Nice snappy articulation of 'relevance' in R v BELL (No 6) [2023] SADC 112
The law of relevance
[42] Relevance is a question of law. It is most simply encapsulated in two long-cited propositions: None but facts having rational probative value are admissible; and All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some specific rule forbids.
[43] A fact is relevant if it tends to directly or indirectly prove or disprove a fact in issue or to prove some relevant fact. It will be relevant where the evidence to be called relates to that other fact in a way that, according to the ordinary course of events, either by itself or in connection with other facts, proves or makes probable the past, present or future existence or non-existence of that other fact.
[44] ‘Facts in issue’ are what the High Court has described as either ‘main facts in issue’ which are generally those that must be established to secure a conviction, establish a cause of action, or to enable some defence or answer to a case to be made out, or ‘subordinate or collateral facts in issue’ which might affect matters such as the credibility of a witness or the admissibility of particular items of evidence. Relevance will be assessed by reference to not only the elements of the offences charged, but also to the subsidiary issues that arise in relation to facts that may be probative of those ultimate issues. Importantly, these subsidiary issues may extend to matters that are necessary to contextualise and explain matters that a jury must consider and determine, including the credibility of witnesses.
[45] Evidence will also be relevant if it provides an explanatory framework for other evidence; for example, if it may explain a statement or an event that would otherwise appear curious or unlikely; it may cut down, or reinforce, the plausibility of something a witness has said; or it may provide a context that is helpful or necessary for an understanding of the narrative.
[46] Relevance must obviously be assessed with reference to the issues at trial, the purpose of the tender, and the state of the other evidence in the trial.
[47] In cases involving circumstantial evidence, relevance must be resolved by reference to the whole of the evidence in the case.
[48] The law recognises that particularly where, as here, the trial is by jury and consequently the Court is being asked to rule on questions of relevance prior to the commencement of the jury trial, and consequently before all the issues that may become relevant in the trial become apparent, it is undesirable and unnecessary to set the hurdle of relevance too high.
