, Williamson and Wright (2011:xxv) assert that criminal investigation is a subject that figures extensively in government policy, in the media and in the public imagination.
The following discussion relates to the South African Police Service’s Code of Conduct, Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977, Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 200 of 1993, South African Police Service Act No. 68 of 1995, National Crime Prevention Strategy, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, and the White Paper on Safety and Security.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
KEY TERMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATIONS
1. CHAPTER 1: GENERAL ORIENTATION OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL IN MURDER CASES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.3 RESEARCH AIMS
1.4 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.7 KEY THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
1.8 BACKGROUND OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION
1.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.10 RESEARCH STRUCTURE
2. CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 PHILOSOPHICAL WORLDVIEW OFFERED IN THE STUDY
2.3 RESEARCH APPROACH AND DESIGN
2.4 DATA COLLECTION
2.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
2.6 DATA ANALYSIS
2.7 DATA INTERPRETATION
2.8 METHODS TO ENSURE VALIDITY (CREDIBILITY)
2.9 METHODS TO ENSURE RELIABILITY (DEPENDABILITY)
2.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3. CHAPTER 3: INVESTIGATION OF MURDER IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ORIGINS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.4 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK RELATING TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
3.5 UNDERSTANDING OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
3.6 DEFINITION OF MURDER
3.7 ELEMENTS OF MURDER
3.8 INVESTIGATION PHASES IN MURDER
3.9 SKILLS REQUIRED TO BE A COMPETENT INVESTIGATOR
3.10 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INVESTIGATOR IN MURDER INVESTIGATION
3.11 CURRENT MURDER INVESTIGATION MODEL USED BY THE SAPS
3.12 INTELLIGENCE-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL
3.13 CURRENT INVESTIGATION MODEL USED BY THE SAPS IN MURDER CASES VERSUS THE INTELLIGENT-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL
3.14 SUMMARY
4. CHAPTER 4: MEANING OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE PROSECUTION SERVICE
4.3 OBJECTIVES OF PROSECUTION
4.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATOR AND PROSECUTOR
4.5 PROCESS OF PROSECUTION
4.6 MEANING OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL
4.7 ADVANTAGES OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL
4.8 DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL
4.9 PROSECUTION-LED INVESTIGATION MODEL IN MURDER CASES
4.10 SUMMARY
5. CHAPTER 5: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION PROCEDURES: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
5.3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5.4 REPUBLIC OF MALAWI
5.5 REPUBLIC OF FRANCE
5.6 SYNOPSIS OF THE COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION PROCEDURES IN MALAWI, FRANCE AND SOUTH AFRICA
5.7 SUMMARY
6. CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH AIMS
6.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
6.4 FINDINGS
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.6 CONCLUSION
LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts