Abstract

Spousal testimonial privilege and marital communications privilege are distinct concepts, but both are underpinned by the same policy rationale: The desire to protect the sanctity of the marriage relationship, encourage communication between spouses, and to prevent a spouse from being faced with the moral dilemma of either telling the truth and risking the relationship or committing perjury to avoid incriminating the other spouse. Collectively, spousal testimonial privilege and marital communications privilege are referred to as the marital privileges in this article. The law indicates a clear policy choice in favour of protecting the marriage relationship as opposed to the public interest in ensuring that the maximum relevant evidence is placed before the court, by virtue of the existence of the marital privileges. In part one of this two-part article, the authors discuss the marital privileges and the rationales underpinning them. Then the article considers the problems with the marital privileges and whether the law needs reform. The authors discuss whether the marital privileges should be extended to include cohabitant life partners. It is argued that the law on marital privileges is arbitrary and incoherent and does not adequately reflect or take into account the types of relationships that exist in multicultural South African society. In part two, the authors discuss the position as regards the marital privileges in a constitutionally comparable democracy – that of Canada. Also considered is the position adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the marital communications privilege in the Netherlands.