CRW2601 Exam Answers 2019

b) The
test for criminal incapacity is set out in section 78(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Define the test as set out in this
provision (4)
-‐ A person who commits an act or makes an omission which
constitutes an offence and who at the time of such commission
or omission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect
which makes him or her incapable
• of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission;
or
• of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the
wrongfulness of his or her act or omission,
-‐ shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.

c) Fill in the missing words or phrases next to the corresponding
question in your answer book
i) If X knows that her husband assaults their three-‐year-‐old
child and does nothing to prevent it, she may be convicted
of……… on the basis of an …………. (2)
ii) The defence of impossibility may only be raised successfully if
it was impossible to comply with the rule, and not merely
inconvenient………….. (1)
iii) If X knows that he may lose consciousness any time as a
result of an illness and, while driving a car, loses
consciousness and causes an accident, he may be found guilty
of negligent driving………. This type of liability is known as
………liability
iv) If X contravenes the speed limit because she takes a person
who just had a heart attach to hospital, she may, if charged
with a traffic offence, rely on the defence of…………. (1)

Crw2601
Question 1
(a) The retributive theory is the only theory of punishment which insists on
there being a direct proportion between the extent of the harm or damage
caused and the extent of the punishment.
(b) In the decision of Zinn the court held that, in determining an appropriate
sentence, the court must take into account only the interests of the society.
(c) The efficacy of the theory of general deterrence depends only upon the
severity of the punishment that might be imposed, and not upon the degree
of probability that the criminal will be caught and convicted.
(1) Only statement (a) is correct.
(2) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
(3) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
(4) Only statement (b) is correct.
(5) None of these statements is correct.
Question 2
(a) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of an
offence means that the act is unlawful.
(b) A person may act in private defence in order to protect a third person
even if there is no family or protective relationship between himself and the
third person.
(c) The judgement in Goliath is authority for the statement that one may kill
an innocent person in a case of a relative compulsion.

(5) All of these statements are correct.
Question 3
(a) Putative private defence is not actual private defence and can therefore
not exclude X’s culpability.
(b) For X to succeed with a defence of private defence, his defensive act must
have been directed at an attack that has already been completed.
(c) The test to determine necessity is an objective test.
(2) Only statement (c) is correct.
(5) All these statements are correct.
Question 4
(a) In Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) the court rejected the “specific intent
theory” with regard to intoxication.
(b) If X is charged with murder and the court finds that he was so intoxicated
that he lacked the intention at the time of the commission of the crime, he
cannot be convicted of any crime.
(c) One of the requirements for a conviction of a contravention of section 1 of
Act 1 of 1988 is that X should have lacked criminal capacity at the time of the
commission of the act.
(5) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct
Question 5
(a) The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if X has the ability
to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act.
(b) In Kavin 1978 (2) SA 731 (W) the defence of mental illness was raised
successfully.
(c) The test for mental illness comprises both a pathological and biological
test.
(3) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(5) Only statements (a) and (c) is correct.
Question 6
(a) The ius certum principle, which forms part of the principle of legality,
implies that nobody ought to be convicted of a crime, unless the kind of act
performed by him had been recognised by the law as a crime already at the
time of its commission.
(b) Before one can assume that a provision in a statute had created a crime,
it must be clear that the provision contains a criminal norm.
(c) The ius strictum principle implies that a court is not authorised to extend
an crime’s field of application by analogy to the detriment of the accused.
(5) All the statements are correct.
Question 7
(a) Evidence of provocation may sometimes serve to confirm the existence of
intention to commit the crime with which X is charged.
(b) If X is charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and it
appears from the evidence that he was provoked, the provocation may have
the effect that X will not be found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous
bodily harm but only of common assault.
(c) In the decision of Ngubane the court held that it is wrong to assume that
proof that X acted intentionally excludes the possibility of a finding that he
acted negligently.
(4) Only statement (b) is correct
Section B
Question 1
Do you think the following statutory provision complies with the principle of
legality? “Any person who commits an act that offends against the good
morals of the nation, shall be punished.” Discuss.(8)
The principle of legality also known as the nullum crimen sine lege principle
means that an accused may not be convicted of a crime if the conduct with
which he/she is charged
-‐ has not been recognised by the law as a crime (ius acceptum principle)
-‐ before the conduct took place (ius praevium principle)
-‐ in clear terms (ius certum principle)
-‐ without broadly interpreting the words in the definition (ius strictum
principle).
-‐ A statutory provision purporting to create a crime best complies with
the principle of legality if it states that the particular type of conduct is a
crime, and also what punishment a court must impose after conviction
-‐ It may be argued that the provision does not comply fully with the ius
acceptum principle.
-‐ Although it is stated that a person who commits the described act “shall
be punished”, it is not stated explicitly that the conduct constitutes an
offence. Therefore, there is no criminal norm present.
-‐ The ius praevium principle is not at issue here because there is no
mention that the provision is created with retrospective effect.
-‐ The provision clearly does not comply with the ius certum requirement.
The prohibition of “an act that offends against good morals” is
formulated in vague and unclear terms. It is impossible for the individual
to know what particular conduct is prohibited. Therefore, the subject
does not know what particular conduct to avoid.
-‐ Lastly, no mention is made in the provision of the punishment that
should be imposed in case of a contravention of the provision. Therefore
there is no criminal sanction which amounts to a violation of the nullum
poena principle.
Question 2
Assume the South African parliament passes a statute in 2004 which contains
the following provision: “Any person who commits an act which could
possibly be prejudicial to sound relations between people, is guilty of a
crime. This provision is deemed to have come into operation on 1 January
1995.”No punishment is specified for the crime. Do you think that this
provision complies with the principle of legality? (6)
-‐ It is clearly stated in the provision that the conduct prohibited is a
“crime”. This means that the provision contains a criminal norm.
-‐ However, the maximum punishment that may be imposed is not
prescribed in the provision. Therefore, the ius acceptum rule has not
been fully complied with.
-‐ The provision does not comply with the ius praevium rule because the
crime is created with retrospective effect.
-‐ The provision also does not comply with the ius certum rule because it is
formulated in vague and uncertain terms. The phrase `possibly
prejudicial to sound relations' is very wide and does not indicate exactly
what type of conduct is prohibited. Does it refer to `sound relations' in
the family context, at the workplace, or to relations between people of
different cultures or races?
-‐ The ius strictum rule further requires that an act which is ambiguous be
interpreted strictly. In practice this means that a court may not give a
wide interpretation to the words or concepts contained in the definition
of the crime. A provision which is very wide and vague should be
interpreted in favour of the accused.
-‐ It follows that the provision does not comply with the principle of
legality.
Question 3
Give the Latin words describing each of the different rules embodied in the
principle of legality. After each Latin expression, state its meaning.
Ius acceptum rule:
-‐ A court may find an accused guilty of a crime only if the kind of act
performed is recognised by the law as a crime. This means that a court
may not create a crime.
Ius praevium rule:

-‐ A court may find an accused guilty of a crime only if the kind of act
performed was recognised as a crime at the time of the commission of
the offence.
Ius certum rule:
-‐ Crimes ought not to be formulated vaguely.
Ius strictum rule:
-‐ A court must interpret the definition of a crime narrowly rather than
broadly.
Nulla poena sine lege rule:
-‐ The abovementioned principles must also be applied when a court
imposes a sentence
CRW 2601
Question 1
(a) Conduct can only be voluntary if it is willed.
(b) The general criterion to determine whether there is a legal duty on
someone to act positively is the legal convictions of the community.
(c) The term “conduct” as used in criminal law does not include a voluntary
human omission.
(4) None of the statements is correct.
(5) Only statement (c) is correct
Question 2
(a) In order to qualify as a novus actus interveniens, an occurrence must be
unexpected, abnormal, or unusual.
(b) A mistake need not be reasonable or material to exclude intention.
(c) In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe
a certain type of conduct which causes a specific condition.
(5) None of these statements is correct
Question 3
(a) Antecedent liability rules out the defence of automatism.
(b) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of a
crime means that the act is unlawful.
(c) One of the requirements for the existence of direct intention (dolus
directus) is that X must have an evil motive to commit the relevant act or to
cause the relevant result.
Question 4
(a) As guardians of good morals (custodes morum) our courts are obliged to
punish immoral and dangerous conduct.
(b) According to South African law, corporate bodies cannot be convicted of
crimes.
(c) Because the possibility of death as a result of an assault is always
reasonably foreseeable and the reasonable person would have guarded
against this possibility, the person committing assault will always be
convicted of culpable homicide if the victim died.
Question 5
(a) In Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) the court rejected the “specific intent
theory” with regard to intoxication.
(b) If X encourages the severely depressed Y to commit suicide by giving her a
loaded pistol to shoot and kill herself, he can never be convicted of Y’s
murder if she voluntarily takes the pistol and kills herself.
(c) The “triad in Zinn” refers to the crime, the criminal, and the punishment.
Question 6
(a) Necessity always stems from an unlawful human act.
(b) The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if X has the ability
to conduct himself in accordance with his appreciation of the wrongfulness
of his conduct.
(c) Vicarious liability applies only to statutory crimes.
Question 7
(a) An act in obedience to an unlawful order can only be justified if the order
is not manifestly unlawful.
(b) The reasonable person is a figment of the imagination of the bonus
paterfamilias.
(c) In materially defined crimes requiring negligence it must be proved that X
was negligent in the causing of a result.
Question 8
(a) Putative private defence is a defence excluding culpability and not a
defence excluding the element of unlawfulness.
(b) In Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) the court approved the transferred intent
approach in respect of cases involving aberratio ictus.
(c) The test for dolus eventualis is whether a person ought to have foreseen
the possibility of a consequence ensuing.

Question 9
(a) The words “mental illness” in section 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
51 of 1977 refer to a pathological disturbance of the mental faculties.
(b) In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA) the court held that the defence of non-‐
pathological criminal incapacity resulting from provocation or emotional
stress amounts to the defence of sane automatism.
(c) Children younger than 14 years are irrebuttably presumed to lack criminal
capacity.
Question 10
(a) In terms of the ius strictum principle crimes should be defined clearly and
not vaguely.
(b) Where doubt exists concerning the interpretation of a widely formulated
criminal provision in an act, the provision should be interpreted in favour of
the accused.
(c) The preventive theory overlaps the deterrent and the reformative
theories since all these theories aim to prevent the commission of crimes.

Section B
Question 1
X, a 62 year old man, works in a mine. His job is to operate the cocopans.
These cocopans are used to transport hard rocks and gravel from the bottom
of the mine to the surface. One day, while working, he suddenly experiences
a black-‐out. In his state of unconsciousness, he falls on the lever which
controls the movement of the cocopans. A cocopan crashes into another
worker, Y. Y is killed instantly. X is charged with culpable homicide. The
evidence before the court is as follows: X has been suffering from diabetes
for the past year. His doctor had warned him that he may lose consciousness
at any time if he fails to take his medication as instructed. On that particular
day, X had failed to take his medication. The court finds that X had
insufficient grounds for assuming that he would not suffer a blackout on that
particular day. X's legal representative argues that X cannot be convicted of
culpable homicide because, at the time of the commission of the offence, he
was not performing a voluntary act. In other words, the defence raised is that
of automatism. You are the state prosecutor. What would your response be
to this argument?
-‐ In Victor, X was convicted of negligent driving despite the fact that the
accident he had caused had been due to an epileptic fit: evidence
revealed that he had already been suffering epileptic fits for the
previous thirteen years, and that he had had insufficient reason to
believe that he would not again suffer such a fit on that particular day.
-‐ This is a case of antecedent liability. The voluntary act was performed at
the stage when X, fully conscious, started operating the cocopans. What
the law seeks to punish is the fact that he (X), while in complete
command of his bodily movements, commenced his inherently
dangerous tasks at the mine without having taken his medication. In so
doing, he committed a voluntary act which set in motion a series of
events which culminated in the accident.
Question 2
An omission is punishable if X is under a legal duty to act positively. The
general rule is that there is a legal duty to act positively if the legal
convictions of the society require X to do so. In practice a number of specific
instances are recognised in which there is a legal duty to act positively. Name
and discuss these instances. (10)
-‐ A statute may impose a duty on somebody to act positively. Example: to
complete an
a) annual income-‐tax return.
b) not to leave the scene of a car accident but to render assistance to the
injured and to report the accident to the police
c) to report knowledge of the commission of corrupt activities
d) to report knowledge of the commission of certain financial crimes
-‐ A legal duty may arise by virtue of the provisions of the common law.
Example: a person who owes allegiance to the state, and who discovers
that an act of high treason is being committed against the state, has a
duty to reveal this fact to the police.
-‐ A duty may arise from an agreement. Example: in the case of Pitwood, X
and a railway concern had agreed that, for remuneration, X would close
a gate every time a train went over a crossing. X omitted to do so and
thus caused an accident for which he was held liable. if a person stands
in a protective relationship to somebody else; In B, X, the biological
mother of Y, was living with another man Z. Z repeatedly assaulted Y. X,
who was aware of these assaults, did nothing to prevent them. As Y’s
natural mother, X had a legal duty to care for and protect Y from this.
She was held liable for assault.
-‐ Where a person accepts responsibility for the control of a dangerous or
potentially dangerous object. Example: in the case of Fernandez, X kept
a baboon and failed to repair its cage properly -‐-‐-‐ as a result, the animal
escaped and bit a child who later died. The court held that X had failed
to control the dangerous animal properly and he was convicted of
culpable homicide.
-‐ A duty may arise from a previous positive act (an omissio per
commisionem). Example: X lights a fire in an area where there is dry
grass and then walks away without putting out the fire, thus failing to
prevent it from spreading.
-‐ The fact that a person is an incumbent of a certain office. Example: in
Minister van Polisie v Ewels the court held that a policeman who sees
somebody else being unlawfully assaulted has a duty to come to the
assistance of the victim of the assault. Another example here is the case
of Gaba where a policeman had a duty by virtue of his office to disclose
to his fellow investigators his knowledge of the identity of a wanted
suspect known as “Godfather”, whom they were interrogating.
-‐ A legal duty may also arise by virtue of an order of court. Example: X
omits to pay maintenance to his ex-‐wife to support their children as
required in terms of an order of court.
Question 3
a) Discuss the defence of automatism. Your answer must include
i) examples from the case law of cases in which this defence
succeeded;
ii) an explanation of the points of difference between so-‐called “sane”
and “insane” automatism;
iii) an explanation of what is meant by “antecedent liability”. (8)
b) Name and discuss the requirements for successfully relying on the defence
of impossibility (6)
c) Name, without discussing, three factors exclude the voluntary nature of
the act. (3)
a) AUTOMATISM :
-‐ A person acts in a state of automatism if he acts in a mechanical fashion.
Examples of such instances are reflex movements such as heart
palpitations or a sneezing fit and a person who acts in a state of
automatism does not act voluntarily
i) Dlamini's case -‐ X killed Y while under influence of the nightmare.
Mkize's case -‐ X killed Y while he was having an epileptic fit. Du
Plessis's case -‐ an experienced driver had a mental “blackout”.
ii)
sane automatism Insane automatism
onus on state to prove the act onus is on X to prove that he
was voluntary suffered from a mental illness
if X's defence is successful, he if defence is successful, X is dealt
leaves the court a free man with in terms of section78 (6) of

the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977
iii)Antecedent liability: X knows that he suffers from epileptic fits or that,
because of some illness or infirmity he may suffer a" black out", but
nevertheless proceeds to drive a motor-‐car, hoping that these conditions
will not occur while he is sitting behind the steering wheel, but they
nevertheless do occur. He can then not rely on the defence of automatism.
He can be held liable for certain crimes requiring negligence, for example
culpable homicide. His voluntary act is then performed when he proceeds
to drive the car while still conscious. In Victor 1943 TPD 77, for example, X
was convicted of negligent driving despite the fact that the accident he had
caused had been due to an epileptic fit: evidence revealed that he had
already been suffering epileptic fits for the previous thirteen years, and that
he had had insufficient reason to believe that he would not again suffer
such a fit on that particular day.
b) X's omission must be voluntary in order to result in criminal liability. An
omission involuntary if it is possible for X to perform the positive act.
-‐ The legal provision which is infringed must place a positive duty on X.
The conduct which forms the basis of the charge must consist in an
omission. The defence will succeed, for example, if X has failed to
comply with a legal provision which placed a positive duty on him to
attend a meeting or to report for military duty.
-‐ It must be objectively impossible for X to comply with the relevant legal
provision. It must have been impossible for any person in X's position to
comply with the law. It must have been absolutely (not merely
relatively) impossible to comply with the law. The test is objective (in the
opinion of reasonable people in society).
-‐ X must not himself be responsible for the situation of impossibility. X
cannot rely on impossibility if he himself is responsible for the
circumstances in which he finds himself
c) X may rely on the defence that he did not perform a voluntary act. In
fact, the voluntariness of his act was excluded by natural forces -‐
namely, the gravity of the earth, which pulled the plane down onto the
beach and into Y’s boat.
Criminal law
CRW 2601
Question 1
Answer the following question by choosing the correct answer

a) According to the absolute theory, punishment is an end in itself, while
according to the relative theories, punishment is a means to a secondary end.
b) The effectiveness of the theory of general deterrence depends only on the
severity of the punishment that is imposed on an offender.
c) The “triad in Zinn” (the crime, the criminal and interests of society) enables a
court to consider all the theories of punishment when imposing sentence. (3)
Question 2
(a) The correct sequence of investigation into the elements of criminal liability
is conduct, compliance with definitional elements, culpability and
unlawfulness.
(b) Crimes are directed against public interests, while delicts are directed
against private interests.
(c) A statutory provision will best comply with the principle of legality if it
contains a criminal norm only. (3)

(5) Only statement (c) is correct
Question 3
(a) In concluding that the extended definition of the crime of rape should not
apply retrospectively to the accused, the Constitutional Court in Masiya v DPP
2007 (2) SACR 435 (CC) respected the ius praevium rule.
(b) The rules embodying the principle of legality (ius acceptum, ius praevium,
ius certum and ius strictum) are applicable to both the crime and the
punishment to be imposed.
(c) The Constitution contains a provision which expressly sets out the ius
acceptum rule. (3)
Question 4
(a) Conduct is voluntary if it is willed.
(b) Relative force excludes X’s ability to subject his bodily movements to his
will or intellect.
(c) Sane automatism refers to cases in which X relies on the defence of mental
illness. (3)
(5) Only statement (a) is correct
Question 5
(a) Antecedent liability is a qualification of the rule that bodily movements
performed in a condition of automatism do not result in criminal liability.
(b) There is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal convictions of the
community require him to do so.
(c) In Leeuw 1975 (1) SA 439 (O) it was held that mere inconvenience in
complying with a legal duty did not constitute impossibility. (3)

Question 6
(a) In formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain
type of conduct irrespective of what the result of the conduct is.
(b) An act is a conditio sine qua non for a situation if the act can be thought
away without the situation disappearing at the same time.
(c) In Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA), the court held that negligent medical
treatment would not be regarded as a novus actus interveniens in a situation
where X deliberately inflicted an intrinsically fatal wound. (3)
Question 7
(a) Mental illness is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness
of conduct.
(b) X can rely on private defence if he defends himself against an attack by an
animal.
(c) There is an irrebuttable presumption that a child who is below the age of
seven lacks criminal capacity. (3)

Question 8
(a) The test for negligence is described as objective because it is not concerned
with what X actually thought or knew or foresaw, but only with what a
reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen.
(b) The mere fact that somebody has committed an error of judgment does not
necessarily mean that he was negligent.
(c) If X is charged with culpable homicide, but the evidence brings to light that
X acted intentionally, he may still be convicted of culpable homicide provided
his conduct did not measure up to the standard of the reasonable person. (3)
(4) Only statement (a) and (b) are correct.
Question 9
(a) The principle of contemporaneity means that there must have been
culpability on the part of
X at the very moment when the unlawful act was committed.
(b) Mistake relating to the chain of causation may exclude intention provided
that the actual chain of events differed materially from that envisaged by the
perpetrator. (3)

(c) A good motive always excludes intention.
Question 10
(a) Provocation can never serve as a ground for the mitigation of punishment.
(b) Strict liability is found in statutory crimes only.
(c) A corporate body such as a company cannot be convicted of a crime. (3)

(5) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. [30]
Section B
Question 1
Distinguish between a crime and a delict. (5)
Crime Delict
Directed against public interests Directed against private interests.
Form part of public law. Form part of private law.
State prosecutes. Private party institutes action.
Result in the imposition of punishment Result in the guilty party being ordered
by the state to pay damages to the injured party.
State prosecutes perpetrator Injured party can choose whether he
irrespective of the desires of private wishes to claim damages or not.
individual
Trial governed by rules of criminal Trial governed by rules of civil
procedure. procedure.

Question 2
Name the four requirements for criminal liability in the correct sequence. (5)
-‐ Conduct -‐ -‐Conduct can lead to liability only if it is voluntary ie. capable
of subjecting his bodily or muscular movements to his will or intellect.
An omission can lead to liability only if the law imposed a duty on X to
act positively and he failed to do so.
-‐ Which complies with the definitional elements of the crime -‐ Definitional
elements is the concise definition of the type of conduct and the
circumstances in which that conduct must take place in order to
constitute an offence
-‐ Which is unlawful -‐ Conduct that is contrary to the totality of the rules of
law, including rules which in certain circumstances allow a person to
commit an act which is contrary to the letter of legal prohibition or
norm.
-‐ and culpable -‐ ie. grounds upon which X may personally be blamed.
Question 3
X, a sixty-‐three-‐year-‐old public prosecutor who suffers from diabetes, is
charged with the crime of corruption. The state’s evidence reveals that X
received R30 000 from Y in exchange for destroying a police docket which
implicated Y in several fraudulent activities. X is convicted of corruption. X
has no criminal record. The state prosecutor argues that the appropriate
sentence for X’s crime is imprisonment for a period of five years because
persons in public office should be deterred from abusing their powers. X’s
legal advisor disagrees with these submissions. She argues that
imprisonment for a period of five years is too harsh a sentence, considering
the age, health and clean record of the accused. In her view, a sentence of
imprisonment would place too much emphasis on general deterrence, and
disregards the principle of proportionality embodied in the theory of
retribution. With reference to the decision in Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A), discuss
the merits of these arguments. In your answer you must explain the
difference between the absolute and relative theories of punishment. (7)
-‐ In Zinn the court held that three factors must be taken into account
when a court sentences an offender. These factors are:
• the crime,
• the criminal, and
• the interests of society.
-‐ By “crime” is meant that regard must be taken concerning the degree of
harm or the seriousness of the violation. This consideration is important
in terms of the theory of retribution. The theory of retribution is an
absolute theory of punishment which means that punishment is an end
in itself and not a means to a second end. Punishment is justified
because it is the offender’s just desert. Retribution requires the
restoring of the legal balance which has been disturbed by the
commission of the crime. The theory therefore requires that the extent
of the punishment must be proportionate to the extent of the harm
done. In deciding upon an appropriate punishment, application of the
theory of retribution is imperative, because it is the only theory of
punishment which requires a proportional relationship between the
harm done and the punishment imposed.
-‐ The consideration of the “interests of society” requires, amongst other
things, that society must be protected from criminals. This consideration
forms the basis of the preventive theory of punishment. Furthermore,
the community must be deterred from crime (the theory of general
deterrence).
-‐ It is clear that the so-‐called “triad in Zinn” requires a combination theory
of punishment that accommodates the ideas of retribution, deterrence,
prevention and reformation.
Question 4
According to the retributive theory, punishment is justified because it is X’s
just desert. Explain the philosophy underlying retribution (or “just desert”).
(4)
-‐ According to the retributive theory, punishment is justified because it is
X’s just desert. The underlying idea can be explained as follows: the legal
order offers every member of society certain advantages, while at the
same time burdening him/her with certain obligations. The advantages
are that the law protects him because it prohibits other people from
infringing upon his basic rights or interests, such as his life, physical
integrity and property. However, these advantages can only exist if each
member of society fulfils his obligations, namely refrains from infringing
upon other members’ rights. If a person commits an act whereby he/she
gets an unjustifiable advantage above other members of society, he/she
disturbs the legal balance in society. He/she must be punished to restore
the legal balance in society. Therefore, punishment can be described as
the paying of a debt which the offender owes society as a result of
his/her crime
-‐ Equal proportion between degree of punishment and degree of crime
• The extent of the punishment must be proportionate to the
extent of the harm done or of the violation of the law.
• This is illustrated by the fact that the punishment imposed for an
attempt to commit a crime is as a rule, less severe than for the
commission of the crime
-‐ Retribution explains culpability requirement
• Pre-‐eminently able to explain the need for the general
requirement of liability known as culpability. (mens rea)
• Presupposes that man has a free will.
• Can be held responsible or blamed for choices made.

Question 5
Distinguish between the absolute and relative theories of punishment. (6)
-‐ There is only one absolute theory and that is the theory of retribution.
-‐ According to this theory, the aim of punishment is to restore the legal
balance which has been disturbed by the commission of the crime.
-‐ The punishment is an end in itself. According to the retributive theory,
the extent of the punishment must be proportionate to the extent of the
harm done.
-‐ There are three relative theories of punishment.
-‐ These are the preventative, deterrent, and reformative theories.
-‐ According to these theories, the aim of punishment is a means to a
secondary end rather than an end in itself (as in the case of the
retributive theory).
-‐ The relative theories emphasise a future purpose, namely prevention,
deterrence or reformation. In order to achieve these aims, the
punishment imposed need not be proportionate to the extent of the
harm done.
-‐ The theory of retribution, on the other hand, is purely retrospective and
focuses only on the crime that was committed in the past.
Question 6
Accused X1,X2 and X3 are appearing before you on charges of theft. You find
all of them guilty of this crime. You now have to sentence them. The
evidence before you is the following: X1has stolen one chicken and has no
previous convictions. X2 has also stolen one chicken but he has two previous
convictions ^ one of theft of a radio and the other of theft of a watch. X3 has
stolen a 4X4motor vehicle worth about R150 000.The evidence also reveals
that chicken theft is very prevalent in the district. Apply the theories of
retribution, prevention and general deterrence to these facts. (5)
The theory of retribution requires that the extent of the punishment be
proportionate to the extent of the damage caused. Because the values of the
stolen things are different, it follows that punishment for theft of the motor
vehicle should be far more severe than punishment for chicken theft.
However, if only the retributive theory is applied, the same punishment must
be imposed on all the chicken thieves -‐ the value of the objects stolen is the
same.
The theory of prevention requires that a more severe punishment be imposed
on X2 than on X1. Because he (X2) already has two previous convictions for
theft, he must be prevented, as far as possible, from continuing to contravene
the law.
According to the theory of general deterrence, punishment need not
necessarily be proportionate to the damage caused. The fact that chicken theft
is so prevalent in the district is a ground for imposing heavier sentences on
X1and X2 for stealing chickens than the sentences that would be imposed if
someone were to steal a chicken in an area where such theft is not prevalent.
CRW 2601

Question 1
a) The ius certum rule, which forms part of the principle of legality,
implies that nobody ought to be convicted of a crime unless the kind of
act performed by him/her had already been recognised by the law as a
crime at the time of its commission
b) Before one can assume that a provision in an Act created a crime, it
must be clear that the provision contains a criminal norm.
c) The ius strictum principle requires that where doubt exists concerning
the interpretation of a criminal provision, the provision should be
interpreted in favour of the accused.

1) Only statement (a) is correct
2) Only statement (c ) is correct
3) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct
4) Only statement (b) is correct
5) None of these statements is correct.

Question 2
a) Relative force renders x’s conduct involuntary
b) If X keeps a dangerous bullterrier dog in his unfence yard in an urban
area and the dog bites and kills a child in the street, X may be held
liable for culpable homicide on the basis of an omission
c) X can succeed with a defence of impossibility even if he himself was
responsible for causing the situation of impossibility

3) All these statements are correct
4) None of these statements is correct
5) Only statement (b) and (c ) are correct

Question 3
a) The maxim nulla poena sine lege impiles that the principle of legality
also applies to the imposition of punishement
b) The case of Francia 1994 (1) SACR 350 (C ) addressed the application of
the ius acceptum rule to the creation of a statutory crime
c) The ius praevium rule was applied by the Constitutional Court in
Masiya v Director Public Prosecutions 2007 (2) SACR 435 (CC)

1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct
3) Only statements (c ) is correct
4) Only statements (a) and (c ) are correct
Question 4
a) In Dhlamini 1955 (1) SA 120 (T), the accused was not convicted of any
crime because he successfully relied on the defence of insane
automatism
b) In cases of sane automatism the onus is on the state to prove that the
act voluntary
c) The defence of impossibility can be pleaded only in cases where the
infringed legal provision placed a positive duty on X to act.

2) Only statements (a ) is correct
3) Only statement (b) and (c ) are correct
Question 5
a) An act is a condito sine qua non for a situation if the act cannot be
thought away without the situation disappearing at the same time
b) Possession of dagga is a maternally-‐defined crime
c) Consent is no defence in the case of euthanasia where X ( a doctor)
kills Y (a cancer patient who is experiencing excruciating pain) on the
latter’s request

5) Only statements (b) and (c ) are correct
Question 6
a) The limits of the grounds of justification are determined by the legal
convictions of society
b) One of the distinctions between private defence and necessity relates
to the object at which the act of defence is directed
c) Parents may never chastise their children by mean of corporal
punishment

2) Only statements ( c) is correct

Question 7
a) Although a child between the ages of ten and fourteen years is
presumed to lack criminal capacity, the state is free to rebut this
presumption
b) Intention in the form of dolus eventualis is present if the causing of the
forbidden result is not X’s main aim, but he subjectively foresees the
possibility that his conduct may cause the forbidden result and
reconciles himself with this possibility
c) A mistake need not be reasonable to exclude intention

1) Only statements (a) and (b0 are correct
5) All these statements are correct.
Question 8
a) A mistake relating to the chain of causation can only occur in the
context of materially-‐defined crimes
b) In order to have intention, X must have knowledge of all the elements
of the crime including the requirement of culpability itself
c) The fact that x happens to have knowledge, which is superior to the
knowledge of the reasonable person, is not take into account by the
court when determining his negligence.

4) Only statements (a) and ( c) are correct
Question 9
a) Someone who commits an error of judgment is necessarily negligent,
since the fictitious reasonable person is not subject to the limitations
of human nature
b) Involuntary intoxication is a complete defence
c) The action libera in causa is a form of involuntary intoxication which
serves as a complete defence

Question 10
a) The versari doctrine holds that if a person engages in unlawful conduct,
he is criminally liable for all the consequences flowing form such
conduct, irrespective of whether there was in fact any culpability on
his part in respect of such consequences
b) If X is charged with common assault, the evidence of provocation may
result in X being completely acquitted
c) In South Africa corporate bodies may be convicted of crimes

Section B
Question 1
a) In Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) the court emphasised that three (3) factors
must be taken into account when imposing a sentence
i) Name the three factors (3)
• 1.the crime;
• 2.the offender; and
• 3.the interests of society
ii) Explain what each of these factors means. In your answer, also
identify the theory (or theories) of punishment that is (are)
applicable to each factor (5)
-‐ Crime – degree of harm/seriousness of violation (retributive
theory);
-‐ Criminal – personal circumstances of offender (reformative
theory); and
-‐ Interests of society – society must be protected
(preventive), community must be deterred (general
deterrence), righteous indignation of society must be given
expression (retributive)
iii)
b) Name the four requirements for criminal liability in the sequence in
which they should be investigated (5)
-‐ Criminal Liability =
-‐ (1) Act +
-‐ (2) Compliance with definitional elements +
-‐ (3) Unlawfulness +
-‐ (4) Culpability
c) The concept of voluntary act should not be confused with the concept
of willed act. Define, in one sentence, what each concept means and
identify the requirement of criminal liability relevant to each (4)
-‐ To determine whether there was an act in the criminal-‐law sense
of the word, the question is merely whether the act was voluntary,
Conduct which is not willed, such as acts which a person
commits negligently, may however also be punishable.
d) NOTE THE CHOICE THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS QUESTION
In deciding the question of legal causation, our courts are guided by
policy considerations, Discuss this approach in TWO of the following
cases
i) Daniels 1983 (3) SA 275 (A) (4)
-‐ The judges refused to accept that in our law, criminal liability is
necessarily based on ``proximate cause'' (which is perhaps the
best-‐known of the individualisation theories).
-‐ They also pointed out that the novus actus criterion does not differ
essentially from the theory of adequate causation, also
emphasising that a distinction should be drawn between
consequences normally to be expected from the type of conduct in
which X has engaged and consequences which one would not
normally expect to flow from such conduct.

ii) Mokgethi 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) (4)
-‐ in Mokgethi supra the Appellate Division held that it is wrong for a
court to regard only one specific theory (eg ``proximate cause'') as
the correct one to be applied in every situation,
-‐ thereby excluding from future consideration all the other specific
theories of legal causation.
-‐ A court may even base a finding of legal causation on
considerations outside these specific theories.
iii) Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA) (4)
-‐ In Tembani, X's act can also be seen to be the legal cause of Y's
death.
-‐ X deliberately inflicted an intrinsically dangerous wound to Y,
which without medical intervention would probably cause to die. It
is irrelevant whether it would have been easy
-‐ to treat the wound, and even whether the medical treatment given
later was substandard or negligent.
-‐ X would still be liable for Y's death.
-‐ The only exception would be if at the time of the negligent
treatment had recovered to such an extent that the original injury
no longer posed a danger to her life.
-‐

Question 2
a) Fill in the missing words/phrases. Write in your answer script the
number of the question followed by the words/phrases:
i) An act which complies with the definitional elements of an
offence is not necessarily unlawful (1)
ii) In Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) it held that necessity could constitute
a complete defence to a charge of murder. (1)
iii) In order to exclude intention, a mistake must be a material
mistake(1)
iv) In judging aberration ictus situations, the Appeal Court in
Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) favoured the concrete-‐figure
approach over the transferred culpability approach. (2)
v)
vi) In case of De Blom (just the name) it was held that cliché
“ignorance of the law is not an excuse” has no foundation in our
law. (1)
b) Discuss the principle of contemporaneity, referring to relevant case law
(5)
-‐ The culpability and the unlawful act must be contemporaneous.
-‐ This means that,in order for a crime to have been committed,
there must have been culpability on the part of X at the very
moment when the unlawful act was committed.
-‐ No crime is committed if culpability only existed prior to the
commission of the unlawful act, but not at the moment the act
was committed, or if it came into being only after the commission
of the unlawful act.
-‐ The principle of contemporaneity is closely related to the rule that
a mistaken belief concerning the causal chain of events does not
exclude intention.
-‐ The decision in Masilela constitutes an apparent exception to the
general rule in relation to contemporaneity
c) X is driving home after being told that he did not get the promotion he
thought he was entitled to. There are many road works along the way
which cause delays. After driving for 2 hours on the highway, the lane
in which X is driving suddenly ends Y does not want to allow X into the
next available lane, X takes his firearm which he always carries with
him, fires a shot at Y and kills him, X is charged with murder. Discuss
whether X’s lawyer will succeed with any of the following defences on
a charge of murder, and on the lesser charge of culpable homicide:
i) That X’s criminal capacity was excluded as a result of tension,
stress, disappointment and anger, (5)
-‐ No, X’s defences would not succeed against these charges,
-‐ There are three defences that exclude criminal capacity and
they are:
-‐ Youth
-‐ Mental illness (Insanity)
-‐ non-‐pathological criminal incapacity
ii) That X had a few drinks before he left the office and was
therefore intoxicated to the extent that he had criminal capacity
but did not have intention (4)
iii) Discuss whether X can be convicted of contravening section 1 of
Act 1 of 1988 if the court finds that he was intoxicated to the
extent that he had criminal capacity but did not have intention.
(5)
-‐ X will be found guilty according to section 1 of the Act which
says that: Any person who consumes or uses any substance
which impairs his or her faculties to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his or her acts or to act in
-‐ The effect of intoxication on liability accordance with that
appreciation, while knowing that such substance has that
effect, and who while such faculties are thus impaired
commits any act prohibited by law under any penalty, but is
not criminally liable because his or her faculties were
impaired as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence and shall
be liable on conviction to the penalty which may be
imposed in respect of the commission of that act.
Question 3
a) X, a strongly built male, is in a heated argument with Y, a young
female. Y reacts by grabbing a long, sharp knife and attacking X with it.
X grabs Y’s arm, dispossesses her of the knife and hits her with his fists
three times on the head. Y is severely injured and dies later in hospital
from brain damage. Discuss X’s liability in each of the set of facts that
follow. You must evaluate each set of facts separately.
i) On charge of murder, X relies on private defence. Consider
briefly whether X can succeed with defence [You need not give a
complete definition, nor do you need to discuss all the
requirements. Confine your answer to applying the most
relevant requirements(s) of private defence to the facts] (4)
ii) The court finds that X has exceeded the bounds of private
defence. X argues that he did not kill Y intentionally because he
subjectively believed that he was acting in private defence.
Consider, with reference to case law, whether X can succeed
with such a defence. (6)
b) NOTE THE CHOICE THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS QUESTION
Name the rules to be applied in determining whether the legislature
intended culpability to be an ingredient of a statutory provision
-‐ The point of departure is an assumption or presumption that it
was not the intention of the legislature to exclude culpability,
unless there are clear and convincing indications to the contrary.
Such indications can be found in
• the language and context of the provision
• the object and scope of the prohibition
• the nature and extent of the punishment prescribed for
contravening the prohibition
• the ease with which the provision can be evaded if culpability is
required
• the reasonableness or otherwise in holding that culpability is not
an ingredient of the offence

OR

Define the test for criminal capacity in terms of section 78(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (6)
There are two psychological legs of the test which are: Ability to
appreciate wrongfulness (cognitive) and Ability to act accordance with
such an appreciation (conative)
-‐ Cognitive:
-‐ Emphasis on insight and understanding
-‐ Insight
-‐ Ability to differentiate
-‐ Conative:
-‐ Self control
-‐ Ability to conduct oneself in accordance with what is right and
wrong
-‐ Power of resistance

c) Can the concepts of intention and negligence overlap, and does proof
of the former exclude the possibility of a finding on the latter? (4)
-‐ In Ngubane the court held that intention and negligence are
conceptually different and that these two concepts never overlap.
-‐ On the other hand, the court held that it is incorrect to assume that
proof of intention excludes the possibility of a finding of negligence.
-‐ The facts of a particular case may reveal that, although X acted
intentionally, he also acted negligently in that his conduct did not
measure up to the standard of the reasonable person.

CRW 2601
Question 1
a) The only justification for the imposition of punishment is the deter the
community from committing crimes
b) In Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) it was held that courts may impose
sentence which are grossly disproportionate to the harm caused if the
particular crime with which the accused had been charged is prevalent
in society.
c) The theory of retribution always plays a role in the imposition of
punishment since it is the only theory that requires a proportional
relationship between the punishment imposed and the moral
blameworthiness of the offender

1) All the statements are correct
2) Only statements (a) is correct
Question 2
a) The investigation into the presence of the four elements of liability
must follow a prescribe sequence
b) Unlawfulness is one of the elements of an offence
c) The culpability requirement means that there must be grounds upon
which X can be blamed for his conduct


Question 3
a) A statutory provision which provides as follows “A person may not
travel on a bus without ticket’ creates an offence
b) The principles of legality as set out in section 35(30(I) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 2996 only provides that
every accused has a right not be convicted of an offence in respect of
an act that was not an offence at the time it was committed in other
words, it does not cover omissions as well
c) In S v Masiya 2007 (2) SACR 435 (CC) the Constitutional Court held that
to convict the appellant of rape would be in violation of his right as set
out in section 35(3)(I) of the Constitution

3) Only statements (a) is correct
Question 4
(a) Because culpability is required for all common-‐law crimes, strict
liability is found in statutory crimes only.
(b) In South Africa corporate bodies (for instance, companies) cannot be
convicted of crimes.
(c) If the legislature, in creating an offence, is silent on the question
whether culpability is a requirement for the offence, a court is still free to
interpret the provision creating the offence in such a way that culpability
is indeed required for a conviction.
1. Only statement (a) is correct.
2. Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
3. All three statements are correct.

4. Not one of these statements is correct.
5. Only statement (c) is correct.
Question 5
a) Factual causation is determined by investigating whether X’s act was
the most operative cause of Y’s death
b) If X gives Y a loaded gun to kill herself and Y pulls the trigger herself
and dies, X’s act can never be viewed as the legal cause of Y’s death
c) In Ex parte die Minister van Justisie in re S v Van Wyk 1967 (1) SA 488
(A) the court held that on a charge of murder, X may only succeed with
a defence of private defence if he had killed the attacker in protection
of his own life, or the life of another person.

Question 6
a) Teachers may not impose corporal punishment on children
b) X can rely on necessity if he defends himself against an attack by an
animal
c) Mental illness is a defence which excludes the element of unlawfulness

Question 7
a) Criminal capacity relates to a person’s mental abilities, whereas
intention relates to the presence or absence of a blameworthy state of
mind
b) In order to succeed with a defence of mental illness expert evidence
must be provided that the mental illness that X had suffered from at
the time of the commission of the offence was of a permanent nature
c) In terms of the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 a child who commits an
offence while under the age of 10 years does not have criminal capacity
and cannot be prosecuted for the offence.
1) None of the statements is correct

Question 8
a) Whether error in objecto is a defence depends on the definitional of
the offence with which X is charged
b) In Goosen 1989 (4) SA 1013 (A) the court held that a mistake relating to
the chain of causation may exclude intention provided that the actual
chain of events differed substantially from that envisaged by the
perpetrator
c) A good motive always excludes intention

1) All the statements are correct
5) Only (a) and (c ) are correct
Question 9
(a) Vicarious liability is not limited to statutory crimes, but may be found also
in common-‐law crimes.
(b) Involuntarily intoxication may afford an accused a complete defence.
(c) One of the findings of the court in the decision of Chretien was that the
specific intent theory in connection with intoxication must be rejected.
2. Only statement (b) is correct.
4. Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
5. Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
Question 10
(a) Evidence of provocation may sometimes serve to confirm the existence of
intention to commit the crime with which X is charged.
(b) If X is charged with assault to do grievous bodily harm and it appears from
the evidence that he was provoked, the provocation may have the effect that X
will not be found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm but of
common assault only.
(c) In the decision of Ngubane the court held that it is wrong to assume that
proof that X acted intentionally excludes the possibility of a finding that he
acted negligently.

Section B
Question 1
a) Discuss the question whether a person may kill another person in a
situation of necessity
-‐ this question arises only if the threatened person finds herself in
mortal danger.
-‐ This mortal danger may stem from compulsion, for example
where Y threatens to kill X if X does not kill Z, or from an event not
occasioned by human intervention.
-‐ Until 1972, our courts usually held that the killing of a person
could not be justified by necessity.
-‐ In Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A), however, the Appeal Court
conclusively decided that necessity can be raised as a defence
against a charge of murdering an innocent person in a case of
extreme compulsion.
-‐ the extent of the threat may be taken into account as a mitigating
factor when punishment is imposed.

b) X leaves a party in a very drunken state. He gets into his car and drives
home. On his way he is stopped by a police officer who requests him to
get out of his car X knows that he is very drunk and is afraid that he
will be arrested and charged with drunken driving. He drives away as
fast as he can, the police officer pursues him in the police van but
because X has a very fast car, he manages to get away from the police
officer. In his rush to get away he suddenly turns left into an alley and
collides into a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The pedestrian
is injured and X is charged with attempted murder, His defence is that,
although he still had criminal capacity, he was so drunk that he lacked
the intention to kill. Consider these facts and answer the following
question.

i) Can X be convicted of a contravention of section 1 of Act 1 of
1988 if the court finds that he had criminal capacity but lacked
only intention? In your answer you must discuss the elements of
the section 1 offence and motivate your conclusion (8)
-‐ X will be found guilty according to section 1 of the Act which
says that: Any person who consumes or uses any substance
which impairs his or her faculties to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his or her acts or to act in
-‐ The effect of intoxication on liability accordance with that
appreciation, while knowing that such substance has that
effect, and who while such faculties are thus impaired
commits any act prohibited by law under any penalty, but is
not criminally liable because his or her faculties were
impaired as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence and shall
be liable on conviction to the penalty which may be
imposed in respect of the commission of that act.
-‐ If in any prosecution for any offence it is found that the
accused is not criminally liable for the offence charged on
account of the fact that his faculties referred to in
subsection (1) were impaired by the consumption or use of
any substance, such accused may be found guilty of a
contravention of subsection (1), if the evidence proves the
commission of such contravention.
c) Merely name six instances in which legal duty to act positively has
been recognised by our courts (3)
A duty may arise from:
-‐ a previous positive act, such as where X lights a fire in an area
where there is dry grass, and then walks away without putting out
the fire to prevent it from spreading.
-‐ where a person stands in a protective relationship to somebody
else, for example, a parent or guardian
-‐ from an agreement
-‐ Where a person accepts responsibility for the control of a
dangerous or potentially dangerous object, a duty arises to
control it properly.
-‐ may sometimes arise by virtue of the fact that a person is the
incumbent of a certain office.
-‐ may also arise by virtue of an order of court.
Question 2
a) Define the following legal concepts
i) Novus actus interveniens (3)
-‐ This expression means `'new intervening event'', and is used
to indicate that between X's initial act and the ultimate
death of Y, another event which has broken the chain of
causation has taken place, preventing us from regarding X's
act as the cause of Y's death.
ii) Indirect intention (2)
-‐ A person acts with indirect intention if the causing of the
forbidden result is not his main aim or goal, but he realises
that, in achieving his main aim, his conduct will necessarily
cause the result in question.
iii) Dolus eventualis (3)
-‐ A person acts with dolus eventualis if the causing of the
forbidden result is not his main aim, but
-‐ he subjectively foresees the possibility that, in striving
towards his main aim,his conduct may cause the forbidden
result and
-‐ he reconciles himself with this possibility.
b) Discuss ONE of the following cases in detail (6)
i) Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA)
-‐ In Tembani, X's act can also be seen to be the legal cause of
Y's death.
-‐ X deliberately inflicted an intrinsically dangerous wound to
Y, which without medical intervention would probably cause
to die. It is irrelevant whether it would have been easy
to treat the wound, and even whether the medical treatment given
later was substandard or negligent.
X would still be liable for Y's death.
The only exception would be if at the time of the negligent
treatment had recovered to such an extent that the original injury
no longer posed a danger to her life.

ii) Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA)
-‐ In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA), the Supreme Court of
Appeal delivered a judgment which raises doubts about
whether there is still such a defence in our law.
-‐ The court held that there is no distinction between non
pathological criminal incapacity owing to emotional stress
and provocation, on the one hand, and the defence of sane
automatism, on the other
-‐ The court held that there is no difference between the
second (conative) leg of the test for criminal capacity
and the requirement which applies to the conduct element
of liability that X's bodily movements must be voluntary.
-‐ The court does not hold that the defence of non-‐
pathological criminal incapacity
-‐ no longer exists, and in fact makes a number of statements
which imply that the defence does still exist.
-‐
c) X, an 89-‐year-‐old widow, lives all on her own on a farm. A number of
farmers in the vicinity have been victims of burglaries and even serious
crimes of violence such as assault and murder. X locks herself in her
bedroom every night and keeps a pistol under her bed in case she is
also attacked. One night she wakes up due to sounds of footsteps in
her house. She hears somebody walking down the passage, the next
moment somebody tries to open her bedroom door and because it is
locked, the person then tires break down the door with some
instrument. X is petrified and before calling the police, fires a number
of shots through the door, One of these shorts hits the intruder, Y. Y
dies half an hour later as a result of the shot wound, it turns out that Y
was an adult male of about 30 years old and a well-‐known convicted
criminal who has escaped from nearby prison X is charged with
murder, Her defence is that she was acting in a situation of private
defence is order to protect her life and physical integrity.
i) Discuss the requirements for this defence and consider whether
X may succeed with this defence (8)
For one to succeed with the private defence , certain
requirements have to be met,
Requirements of attack
The attack
-‐ must be unlawful
-‐ must be against interests which ought to be protected
-‐ must be threatening but not yet completed
-‐ Requirements of defence
The defensive action
-‐ must be directed against the attacker
-‐ must be necessary
-‐ must stand in a reasonable relationship to the attack
-‐ must be taken while the defender is aware that he is acting
in private defence
-‐ X may succeed with the defence since the intruder being in
her house was an offence, and although the intruder was
still trying to get in, it is evidence that his conduct although
not complete was threatening.
-‐ Protecting her life was necessary since she kept the pistol in
her bedroom.
ii) Suppose there was no intruder and that the person who had
tried to enter X’s room was her son (Z), who was worried about
his old mother tried to break down the door because he was
under the impression that she had died in her bed. If charged
with murder, is there any defence that X can rely upon? Name
this defence and refer to relevant case law in which such defence
was raised (6)
-‐ X can rely on mistake,of which mistake nullifies intention.
-‐ Whether there really was a mistake which exclude intention
is a question of fact.
-‐ What must be determined is X's true state of mind and
conception of the relevant events and circumstances.
-‐ A mistake can exclude intention and therefore liability only
if it is a mistake concerning an element or requirement of
the crime other than the culpability requirement itself.
Theserequirements are:
-‐ the requirement of an act
-‐ a requirement contained in the definitional elements, or
-‐ the unlawfulness requirement
Question 3
NOTE THE CHOICE THAT YOU HAVE IN THE QUESTION
a) Name the requirements for a valid plea of consent

The consent must be
-‐ given voluntarily
-‐ given by a person who has certain minimum mental abilities
-‐ based upon knowledge of the true and material facts
-‐ given either expressly or tacitly
-‐ given before the commission of the act
-‐ given by the complainant herself

OR

Fully define the test for negligence (6)

A person's conduct is negligent if
-‐ a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have
foreseen the possibility
-‐ that the particular circumstance might exist, or
-‐ that his conduct might bring about the particular result;
-‐ a reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against such
a possibility; and
-‐ the conduct of the person whose negligence has to be determined
differed
from the conduct expected of the reasonable person

2
statement under oath and thereafter acknowledges that the statement was false and tells
the truth.
(c) Contempt of court may be committed where the press publishes information relating to the
merits of a case which does not form part of the evidence while the case is still in progress.
Question 6
(a) The crime of rape is defined in section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 as “any person (X) who unlawfully and
intentionally commits an act of sexual intercourse with a complainant (Y) without his/her
consent is guilty of the offence of rape”
(b) The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007
makes provision for the situation that where X misleads Y with regard to the nature of an
act of sexual penetration with X, Y’s consent will be deemed to be invalid and the crime of
rape will be committed.
(c) In terms of section 3 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 an offence is committed if a
person possesses a firearm without a licence, permit or authorisation in terms of this Act.
Question 7
(a) In the case of common law abduction it is a requirement that the minor must be forcibly
removed from the control of his or her parents or guardian.
(b) In the case of Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E) the court widened the crime of murder to
include the killing of an unborn foetus.
(c) The crime of assault may even be committed where X inspires a belief in Y that force is
immediately to be applied to her.
Question 8
(a) The crimes of assault and crimen iniuria are committed where X spits into Y’s face.
(b) In the crime of criminal defamation, the term “publication” means that the allegation must be
in writing.
(c) X can only commit the crime of theft if he appropriates property which belongs to and is
owned by Y.
(5) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct
Question 9
(a) In the crime of robbery where X threatens Y with violence if he does not hand over the
property, it is not a requirement that there must be a causal link between the threats of
violence and the acquisition of property.
(b) The crime of receiving stolen property overlaps with the crime of theft, as persons who are
3
accessories after the fact to theft are usually regarded as perpetrators of theft.
(c) In the crime of fraud, it is a requirement that there must be a causal link between the
misrepresentation and the prejudice.
Question 10
(a) In the case of Heyne 1956 (3) SA 604 (A) it was decided that attempted fraud can be
committed by X if the misrepresentation has not yet come to the attention of Y (the person
against whom it is directed).
(b) In order to be convicted of the crime of malicious injury to property, X must act with an evil
or malicious motive.
(c) In the crime of housebreaking with intent to commit a crime it is a requirement that actual
damage must be inflicted to the building or structure, or else X will only be convicted of
attempted housebreaking with intent to commit a crime.
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is incorrect. Z is the direct perpetrator. See SG.1.3.2.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 2.2.4.(1)
(c) This statement is incorrect. Liability for common purpose can also arise if it can be
proved that there was active association and participation in a common criminal
design. See SG 1.3.4.2.
You should therefore have chosen option 2, since only statement (b) is correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 2.3.3(6) and 2.2.4(4) and Summary (9).
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 2.3.5.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The person must associate himself after the lethal
wound is inflicted and when Y is still alive. See SG 1.3.5
You should therefore have chosen option 4, since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is incorrect. It is not a punishable attempt where X is mistaken about
the relevant legal provisions. See SG 3.2.6.3
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. X will only be liable if the actions were more than acts of
preparation and were acts of execution. See SG 3.2.5.2.
10
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. They need not be in direct communication with each
other. See SG 3.3(10).
(b) This statement is correct. In Nkosiyana 1966 (4) SA 655 (A) it was held that no
element of persuasion is needed to be found guilty of incitement. See SG 3.4 and Summary
(16).
(c) This statement is incorrect. Corruption is not only limited to public officials but can
be committed with regard to other persons such as agents, judicial officers,
members of the legislative or prosecuting authority. See SG 6.2.8.
4
QUESTION 5
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 4.2.2.4 and Summary (3).
(b) This statement is incorrect. It is no excuse and X still acts unlawfully. See SG 5.1.6.
(c) This statement is correct. This is a form of contempt of court which falls under
commentary on pending cases. See SG 5.4.9.2.
You should therefore have chosen option 4, since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. Section 3 refers to any act of sexual penetration. See SG
7.2.2.1.
(b) This statement is correct. Consent that was obtained by fraud in relation to the nature of
the act of sexual penetration (error in negotio) is invalid. See SG 7.2.2.2c(iii).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.5.2.
You should therefore have chosen option 4, since only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is incorrect. The removal need not take place with force – in fact, in almost
all cases of abduction Y consents to the removal. See SG 8.3.4
(b) This statement is incorrect. See Casebook 286
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 10.1.1
You should therefore have chosen option 3, since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 11.1.7.3(4).
(b) This statement is incorrect. The publication may be oral or in writing. See SG 11.2.
(c) This statement is incorrect. It is possible for X to steal his own property in the form of the
theft known as arrogation of possession. See SG 12.1 and 12.8.
You should therefore have chosen option 1, since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 9
(a) This statement is incorrect. There must be a causal link. See SG 13.1.6
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 13.2 and Summary (8).
(c) This statement is incorrect. Given that proof of potential prejudice is sufficient to constitute
the completed crime, there need not be a causal link. See SG 14.1.4.2(6).
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 14.1.7 and Summary (7).
(b) This statement is incorrect. X’s motive is not a relevant consideration for this crime. See
SG 15.2.6.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Actual damage need not be inflicted. See SG 16.3.1.
You should therefore have chosen option 1, since only statement (a) is correct.
Question 1
(a) An accomplice is a participant.
(b) An indirect perpetrator is regarded as an accomplice because he does not comply with
all the requirements for liability set out in the definition of the crime.
(c) The liability of the accessory after the fact is accessory in character, but not that of the
accomplice.
Question 2
5
(a) In South African law, a putative crime is not punishable.

(b) A putative crime is a crime which exists, but which X believes not to exist.
(c) In Schoombie 1945 AD 541, the Appeal Court confirmed X’s conviction of (completed)
arson on the basis that X’s act qualified as an act of execution or consummation.
Question 3
(a) A common purpose of disturbing the public peace and order is required for the crime
of public violence.
(b) It is not a requirement for the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice
that a case must be pending.
(c) It is possible to convict a person of perjury at common law if, under oath and in the
course of a legal proceeding, he speaks the truth while believing that he is telling a lie.
Question 4
(a) Only a declaration that is made under oath can lead to a conviction of perjury.
(b) X can be convicted of contempt of court if he unlawfully and intentionally falsely
pretends to be an officer of the court, like an advocate or attorney.
(c) A reporter may be convicted of contempt of court if a reasonable person in his position
could foresee that the information which he publishes might deal with a pending case.
Question 5
(a) In Williams 1980 (1) SA 60 (A) the court held that it is not possible to be an
accomplice to murder.
(b) Attempted assault is possible.
(c) If X is charged with murder, but it cannot be proved that he had the necessary
intention to murder, he will invariably be convicted of culpable homicide.
Question 6
(a) In Van Zyl 1993 (1) SACR 338 (C) the court held that the offence of pointing of an arm
is committed only if the arm is pointed directly at the particular person in such a way
that, if it were discharged, the bullet would strike that person.
(b) A person below the age of 16 years may possess an arm without a licence with prior
consent of the holder of a licence to possess such firearm.
(c) It is not possible to convict X of robbery unless the property was on the victim’s
person.
6

Question 7
(a) Spitting in someone’s face can amount to both assault and crimen iniuria.
(b) X can be convicted of kidnapping if he unlawfully and intentionally deprives Y of her
freedom of movement by locking her up in her own bathroom.
(c) X will be guilty of statutory abduction if he abducts a minor with the intention to marry
her.
Question 8
(a) If a moveable, corporeal thing is set on fire unlawfully and intentionally, it amounts to
arson.
(b) Every case of theft by false pretences involves fraud, but every case of fraud does not
involve theft by false pretences.
(c) It is required for the crime of fraud that there is a causal connection between the
misrepresentation and the prejudice.
Question 9
(a) For the purposes of the offence of unlawfully possessing drugs in contravention of
section 4 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, to “possess” a drug
means to possess the drug in the ordinary juridical sense of the word, or to keep, store
or have in custody or under control or supervision such drug.
(b) For possession of a dangerous or undesirable dependence-producing substance
(such as dagga, heroin or mandrax), a court may impose any fine it deems fit to
impose, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years, or both such fine and
such imprisonment.
(c) In the case of Solomon 1986 (3) SA 705 (A) the Appeal Court held that a person who
buys drugs for her own use does not commit an act amounting to dealing in drugs.
Question 10
(a) Proof of sexual intercourse is required for a conviction of bigamy.
(b) If X is charged with contravening section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957,
which prohibits sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years, consent by the
girl is not a defence; unless the girl led X to believe she was above the age of 16.
(c) The crime of extortion is completed only once the benefit is handed over.
7
(5) None of the statements are correct. [30]

QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.3.2. An indirect perpetrator is merely a certain
kind of perpetrator. He is not an accomplice.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The liability of both an accomplice and an accessory
after the fact is accessory in character. As to accomplice liability, see SG 2.2.4 (4),
and as to the liability of an accessory after the fact, see SG 2.3.3 (6).
Therefore option (1) is correct since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.2.6.3.
(b) This statement is incorrect. A putative crime is a crime which (objectively) does not
exist, but which X (subjectively) believes to exist. See SG 3.2.6.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.2.5.3
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct. Those participating in the disturbance of the peace must
act in concert; that is with a common purpose (Wilkens 1941 TPD 276, 289; Ndaba
1942 OPD 149; Kashion 1963 (1) SA 723 (R) 149). See SG 4.2.2.4.
(b) This statement is correct. You have to study the discussion of the crime of defeating
or obstructing the course of justice in Criminal Law. On page 339 under heading 6
of this book, it is clearly states that, for the crime to be committed no pending case
is necessary. See also point (8) in the summary appearing at the end of study unit 5
in the SG.
(c) This statement is incorrect. According to SG 5.1.3 (1), section 101(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Act assumes that an objectively false declaration is required; not a
subjective falsity as described in the statement.
Therefore option (3) is correct since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.1.4.
(b) This statement is correct. Falsely pretending to be an officer of the court is merely
one of many ways in which the crime of contempt of court can be committed. See
SG 5.4.5.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.4.9.2b. From the discussion under this
heading it is clear that it is only in cases where the editor or owner of a newspaper
is charged with the crime, that intention need not be proved but only negligence.
The rule does not apply to cases where an individual reporter is charged with the
crime. In such a case intention is required.
Therefore option (2) is correct since only statement (b) is correct.
QUESTION 5
(a) This statement is incorrect. The court held the opposite view. In the Williams case
the court held that it is possible for somebody to be an accomplice to murder. Read
Criminal Law 272 - 274 for Snyman’s opinion about the decision. Also see SG 2.2.5
for more information.
(b) This statement is correct. It was previously assumed that attempted assault was
impossible because every time there is an attempt to assault but the blow misses, a
belief is inspired in the victim that force is immediately to be applied to him / her.
Nowadays the conviction is that certain cases do exist where no fear is inspired with
the victim when there is an attempted assault. Examples of these are where the
victim is blind, deaf, unconscious or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. See SG
10.1.10.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 426 – 427.
8
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is correct. The court in the Van Zyl case interpreted the expression
"pointed at" in the act consisting of the pointing of an arm or object at a particular
person very narrowly as illustrated in the statement above. See SG 10.2.3.
(b) This statement is incorrect. Any person, who possesses a firearm without a licence
issued in terms of the Act for that firearm, commits an offence. See SG 6.5.2.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The property need not be on the victim’s person or in
his presence at the time of the theft. Read the discussion of the Ex parte Minister
van Justisie: in re S v Seekoei case in your SG 13.1.8.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. Spitting in someone’s face can be seen as both assault
and crimen iniuria, as seen in the Ndlangisa case. See SG 11.1.7.3.
(b) This statement is correct. It is not necessary for the kidnapper to remove the
kidnapped person from one place to another. Kidnapping can take place even
though there is no physical removal, as where Y is imprisoned where she happens
to be. See Criminal Law 464 and SG Summary (21).
(c) This statement is incorrect. Statutory abduction only takes place if the purpose of
the abduction is to have sexual relations with the minor. See SG 8.3.3, and there
under the point of difference between statutory and common-law abduction marked
(1). Also see SG 8.3.2.
Therefore option (4) is correct since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. If a movable thing is set on fire, it amounts to malicious
injury to property. See SG Chapter 15; Summary (6).
(b) This statement is correct. Theft by false pretences completely overlaps with the
crime of fraud. However, every case of fraud does not involve theft by false
pretences since X can commit fraud without obtaining or appropriating movable,
corporeal property; e.g. writing an exam in another’s place. See SG 14.3.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Since potential prejudice is sufficient, it is unnecessary
to require a causal connect between the misrepresentation and the prejudice. See
SG 14.1.4 (6).
QUESTION 9
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 6.4.2.3 b (ii).
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 6.4.2.7.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.4.3.3.
Therefore option (5) is correct since all the statements are correct.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG point (2) of the summary appearing at the end
of Study Unit 8 as well as Criminal Law 368 - 370.
(b) This statement is correct. According to the first special defence as set out in
section 56(2)(a), it is a valid defence for X to contend that the girl deceived him into
believing that she was 16 years or older at the time of the alleged commission of
the crime, and that X reasonably believed that the girl was 16 years or older. The
prosecution then bears the onus of proving that X was not deceived into believing
that the girl was 16 years or older. X also has an evidential onus to lay a factual
foundation for the existence of his belief. See SG 7.7.2.2.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.3.5, the last sentence.
Therefore option (4) is correct since only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
9
Question 1
(a) A person may only be convicted of the crime of murder if he/she committed the
crime with his/her own hands or body.
(b) The existence of a common purpose between two or more participants can only be
proved on the basis of an expressed or implied prior agreement to commit an
offence.
(c) If X, (a woman) ties Z (another woman) to a bed to make it possible for Y (a man) to
rape Z, and Y in actual fact rapes Z, X may be convicted as a perpetrator of the
crime of rape.
Question 2
(a) In Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A) the Appeal Court held that the commission of a socalled
putative crime is nevertheless punishable as attempt.
(b) In order to be convicted of an attempt to commit a specific crime, negligence is a
sufficient form of culpability.
(c) The act in the crime of conspiracy consists in the entering into an agreement to
commit a crime or crimes.
Question 3
(a) X ought to be convicted of incitement even if there is proof that the crime that he
incited Y to commit, has indeed been committed.
(b) The crime of common-law perjury can only be committed if the particular
statement is made orally.
(c) In statutory perjury the declaration must be made in the course of a legal
proceeding.
Question 4
(a) If X persuades Y, a witness in a trial, to give false evidence in court, X may be
convicted of the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
(b) Laying a false criminal charge at the police against another person does not
constitute the crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice (or an attempt
to commit it).
(c) Contempt of court in facie curiae is punished solely to protect the dignity of the
individual judicial officer who presides in the case.
10
Question 5
(a) X cannot be convicted of the offence of corruption created in section 3 of the
Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 if he/she had merely
agreed to accept gratification unlawfully in the future.
(b) If X is charged with corruption in terms of the abovementioned provision (Section 3
of Act 12 of 2004) and it appears at the trial that X had given gratification to Y in the
belief that Y will give him a passport, but that Y is in actual fact not entitled to issue
passports, this fact affords X a defence.
(c) A person used as a police trap does not act unlawfully if he/she agrees to receive
gratification from another person in order to trap that person into committing the
crime of corruption.
Question 6
(a) A person in a position of authority who knows or who ought reasonably to have
known that certain crimes have been committed in terms of the Prevention and
Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 commits a crime if he/she fails to
report this to a police officer.
(b) The benefit in extortion is limited to patrimonial benefit.
(c) The crime of extortion is completed the moment X intentionally exerts pressure on Y
to hand over a benefit to him, irrespective of whether X has received the benefit or
not.
Question 7
(a) If X exercises control over Mandrax tablets on behalf of Y but has no intention of
using the drugs personally, X cannot be convicted of the crime known as “use or
possession of drugs” in terms of section 4 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act
140 of 1992.
(b) In Prince v President, Cape Law Society 2002 (2) SA 794 (CC) the Constitutional
Court ruled that section 4 of Act 140 of 1992 (which criminalises the possession of
drugs) is unconstitutional because Rastafari who use and possess dagga only for
religious purposes, are also targeted in terms of this provision.
(c) Failing to report to the police that one is aware that somebody else possesses a
firearm illegally, amounts to a crime in terms of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.
Question 8
(a) If X, a 20-year-old man, indecently exposes himself in front of a 13-year-old girl, he
may be convicted of a contravention of section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of
1957.
(b) If X, a 20-year-old man, has sexual intercourse with a girl below the age of 12, he is
guilty of rape irrespective of whether he was under the impression that the girl had
consented to intercourse.
(c) If X, a 21-year-old man, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute with her
11
consent, he commits no offence.

Question 9
(a) If X takes Y, a minor girl, to his house, has sexual intercourse with her and
immediately thereafter takes her home, he may be guilty of the crime of commonlaw
abduction.
(b) Assault may be committed even if there is no physical contact with or impact on the
victim’s body.
(c) For a conviction of assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, it is
required that the victim had in actual fact suffered grievous bodily harm.
Question 10
(a) If X secretly watches his neighbour undressing, he may be convicted of criminal
defamation.
(b) The crime of crimen iniuria involves some measure of sexual impropriety.
(c) The crime of theft by false pretences completely overlaps with the crime of fraud.
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is incorrect. The definition of the crime of murder is the unlawful,
intentional causing of the death of another human being. It is not required that the
death be caused in a certain manner, for example, with the perpetrator’s own hands
or body. If X hires Y to murder Z and Y executes his request, X has in actual fact
caused Z’s death unlawfully and intentionally. Therefore, he complies with the
definition of the offence. See SG 1.2.3 and 1.3.2.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The existence of a common purpose between a certain
participant and the other members of a group can also be established by proving
that the participant actively associated him- or herself with the actions of the other
members of the group. See SG 1.3.4.2 and 1.3.4.5.
(c) This statement is incorrect. X cannot be convicted as a perpetrator because her

conduct does not comply with the definition of the crime of rape, namely the
unlawful, intentional sexual intercourse by a male with a female without her
consent. Therefore, only a male can be a perpetrator of this offence. [According to
the new Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of
2007, rape constitutes all forms of penetration, irrespective of gender]. X may,
however, be convicted as an accomplice to the crime of rape. Although her conduct
does not comply with the requirements set out in the definition of the crime, she
nevertheless furthered the commission of the crime performed by Y. See Criminal
Law 445; SG 1.2.2 and SG 1.2.3.
You should therefore have chosen option (4), since none of these statements are
correct.
12
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. The court in fact held the opposite, namely that the
commission of a putative crime cannot be punished as an attempt. See SG 3.2.6.3
and make sure that you understand that an attempt to commit a putative crime
relates to impossibility originating from X’s mistaken view of the law.
(b) This statement is incorrect. As pointed out in SG 3.2.8, negligent attempt is
notionally impossible – one cannot attempt (intend) to be negligent.
(c) This statement is correct. See 3.3 (4).
You should therefore have chosen option (2), since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.4(2).
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.1.3 (2).
(c) This statement is incorrect. In statutory perjury, which requires two conflicting
statements, neither of the statements needs to be made in the course of legal
proceedings. See Criminal Law 346.
You should therefore have chosen option (1), since none of these statements is
correct.
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 338.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 339.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The crime is aimed at protecting the proper
administration of justice. See SG 5.4.4.
You should have chosen option (2), since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 5
(a) This statement is incorrect. A mere agreement to accept gratification in the future
amounts to the completed crime of corruption. See SG 6.2.6.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.2.6.2 page 67 under subparagraph (5).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.2.6.5 under subparagraph (2).
You should have chosen option (5), since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 6
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.3.5 and take note of the fact that the
legislature extended the benefit required for extortion to include non-patrimonial
benefits.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The benefit must in fact be acquired by X before the
crime is completed. See SG 6.3.4. and 6.3.5
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is incorrect. Section 1 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of
1992 provides that the word “possess” includes “keeping, storing or having in
custody or under control or supervision”. The last-mentioned type of possession is
known as possessio naturalis. See SG 6.4.2.3 b i and ii.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The court in fact rejected this contention. See SG
6.4.2.3 b iv.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.5.4(1).
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.2.2.1 where it is pointed out that the
crime can only be committed if the act is committed with the young person. Mere
exposure of the body does not amount to this crime but may amount to crimen
iniuria.
13
(c) This statement is incorrect. X cannot rely on the special defence set out in section
14 (2) because he is already 21 years old. See SG 7.2.2.2 for the requirements of
the defence and note that all three elements must be present cumulatively.
You should have chosen option (4), since only statement (b) is correct.
QUESTION 9
(a) This statement is incorrect. The mere temporary removal of a girl from her
home in order to have sexual intercourse with her is not yet abduction. X must
intend to remove the girl from her home either permanently or for a substantial
period. See SG 8.3.1.7.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 10.1.7 where it is stated that the mere inspiring
of fear or a belief in another person that force is immediately to be applied to
him/her, also constitutes an act of assault.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Whether grievous bodily harm is in fact inflicted on the
victim is immaterial in determining liability. The crucial question is whether X had
the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm. See Criminal Law 435.
You should have chosen option (2), since only statement (b) is correct.
Question 1
(a) An indirect perpetrator is a person who makes use of somebody else to commit a
crime.
(b) Williams 1980 (1) SA 60 (A) is authority for the point of view that a person may be
convicted as an accomplice to the crime of murder.
(c) A “joiner in” is a person who actively associated himself with the common purpose of
others (to kill Y) at a time before the lethal wound had been inflicted upon Y.
(a) Only statement (a) is correct.
(b) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(c) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
(d) Only statement (b) is correct.
(e) All of these statements are correct.
Question 2
(a) For a conspiracy to be punishable, an agreement between at least two persons to
commit a crime is required.
(b) The purpose of the prohibition of incitement to commit a crime is to discourage people
from seeking to influence others to commit crimes.
(c) The crime of public violence can be committed by an individual acting alone.
Question 3
(a) The crime of common-law perjury is only committed if the false declaration is made in
the course of a legal proceeding.
(b) Laying a false criminal charge against another may amount to the crime of defeating
or obstructing the course of justice (or attempting to do so).
(c) Fair comment on the outcome of a case or on the administration of justice in general
does not constitute contempt of court.
14

Question 4
(a) Where an editor of a newspaper is charged with contempt of court on the ground of
having published information in his newspaper concerning a pending case which tends
to influence the outcome of the case, it is sufficient if the state proves culpability in the
form of negligence.
(b) Unfair criticism of the South African Police Services by a newspaper reporter may
amount to contempt of court.
(c) The reason for the existence of the crime of contempt of court is to protect the dignity
of an individual.
Question 5
(a) The crime of extortion can only be committed by a public official.
(b) The benefit in extortion is limited to patrimonial benefit.
(c) The crime of extortion is completed the moment X intentionally exerts pressure on Y
to hand over a benefit to him, irrespective of whether X has received the benefit or not.
Question 6
(a) If X obtains drugs for her own personal use, she cannot be convicted of the crime
known as “dealing in drugs”.
(b) Culpability in the form of intention is required for the offence of “dealing in drugs”.
(c) Corruption in its active form is completed only once X has given a benefit to another.
Question 7
(a) A husband may not be convicted of raping his wife.
(b) If X , a twenty-two-year-old male, exposes himself indecently in front of a 13-year-old
schoolgirl he may be convicted of a contravention of section 14 of the Sexual Offences
Act 23 of 1957.
(c) The crime of common-law abduction can only be committed by a male person.
Question 8
(a) In A 1993 (1) SA 600 (A) the court held that because urine is not a poisonous or
15
dangerous substance, X cannot be convicted of assault if he forces Y to drink his own

urine.
(b) The crime of indecent assault cannot be committed by a female.
(c) X may only be convicted of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm if the
victim had in fact been seriously injured.
Question 9
(a) A person cannot be convicted of theft in respect of property which belongs to him- or
herself.
(b) An intention to acquire a benefit is a requirement for the crime of theft.
(c) To listen to another person’s private telephone conversations by means of an
electronic bugging device amounts to the crime of criminal defamation.
Question 10
(a) It is not required for robbery that the property should necessarily be on the person of
the victim or in his presence when the violence takes place.
(b) The misrepresentation required for the crime of fraud may consist in an omission.
(c) If X breaks into a motor car with the intent to steal a car radio, he may be convicted
of the crime of housebreaking with intent to commit a crime.
Question 1
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the principles applicable if more
than one person is involved in the commission of a crime. These principles are discussed in
study units 1 and 2.
Statement (a) is correct. An indirect perpetrator does not commit the crime with his own body,
but makes use of somebody else to commit a crime. See the discussion in 1.3.2.
Statement (b) is correct. See the discussion in 2.2.5 and the decision in Williams as
discussed in your case book 185-191.
Statement (c) is incorrect. A so-called “joiner-in” associates himself with others’ intention to
kill at a stage when the victim has already been fatally wounded. See the discussion in 1.3.5.
Since only statements (a) and (b) are correct, you should have marked option (2).
Question 2
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the anticipatory crimes known as
conspiracy and incitement, as well as the crime of public violence. The anticipatory crimes
are discussed in study unit 3 and the crime of public violence, being a crime against the state,
is discussed in study unit 4.
Statement (a) is correct. The act in the crime of conspiracy consists of entering into an
agreement to commit a crime or crimes. One cannot conspire with oneself to commit a crime.
See the discussion in 3.3.
Statement (b) is correct. See the discussion in 3.4.
Statement (c) is incorrect. For the crime of public violence it is required that the public peace
16
and order be disturbed by a number of persons acting together. See the discussion in 4.2.2.
Question 3
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the contents of study unit 5, dealing
with crimes against the administration of justice.
Statement (a) is correct. See the discussion in 5.1.5.
Statement (b) is correct. See Criminal Law 339.
Statement (c) is correct. Fair comment excludes the unlawfulness of conduct. See the
discussion in 5.4.6.
Since all of these statements are correct, you should have marked option (1).
Question 4
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crime of contempt of court in the
form of commentary on pending cases, discussed in study unit 5.
Statement (a) is correct. The relevant decision is Harber 1988 (3) SA 396 (A). See the
discussion in 5.4.9.2.
Statement (b) is incorrect. The crime of contempt of court serves to promote the respect of
the public for the administration of justice by the courts. Criticism of the performance of a
mere administrative function, such as the actions of the South African Police Services, does
not amount to contempt of court. See the discussion in 5.4.8.
Statement (c) is incorrect. Contempt of court is punished not to protect an individual judicial
officer, for example a judge, but to protect the administration of justice. See the discussion
in 5.4.4.
Since only statement (a) is correct, you should have marked option (3).
Question 5
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crime of extortion which is a
crime against public welfare, discussed in study unit 6.
Statement (a) is incorrect. The crime can be committed by any person and not only an
official. See the discussion in 6.3.3.
Statement (b) is incorrect. The benefit in extortion may be any advantage or benefit. See the
discussion in 6.3.5.
Statement (c) is incorrect. The crime of extortion is only completed once the benefit has been
handed over to X. See the discussion in 6.3.6.
Since all of these statements are incorrect, you should have marked option (5).
Question 6
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crime of corruption and the drug
offences, discussed in study unit 6.
Statement (a) is correct. In creating the offence of dealing in drugs the legislature was
concerned with punishing those who make drugs available to users rather than punishing the
users themselves. See the discussion in 6.4.3.
Statement (b) is correct. See the discussion in 6.4.3.6.
Statement (c) is incorrect. Corruption in its active form is completed even if X has only
offered or agreed to give something to Y. See the discussion in 6.2.4.
Question 7
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the sexual offences discussed in
study unit 7, as well as the crime of abduction discussed in study unit 8.
Statement (a) is incorrect. Since 1993 a husband may be convicted of the rape of his wife.
See Criminal Law 447.
Statement (b) is incorrect. If X merely exposes his body to a young person, he does not
contravene this section although he may be charged with crimen iniuria. See the discussion
in 7.2.2.
Statement (c) is incorrect. The crime of common-law abduction can be committed by both
17
males and females. See the discussion in 8.3.1.

Since none of these statements is correct, you should have marked option (5).
Question 8
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crimes against bodily integrity
discussed in study unit 10.
Statement (a) is incorrect. This is an example in the case law of the application of indirect
force to the body of another person. See the discussion in 10.1.6.
Statement (b) is incorrect. The crime of indecent assault can be committed by either a male
of a female. See Criminal Law 438.
Statement (c) is incorrect. Whether grievous bodily harm has in fact been inflicted on the
victim is immaterial. The crucial issue is whether X had the intention of doing such harm.
See Criminal Law 435.
Since none of these statements is correct, you should have marked option (4).
Question 9
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crimes against property
discussed in study unit 12.
Statement (a) is incorrect. If X removes his own property which is in the lawful possession
of another (such as a pledgee) and appropriates it, he commits theft in the form of arrogation
of possession. See the discussion in 12.4.
Statement (b) is incorrect. If X appropriates someone else’s property and then hands it over
to a charitable institution he still commits theft. See the discussion in 12.6.4 and make sure
that you understand the concept “appropriation”.
Statement (c) is incorrect. To listen to another person’s telephone conversations amounts to
an infringement of his privacy. The crime of crimen iniuria protects a person’s dignity and
privacy. Defamation on the other hand, protects a person’s reputation. See the discussion
in 11.1 and Criminal Law 459 for a discussion of the crime of defamation.
Since none of these statements is correct you should have marked option (4).
Question 10
The statements in this question tested your knowledge of the crimes of robbery, fraud and
housebreaking with intent to commit a crime. These crimes are discussed in study units 13-
16.
Statement (a) is correct. See the discussion in 13.1.8.
Statement (b) is correct. See the discussion in 14.1.3.
Statement (c) is incorrect. The house, structure or premises in respect of which this crime
is committed is a structure which is or might ordinarily be used for human habitation or for the
storage or housing of property. See the discussion in 16.4.
Since only statements (a) and (b) are correct you should have marked option (4).
Unit 1- Participation 1 – Introduction and perpetrators
Define the doctrine of common purpose and discuss its application in the case of Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
(8)
Definition:
If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime
• act together in order to achieve that purpose,
• the acts of each of them in the execution of such a purpose are imputed to the others.
S v Safatsa:➢ Facts:
• Crowd of 100 people attacked Y.
• Stoned him, poured petrol over him, set him alight
1
Multiple chioce
Question 1
(a) If X hires Z to murder Y and Z murders Y, Z is the indirect perpetrator.
(b) If X buys dagga for his own use and Y acts merely as interpreter to the transaction, Y can
qualify as an accomplice.
(c) In Thebus 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC) it was held that the only way in which a common
purpose can be established is if there is proof of a prior agreement between two or more
participants.
Question 2
(a) The liability of an accessory after the fact, and an accomplice, is accessory in character.
(b) Being an accessory after the fact completely overlaps with the crime known as defeating or
obstructing the course of justice.
(c) A joiner-in is a person who actively associates herself with a common purpose to kill
another, (Y), before the lethal wound is inflicted on Y.
Question 3
(a) In Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A) the court held that the commission of a “putative” crime is
punishable as attempt.
(b) One reason that the law punishes anticipatory crimes can be found in the preventive theory
of punishment.
(c) Attempt may be committed even where X’s actions amount to the mere preparation for a
crime.
Question 4
(a) X and Z can be convicted of the crime of conspiracy only if there is proof that they were in
direct communication with each other.
(b) X can be convicted of incitement even if there is no proof that X had persuaded Z to commit
the crime.
(c) The crime of corruption is committed only if the person to whom the benefit is offered is a
public official.
Question 5
(a) The crime of public violence can only be committed by a number of persons acting with a
common purpose.
(b) In the crime of perjury at common law, X will not be guilty of this crime if he makes a false
Multiple Choice Q’s
Question 1
(a) According to the absolute theory, punishment is an end in itself, while according to the
relative theories, punishment is a means to a secondary end.
(b) The effectiveness of the theory of general deterrence depends only on the severity of the
punishment that is imposed on an offender.
(c) The “triad in Zinn” (the crime, the criminal and interests of society) enables a court to
consider all the theories of punishment when imposing sentence.
Question 2
(a) The correct sequence of investigation into the elements of criminal liability is conduct,
compliance with definitional elements, culpability and unlawfulness.
(b) Crimes are directed against public interests, while delicts are directed against private
interests.
(c) A statutory provision will best comply with the principle of legality if it contains a criminal
norm only.
Question 3
(a) In concluding that the extended definition of the crime of rape should not apply
retrospectively to the accused, the Constitutional Court in Masiya v DPP 2007 (2) SACR
435 (CC) respected the ius praevium rule.
(b) The rules embodying the principle of legality (ius acceptum, ius praevium, ius certum and
ius strictum) are applicable to both the crime and the punishment to be imposed.
(c) The Constitution contains a provision which expressly sets out the ius acceptum rule.
Question 4
(a) Conduct is voluntary if it is willed.
(b) Relative force excludes X’s ability to subject his bodily movements to his will or intellect.
(c) Sane automatism refers to cases in which X relies on the defence of mental illness.
Question 5
(a) Antecedent liability is a qualification of the rule that bodily movements performed in a
condition of automatism do not result in criminal liability.
(b) There is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal convictions of the community
require him to do so.
(c) In Leeuw 1975 (1) SA 439 (O) it was held that mere inconvenience in complying with a
legal duty did not constitute impossibility.
Question 6
(a) In formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain type of conduct
irrespective of what the result of the conduct is.
(b) An act is a conditio sine qua non for a situation if the act can be thought away without the
situation disappearing at the same time.
(c) In Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA), the court held that negligent medical treatment
would not be regarded as a novus actus interveniens in a situation where X deliberately
inflicted an intrinsically fatal wound.
Question 7
(a) Mental illness is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.
(b) X can rely on private defence if he defends himself against an attack by an animal.
(c) There is an irrebuttable presumption that a child who is below the age of seven lacks
criminal capacity.
Question 8
(a) The test for negligence is described as objective because it is not concerned with what X
actually thought or knew or foresaw, but only with what a reasonable person in the same
circumstances would have foreseen.
(b) The mere fact that somebody has committed an error of judgment does not necessarily
mean that he was negligent.
(c) If X is charged with culpable homicide, but the evidence brings to light that X acted
intentionally, he may still be convicted of culpable homicide provided his conduct did not
measure up to the standard of the reasonable person.
(4) Only statement (a) and (b) are correct.
Question 9
(a) The principle of contemporaneity means that there must have been culpability on the part
of
X at the very moment when the unlawful act was committed.
(b) Mistake relating to the chain of causation may exclude intention provided that the actual
chain of events differed materially from that envisaged by the perpetrator.
(c) A good motive always excludes intention.
Question 10
(a) Provocation can never serve as a ground for the mitigation of punishment.
(b) Strict liability is found in statutory crimes only.
(c) A corporate body such as a company cannot be convicted of a crime.
(5) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. [30]
QUESTION 1
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.2.5.2.
You should therefore have chosen option (3), since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. The correct sequence of investigation is conduct,
compliance with definitional elements, unlawfulness and culpability. See SG
1.7.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. A statutory provision will best comply with the principle
of legality if, apart from a criminal norm, it also contains a criminal sanction. See
SG 2.4.2.
You should therefore have chosen option (1), since only statement (b) is correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 2.5.
(b) This statement is correct. See definition in grey block in SG 2.3.2 and SG 2.8.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 2.4.
You should therefore have chosen option (2), since only statements (a) and (b) are
correct.
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.3.4.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.3.4.2a.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Insane automatism refers to cases in which X relies on
the defence of mental illness. See SG 3.3.4.2c ii.
You should therefore have chosen option (4), since none of the statements is correct.
QUESTION 5
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.3.4.2c iv.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 3.4.2(2).
You should therefore have chosen option (4), since all the statements are correct.
QUESTION 6
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 4.3.3.2.
You should therefore have chosen option (5), since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.2.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.3.2(1) (a)(iii).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 8.3 Summary point (6) and Criminal Law 178-
179.
You should therefore have chosen option (3), since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 8
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 11.5.2(6). The reasonable person is not a
perfectly programmed automaton who can never make a mistake. As an ordinary
flesh-and-blood human being he can, like any other person, commit an error of
judgment. Therefore, if it is proved that the reasonable person would have made the
same error of judgment as X made, in the same circumstances faced by X, then X
would not be negligent.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 11.7. In Ngubane 1985 (3) SA 677 (A), the
Appeal Court held that it was incorrect to assume that proof of intention necessarily
excludes a finding of negligence. The facts of a particular case may reveal that,
although X acted intentionally, he also acted negligently in that his conduct did
not measure up to the standard of the reasonable person.
You should therefore have chosen option (1), since all the statements are correct.
QUESTION 9
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.10.
You should therefore have chosen option (2), since only statements (a) and (b) are
correct.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. See Study Unit 13, Summary point (1) and Criminal
Law 240.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 14.2.1.
Question 1
(a) The retributive theory is the only theory of punishment which insists on there being
a direct proportion between the extent of the harm or damage caused and the
extent of the punishment.
(b) In the decision of Zinn the court held that, in determining an appropriate sentence,
the court must take into account only the interests of the society.
(c) The efficacy of the theory of general deterrence depends only upon the severity of
the punishment that might be imposed, and not upon the degree of probability that
the criminal will be caught and convicted.
Question 2
(a) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of an offence
means that the act is unlawful.
(b) A person may act in private defence in order to protect a third person even if there
is no family or protective relationship between himself and the third person.
(c) The judgement in Goliath is authority for the statement that one may kill an innocent
person in a case of a relative compulsion.
Question 3
(a) Putative private defence is not actual private defence and can therefore not exclude
X’s culpability.
(b) For X to succeed with a defence of private defence, his defensive act must have
been directed at an attack that has already been completed.
(c) The test to determine necessity is an objective test.
Question 4
(a) In Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) the court rejected the “specific intent theory” with
regard to intoxication.
(b) If X is charged with murder and the court finds that he was so intoxicated that he
lacked the intention at the time of the commission of the crime, he canot be
convicted of any crime.
(c) One of the requirements for a conviction of a contravention of section 1 of Act 1 of
1988 is that X should have lacked criminal capacity at the time of the commission of
the act.
Question 5
(a) The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if X has the ability to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his act.
(b) In Kavin 1978 (2) SA 731 (W) the defence of mental illness was reaised
successfully.
(c) The test for mental illness comprises both a pathological and biological test.
(5) Only statements (a) and (c) is correct.
Question 6
(a) The ius certum principle, which forms part of the principle of legality, implies that
nobody ought to be convicted of a crime, unless the kind of act performed by him
had been recognised by the law as a crime already at the time of its commission.
(b) Before one can assume that a provision in a statute had created a crime, it must be
clear that the provision contains a criminal norm.
(c) The ius strictum principle implies that a court is not authorised to extend an crime’s
field of application by analogy to the detriment of the accused.
Question 7
(a) Evidence of provocation may sometimes serve to confirm the existence of intention
to commit the crime with which X is charged.
(b) If X is charged with assualt with intent to do grievous bodily harm and it appears
from the evidence that he was provoked, the provocation may have the effect that X
will not be found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm but only of
common assault.
(c) In the decision of Ngubane the court held that it is wrong to assume that proof that
X acted intentionally excludes the possibility of a finding that he acted negligently.
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is correct. The retributive theory insists on a direct proportion
between the punishment and the extent of the harm imposed. All the other theories
of punishment see punishment as a means to an end. See SG 1.2.2.3.
(b) This statement is incorrect. In the decision in Zinn the court applied the “triad”
principle, which refers to the crime, the criminal and the interest of society in
determining an appropriate sentence. See SG. 1.2.7.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The efficacy of the theory of general deterrence does
not only depend on the severity of the punishment that might be imposed but also
on the probability that the perpetrator will be caught, convicted and will serve out
his/her sentence. See SG 1.2.5.2.
Students should therefore have chosen option (1), since only statement (a) is
correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. Even if an act corresponds with the definitional
elements of a crime it will not necessarily be unlawful. Various grounds of
justification, such as private defence, exist that will have the effect that an
ostensible unlawful act will not be unlawful. See SG 1.7.2 (3).
(b) This statement is correct. It is not a requirement that the attack be directed at the
person acting in private defence. One can act in defence of a person where no
particular family or protective relationship exists, a person can even act in defence
of an unknown third party. See SG 5.3.2.(1).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.2.2.(2).
Students should therefore have chosen option (4), since only statements (b) and (c)
are correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is incorrect. There are two reasons why this statement is incorrect:
(1) Putative private defence is an ostensible private defence. It is not a real
defence and only exists in the mind of X. Private defence excludes the
unlawfulness of an act and does not deal with culpability. Thus the
statement is wrong for stating that putative private defence is not an actual
private defence and it will therefore not exclude X’s culpability.
(2) A person that acts in terms of a putative private defence makes a subjective
mistake that can possibly lead to the exclusion of culpability.
See SG 5.3.4.
(b) This statement is incorrect. To succeed with private defence the defensive action
had to take place while the unlawful attack was imminent but not yet completed.
See SG 5.3.2 (3).
Students should have chosen option (2), since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 4
(b) This statement is incorrect. X can still be found guilty of a crime where negligence is
the required form of culpability. See SG 12.6.
Students should have chosen option (5), since only statements (a) and (c) are
correct.
QUESTION 5
(c) This statement is incorrect. The test for mental illness consists of a pathological and
a psychological test. See SG 8.2.3.
Students should have chosen option (3), since only statements (a) and (b) are
correct.
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. The ius certum principle requires that crimes ought not
be defined vaguely. See SG 2.6.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 2.7.
Students should have chosen option (4), since only statements (b) and (c) are
correct.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. See SG study-unit 13. In Criminal Law p 239 par (c)
Snyman refers to the case of Mokonto where the evidence of provocation clearly
provided the necessary proof of the existence of intent.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG study-unit 13. In Criminal Law p 238 par (b)
Snyman indicates that this is the approach that our courts follow, even though it
boils down to the use of “the specific intent” theory.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 11.7.
Students should have chosen option (5), since all the statements are correct.
Question 1
(b) The general criterion to determine whether there is a legal duty on someone to act
positively is the legal convictions of the community.
(c) The term “conduct” as used in criminal law does not include a voluntary human
omission.
Question 2
(a) In order to qualify as a novus actus interveniens, an occurrence must be unexpected,
abnormal, or unusual.
(c) In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain
type of conduct which causes a specific condition.
Question 3
(b) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of a crime means
that the act is unlawful.
(c) One of the requirements for the existence of direct intention (dolus directus) is that X
must have an evil motive to commit the relevant act or to cause the relevant result.
Question 4
(a) As guardians of good morals (custodes morum) our courts are obliged to punish
immoral and dangerous conduct.
(b) According to South African law, corporate bodies cannot be convicted of crimes.
(c) Because the possibility of death as a result of an assault is always reasonably
foreseeable and the reasonable person would have guarded against this possibility,
the person committing assault will always be convicted of culpable homicide if the
victim died.
Question 5
(b) If X encourages the severely depressed Y to commit suicide by giving her a loaded
pistol to shoot and kill herself, he can never be convicted of Y’s murder if she
voluntarily takes the pistol and kills herself.
Question 6
(b) The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if X has the ability to conduct
himself in accordance with his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Question 7
(a) An act in obedience to an unlawful order can only be justified if the order is not
manifestly unlawful.
(b) The reasonable person is a figment of the imagination of the bonus paterfamilias.
(c) In materially defined crimes requiring negligence it must be proved that X was
negligent in the causing of a result.
Question 8
(a) Putative private defence is a defence excluding culpability and not a defence excluding
the element of unlawfulness.
(b) In Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) the court approved the transferred intent approach
in respect of cases involving aberratio ictus.
(c) The test for dolus eventualis is whether a person ought to have foreseen the
possibility of a consequence ensuing.
Question 9
(a) The words “mental illness” in section 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
refer to a pathological disturbance of the mental faculties.
(b) In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA) the court held that the defence of non-pathological
criminal incapacity resulting from provocation or emotional stress amounts to the
defence of sane automatism.
(c) Children younger than 14 years are irrebuttably presumed to lack criminal capacity.
Question 10
(a) In terms of the ius strictum principle crimes should be defined clearly and not vaguely.
(b) Where doubt exists concerning the interpretation of a widely formulated criminal
provision in an act, the provision should be interpreted in favour of the accused.
(c) The preventive theory overlaps the deterrent and the reformative theories since all
these theories aim to prevent the commission of crimes.
(5) Only statement (c) is correct. [30]
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is incorrect. You must not confuse the term “voluntary” with the term
“willed”. In order to ascertain whether there indeed was an act, you only need to
determine whether the act was voluntary. See SG 3.3.4.1.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG. 3.4.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The term “conduct” when used in criminal law can include
a positive act as well as an omission. See SG 3.4.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 4.3.3.4(c).
(b) This statement is incorrect. In order to exclude intention the mistake need only be
material. It is not required that the mistake be reasonable. See SG 10.2 as well as
10.3
(c) This statement is incorrect. In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional
elements prohibit a certain type of act, irrespective of the consequences thereof. See
SG 4.3.1.
You should therefore have chosen option (1), since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct See SG 3.3.4.2 (c) (iv).
(b) This statement is incorrect See SG 5.2.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The reason or motive behind the commission of a criminal
act is irrelevant for determining the existence of intention in any of its forms. See SG
9.10.
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. Our courts are not the guardians of morals. If there is a
need to make conduct which may be viewed as immoral or dangerous to society
punishable, it is the task of the legislature to declare such conduct punishable, if it
wishes to do so. A court has no legislative powers. See SG 2.4.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 14.2.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Death as a result of an assault is not always reasonably
foreseeable, and it is therefore incorrect to assume that the reasonable person will
always foresee that even a minor assault can cause a person’s death. See SG
11.5.3(4).
You should have chosen option (2), since none of the statements are correct.
QUESTION 5
(b) This statement is incorrect. See the Grotjohn decision discussed in SG 4.3.7.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The “triad in Zinn”. refers to the crime, the criminal and the
interests of society. See SG 1.2.7.
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. Unlike private defence, which always stems from an
unlawful attack, necessity may also stem from chance circumstances such as natural
occurrences. See SG 6.2.2
(b) This statement is incorrect. The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if
X has the mental ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. See SG 7.3.3.
(c) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 247.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. The test for determining whether this act is justifiable is
whether the reasonable person in the position of the subordinate would have known
that the order was unlawful. If the answer to this question is “yes”, then the order
should be regarded as “manifestly unlawful”. See also section 199(6) of the
Constitution discussed in Criminal Law 134.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The reasonable person is a fictitious person whom the law
creates in order to personify the objective standard of reasonableness that the law
sets in order to determine negligence. See SG 11.5.2.
You should have chosen option (4), since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is correct. Putative private defence is a mistake relating to the
existence of a ground of justification. X thinks that she is acting in private defence
while she is in fact acting unlawfully. Because X lacks knowledge of unlawfulness,
he/she does not have intention. SG 10.6 and 10.6.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. In the case of Mtshiza the court approved the concrete
culpability approach. See SG 10.5.4 and make sure that you understand the difference
between these two approaches.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The minimum requirement for the existence of dolus
eventualis is an actual contemplation by X of the possible consequences in question.
See SG 9.4.3.
QUESTION 9
(c) This statement is incorrect. There exists a rebuttable presumption that a child between
the ages of seven and fourteen years lacks criminal capacity. See Criminal Law 176-
177.
You should have chosen option (3), since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. The ius certum principle requires that crimes be defined
clearly. The ius strictum principle requires that a legal provision be interpreted strictly.
See SG 2.7.
You should have chosen option (4), since statements (b) and (c) are correct.
SECTION A
Question 1
(b) The general criterion to determine whether there is a legal duty on someone to act
positively is the legal convictions of the community.
(c) The term “conduct” as used in criminal law does not include a voluntary human
omission.
Question 2
(a) In order to qualify as a novus actus interveniens, an occurrence must be unexpected,
abnormal, or unusual.
(c) In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain
type of conduct which causes a specific condition.
Question 3
(b) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of a crime means
that the act is unlawful.
must have an evil motive to commit the relevant act or to cause the relevant result.
Question 4
(a) As guardians of good morals (custodes morum) our courts are obliged to punish
immoral and dangerous conduct.
(b) According to South African law, corporate bodies cannot be convicted of crimes.
(c) Because the possibility of death as a result of an assault is always reasonably
foreseeable and the reasonable person would have guarded against this possibility,
the person committing assault will always be convicted of culpable homicide if the
victim died.
Question 5
(b) If X encourages the severely depressed Y to commit suicide by giving her a loaded
pistol to shoot and kill herself, he can never be convicted of Y’s murder if she
voluntarily takes the pistol and kills herself.
Question 6
(b) The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if X has the ability to conduct
himself in accordance with his appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Question 7
(a) An act in obedience to an unlawful order can only be justified if the order is not
manifestly unlawful.
(b) The reasonable person is a figment of the imagination of the bonus paterfamilias.
(c) In materially defined crimes requiring negligence it must be proved that X was
negligent in the causing of a result.
Question 8
(a) Putative private defence is a defence excluding culpability and not a defence excluding
the element of unlawfulness.
(b) In Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) the court approved the transferred intent approach
in respect of cases involving aberratio ictus.
(c) The test for dolus eventualis is whether a person ought to have foreseen the
possibility of a consequence ensuing.
Question 9
(a) The words “mental illness” in section 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
refer to a pathological disturbance of the mental faculties.
(b) In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA) the court held that the defence of non-pathological
criminal incapacity resulting from emotional stress amounts to the
defence of sane automatism.
(c) Children younger than 14 years are irrebuttably presumed to lack criminal capacity.
Question 10
(a) In terms of the ius strictum principle crimes should be defined clearly and not vaguely.
(b) Where doubt exists concerning the interpretation of a widely formulated criminal
provision in an act, the provision should be interpreted in favour of the accused.
(c) The preventive theory overlaps the deterrent and the reformative theories since all
these theories aim to prevent the commission of crimes.
(5) Only statement (c) is correct. [30]
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is incorrect. You must not confuse the term “voluntary” with the term
“willed”. In order to ascertain whether there indeed was an act, you only need to
determine whether the act was voluntary. See SG 3.3.4.1.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG. 3.4.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The term “conduct” when used in criminal law can include
a positive act as well as an omission. See SG 3.4.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 4.3.3.4(c).
(b) This statement is incorrect. In order to exclude intention the mistake need only be
material. It is not required that the mistake be reasonable. See SG 10.2 as well as
10.3
(c) This statement is incorrect. In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional
elements prohibit a certain type of act, irrespective of the consequences thereof. See
SG 4.3.1.
You should therefore have chosen option (1), since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct See SG 3.3.4.2 (c) (iv).
(b) This statement is incorrect See SG 5.2.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The reason or motive behind the commission of a criminal
act is irrelevant for determining the existence of intention in any of its forms. See SG
9.10.
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. Our courts are not the guardians of morals. If there is a
need to make conduct which may be viewed as immoral or dangerous to society
punishable, it is the task of the legislature to declare such conduct punishable, if it
wishes to do so. A court has no legislative powers. See SG 2.4.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 14.2.1.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Death as a result of an assault is not always reasonably
foreseeable, and it is therefore incorrect to assume that the reasonable person will
always foresee that even a minor assault can cause a person’s death. See SG
11.5.3(4).
You should have chosen option (2), since none of the statements are correct.
QUESTION 5
(b) This statement is incorrect. See the Grotjohn decision discussed in SG 4.3.7.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The “triad in Zinn”. refers to the crime, the criminal and the
interests of society. See SG 1.2.7.
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. Unlike private defence, which always stems from an
unlawful attack, necessity may also stem from chance circumstances such as natural
occurrences. See SG 6.2.2
(b) This statement is incorrect. The cognitive component of criminal capacity is present if
X has the mental ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. See SG 7.3.3.
(c) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 247.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. The test for determining whether this act is justifiable is
whether the reasonable person in the position of the subordinate would have known
that the order was unlawful. If the answer to this question is “yes”, then the order
should be regarded as “manifestly unlawful”. See also section 199(6) of the
Constitution discussed in Criminal Law 134.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The reasonable person is a fictitious person whom the law
creates in order to personify the objective standard of reasonableness that the law
sets in order to determine negligence. See SG 11.5.2.
You should have chosen option (4), since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is correct. Putative private defence is a mistake relating to the
existence of a ground of justification. X thinks that she is acting in private defence
while she is in fact acting unlawfully. Because X lacks knowledge of unlawfulness,
he/she does not have intention. SG 10.6 and 10.6.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. In the case of Mtshiza the court approved the concrete
culpability approach. See SG 10.5.4 and make sure that you understand the difference
between these two approaches.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The minimum requirement for the existence of dolus
eventualis is an actual contemplation by X of the possible consequences in question.
QUESTION 9
(c) This statement is incorrect. There exists a rebuttable presumption that a child between
the ages of seven and fourteen years lacks criminal capacity.
You should have chosen option (3), since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. The ius certum principle requires that crimes be defined
clearly. The ius strictum principle requires that a legal provision be interpreted strictly.
See SG 2.7.
You should have chosen option (4), since statements (b) and (c) are correct.
Question 1
(a) In the decision of Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) the court held that, in determining an
appropriate sentence, the courts must take into consideration only the interests of
society.
(b) According to the relative theories of punishment, punishment is a means to a
secondary end or purpose for example, prevention, deterrence or reformation.
(c) The confiscation of a driver’s licence is an example of punishment which strives to
prevent crime.
Question 2
(a) The investigation into the presence of the four elements of liability follows a certain
sequence. This sequence is: (i) act (ii) culpability (iii) unlawfulness (iv) compliance with
the definitional elements of the crime.
(b) The definitional elements of a crime is the concise definition of the type of conduct and
the circumstances in which that conduct must take place in order to constitute an
offence.
(c) The state prosecutes a perpetrator of crime irrespective of the desires of a complainant.
Question 3
(a) Conduct is voluntary if X is capable of subjecting his bodily movements to his will or
intellect.
(b) Sane automatism is a defence which excludes the voluntariness of conduct.
(c) There is a legal duty upon a person to act positively if the legal convictions of the
community require him/her to do so.
Question 4
(a) An act which complies with the definitional elements of a crime is necessarily also
unlawful.
(b) The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996 provides that no member
of any security service may obey a manifestly unlawful order.
(c) Physical harm inflicted on a person with his/her consent is never regarded by the
criminal law as unlawful conduct.
Question 5
(a) For a plea of necessity to succeed, it is immaterial whether the situation of emergency
is the result of human action (eg coercion) or chance circumstances (eg famine or a
flood).
(b) Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) is authority for the statement that the killing of an innocent
person in a situation of necessity may in certain circumstances constitute a complete
defence.
(c) According to the South African Constitution, a husband who imposes corporal
punishment on his wife, may successfully rely on the ground of justification known as “the
right of chastisement”.
Question 6
(a) Youth is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.
(b) The term “criminal capacity” refers to the mental ability which a person must have in
order to be liable for a crime.
(c) The conative component of criminal capacity refers to X’s ability to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his/her act or omission.
Question 7
(a) Mental illness is a defence which may exclude criminal capacity.
(b) In Kavin 1978 (2) SA 731 (W) X’s defence that he suffered from a mental illness was
accepted on the ground that he had acted on an irresistible impulse.
(c) For the defence of mental illness to succeed, it must be proved that the illness is of a
permanent nature.
Question 8
(a) If the accused relies on the defence of mental illness, the court must decide upon the
issue with the aid of expert evidence given by psychiatrists.
(b) The cognitive leg of the test for criminal capacity refers to persons’s ability to act in
accordance with his/her insight into right or wrong.
(c) The defence of mental illness is also referred to as the defence of non-pathological
criminal incapacity.
Question 9
(a) When determining whether the accused had intention, the question is whether he/she
should have foreseen the result of his conduct.
(b) The motive of the accused for committing the crime is essential in determining whether
he/she had intention.
(c) Mistake relating to the chain of causation may exclude intention provided that the actual
chain of events differed materially from that envisaged by the perpetrator.
Question 10
(a) In Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) the court favoured the concrete culpability approach in
aberratio ictus situations.
(b) Provocation can never serve as a ground for the mitigation of punishment.
(c) Strict liability is found in statutory crimes only.
Question 1
(a) This statement is incorrect. In Zinn, the Appellate Division held that, apart from the
interests of the community, the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of
the offender should also be taken into account. See SG 1.2.7.
(b) Correct. See SG 1.2.1.
(c) Correct. See Criminal Law p 18.
Option (3) is therefore correct.
Question 2
(a) Incorrect. The sequence is: (i) act, (ii) compliance with the definitional elements of the
crime, (iii) unlawfulness and (iv) culpability. See SG 1.7.2.
(c) Correct. See Criminal Law pp 5-7.
Question 3
(a) Correct. See SG 3.3.3.
(b) Correct. See SG 3.3.3.2 (c).
10
(c) Correct. See SG 3.4.1. This principle was laid down by the court in Minister van Polisie
v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A).
Question 4
(a) Incorrect. See SG 5.2.
(b) Correct. See Criminal Law pp 132-135.
(c) Incorrect. The infliction of bodily harm cannot be justified by consent if the act was in
conflict with the boni mores. Such an act is still unlawful. See SG 6.3.3.
Question 5
(a) Correct. See 6.2.2 (1). Make sure that you understand the difference between private
defence and necessity.
(b) Correct. See SG 6.2.6 and Case Book p 93.
(c) Incorrect. There is no such provision in the Constitution. As regards the ground of
justificiation known as “disciplinary chastisement”, see Criminal Law pp 135-137.
Question 6
(a) Incorrect. Youth (or immature age) is considered in the context of the element of
culpability and it may exclude criminal capacity. See Criminal Law pp 176-179.
(c) Incorrect. The cognitive component of criminal capacity refers to a person’s ability to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his/her act or omission. The conative component, on the
other hand, refers to the ability of a person to control his/her behaviour in accordance
with his/her insights. See SG 7.3.3 and make sure that you understand the difference
between these two components of the concept of “criminal capacity”.
Question 7
(a) Correct. Criminal capacity may be excluded If X suffered from a mental illness at the
time of the act. See SG 8.2.
(b) Incorrect. In Kavin, X’s defence of mental illness was upheld because he had lacked
criminal capacity at the time of the act as a result of gradual disintegration of his
personality through reactive depression. See SG 8.2.5 Case Book p 112.
(c) Incorrect. It can be of a permanent as well as a temporary nature as long as it existed
at the time of the act. See SG 8.2.4 (4).
Question 8
(a) Correct. See SG 8.2.4 (2).
(b) Correct. See again the commentary on question 6 (c) above.
(c) Incorrect. The word “mental illness” refers to a pathological (sick) disturbance of X’s
mental faculties. See SG 8.2.4 and 7.4.1.
Question 9
(a) Incorrect. Intention requires that the accused had, in actual fact, foreseen the result of
his/her conduct. Whether he/she should have foreseen the result is relevant to
determining negligence. See SG 9.5.
(b) Incorrect. In determining whether X acted with intention, the motive behind the act is
immaterial. See SG 9.10.
(c) Correct. See SG 10.4 and the decision in Goosen discussed in Case Book p 141.
Question 10
(a) Correct. See the discussion of the decision in Case Book p 160 as well as SG 10.5.2,
10.5.3 and 10.5.4.
(b) Incorrect. See Criminal Law p 239.
(c) Correct. See SG 14.1.2.
Question 1
(a) A crime is ordinarily injurious to public interests (the interests of the state or the
community) whereas a delict is ordinarily injurious only to private or individual interests.
(b) The state prosecutes a perpetrator of crime irrespective of the desires of a complainant.
(c) The forfeiture of a driver’s licence is an example of punishment which strives to prevent
crime.
Question 2
(a) A criminal norm a provision in an Act which makes it clear that certain conduct
constitutes a crime.
(b) A provision in an Act which merely provides that “No person shall drink in a public place”
creates a criminal norm.
(c) A criminal sanction is a provision in an Act which stipulates what punishment a court
must impose after it has convicted a person of that crime.
Question 3
(a) Conduct is voluntary if X is capable of subjecting his bodily movements to his will or
intellect.
(b) Absolute force is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.
(c) Sane automatism excludes the voluntariness of conduct.
4
Question 4
(a) “Acts” committed whilst sleepwalking or while a person is suffering from an epileptic fit,
are examples of insane automatism.
(b) In cases of sane automatism, the onus is on the state to prove that the act was
voluntary.
(c) In order to succeed with a defence of impossibility, it must be subjectively impossible for
X to comply with the relevant legal provision.
Question 5
(a) An act which complies with the definitional elements of an offence is necessarily
unlawful.
of a security service may obey a manifestly unlawful order.
(c) Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) is authority for the statement that the killing of an innocent
defence.
Question 6
(a) There is an irrebuttable presumption that a child between the ages of seven and fourteen
years lacks criminal capacity.
(b) Mental illness is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.
(c) In Kavin 1978 (2) SA 731 (W) X’s defence that he suffered from a mental illness was
accepted on the ground that he had acted on an irresistible impulse.
Question 7
(a) The principle of contemporaneity means that there must have been culpability on the
part of X at the very moment when the unlawful act was committed.
(b) A mistake must be reasonable to exclude intention.
(c) If X thinks that she is shooting person Y while she is in fact shooting person Z, her
mistake about the identity of the person affords her a valid defence on a charge of
murder.
Question 8
(a) Aberratio ictus is a form of mistake.
(b) The concrete culpability approach as applied in aberratio ictus situations means that the
court must determine whether X had intention to kill the actual victim.
(c) The transferred culpability approach amounts to an application of the doctrine of versari
in re illicita.
Question 9
(a) The test for negligence is described as objective because it is not concerned with what
X actually thought or knew or foresaw, but only with what a reasonable person in the
same circumstances would have foreseen.
(b) Reasonable foreseeability means that the possibility of the particular circumstance
existing, or the particular result ensuing, should be investigated and not the likelihood
thereof.
(c) The mere fact that somebody has committed an error of judgment does not necessarily
mean that he was negligent.
Question 10
(a) Because the law expect people to control themselves and not to act impulsively,
provocation may never operate as a ground for the mitigation of punishment .
(b) Vicarious liability is possible only in statutory crimes.
(c) A corporate body such as a company cannot be convicted of a crime.
Question 1
(a) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law p 6.
(b) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law p 6.
9 CRW101-U/102
Question 2
(a) This statement is correct. Make sure that you understand the difference between a
criminal norm and a mere legal norm. See SG 2.4.2.
(b) This statement is incorrect. Only a legal norm is created, because it is not stated that the
prohibited conduct constitutes an offence. See SG 2.4.2.
Question 3
(b) This statement is incorrect. Absolute force excludes the voluntary nature of an act.
Relative force, on the other hand, may exclude the unlawfulness of conduct. Make sure
that you understand the difference between the defences of absolute and relative force.
See SG 3.3.3.2a and 6.2.4.
Question 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. These are examples of sane automatism. Insane
automatism refers to involuntary conduct as a result of mental illness (“insanity”). See
SG 3.3.3.2 and, in particular, the discussion of the cases of Dhlamini; Du Plessis and
Mkhize.
(c) This statement is incorrect. It must be objectively impossible for X to comply with the
relevant legal provision. This means that it must have been impossible for any person in
X’s position to comply with the law. See SG 3.4.2.
Question 5
(a) This statement is incorrect. Conduct which complies with the definitional elements of an
offence may nevertheless be lawful if it was performed in accordance with the boni
mores or legal convictions of society. An example would be killing another person in selfdefence.
See SG 5.2.
10
(b) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law p 134.
Question 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. A child of this age is rebuttably presumed to lack criminal
capacity.This means that he or she may be convicted of a crime, provided the state
rebuts the presumption of criminal incapacity beyond reasonable doubt. See Criminal
Law p 177.
(b) This statement is incorrect. Mental illness is a defence which may exclude culpability
(a blameworthy state of mind) and not unlawfulness. See SG 7.2.2 and 8.2.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The defence of mental illness was accepted in Kavin even
though he did not act on an irresistible impulse, but according to a definite plan. See SG
8.2.5.
Question 7
(b) This statement is incorrect. The test for intention is subjective, which means that it must
be determined what X’s state of mind and conception of the relevant events and
circumstances were. See SG 10.2.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Murder is the unlawful intentional causing of the death of
another person. The object of the murder is a human being. Mistake about the identity
of the human being is not a defence. See SG 10.3.
Question 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. Aberratio ictus means the going astray or missing of the
blow. It is a description of a factual situation and not a form of mistake. See SG 10.5
and make sure that you understand the difference between aberratio ictus situations and
the defence of mistake.
Question 9
Question 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law p 239.
(b) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 247.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 250.
Question 1
(a) The absolute theory of punishment is retrospective in nature, as one looks into the past
at the crime which has already been committed.
(b) The efficacy of the theory of punishment known as general deterrence depends directly
upon the severity of the punishment imposed upon the criminal.
(c) The reformative theory of punishment implies that there should be a precise balance
between the damage caused by the commission of the crime and the period of
imprisonment imposed upon the accused.
Question 2
(a) The ius certum principle, which forms part of the principle of legality, implies that nobody
ought to be convicted of a crime, unless the kind of act performed by him had been
recognised by the law as a crime already at the time of its commission.
(b) Before one can assume that a provision in an act had created a crime, it must be clear
that the provision contains a criminal norm.
(c) The ius strictum principle implies inter alia that a court is not authorised to extend a
crime's field of application by means of analogy to the detriment of the accused.
5. All the statements are correct.
Question 3
(a) Conduct can only be voluntary if it is intentional.
(b) The decision in Goliath deals with a situation in which there was absolute force.
(c) A legal duty to act positively can only arise by virtue of a statute, and not in terms of the
provisions of common law.
5. All these statements are incorrect.
Question 4
(a) The mere fact that an act corresponds to the definitional elements of a crime means that
the act is unlawful.
(b) A person may act in private defence to protect a third person even if there is no family
or protective relationship between himself and the third person.
(c) The principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles can exclude the unlawfulness
of the act.
Question 5
(a) X acts out of necessity if he shoots and kills a vicious dog which is about to attack him.
(b) If X acts in putative private defence his conduct is not unlawful.
(c) According to our present law parents are entitled to inflict moderate and reasonable
corporal punishment on their children to maintain order and discipline.
Question 6
(a) Criminal capacity relates to a person's mental abilities, whereas culpability relates to the
presence or absence of a blameworthy state of mind.
(b) In the decision of Kavin the accused's defence that he lacked criminal capacity as a
result of mental illness was rejected by the court on the ground that he acted slowly and
deliberately rather than on an irresistible impulse.
(c) The conative element of criminal capacity deals with X's self-control and is present if X
has the ability to conduct himself in accordance with his appreciation of the wrongfulness
of his act.
3. All these statements are correct.
Question 7
(a) The cognitive component of intention means that X must have knowledge of the act, the
circumstances set out in the definitional elements and the culpability requirement.
(b) In order to prove that X acted with dolus eventualis, it is sufficient for the prosecution to
prove that X ought to have foreseen the possibility of the forbidden consequence
ensuing.
must have the motive to commit the relevant act or to cause the relevant result.
4. Not one of the statements is correct.
Question 8
(a) Evidence of provocation may sometimes serve to confirm the existence of intention to
commit the crime with which X is charged.
(b) If X is charged with assault to do grievous bodily harm and it appears from the evidence
that he was provoked, the provocation may have the effect that X will not be found guilty
of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm but of common assault only.
(c) In the decision of Ngubane the court held that it is wrong to assume that proof that X
acted intentionally excludes the possibility of a finding that he acted negligently.
Question 9
(a) Vicarious liability is not limited to statutory crimes, but may be found also in common-law
crimes.
(b) Involuntarily intoxication may afford an accused a complete defence.
(c) One of the findings of the court in the decision of Chretien was that the specific intent
theory in connection with intoxication must be rejected.
Question 10
(a) Because culpability is required for all common-law crimes, strict liability is found in
statutory crimes only.
(b) In South Africa corporate bodies (for instance, companies) cannot be convicted of
crimes.
(c) If the legislature, in creating an offence, is silent on the question whether culpability is a
requirement for the offence, a court is still free to interpret the provision creating the
offence in such a way that culpability is indeed required for a conviction.
Answer
Question 1
Therefore, option (1) is correct.
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Therefore, option 5 is correct.
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8
Question 9
Question 10
Question 1
(a) According to the theory of general deterrence the purpose of punishment is to deter
society as a whole from committing crime.
(b) The courts do not favour one theory of punishment to the exclusion of the others but
apply a combination of theories when passing sentence.
(c) An investigation into the presence of the four requirements for a crime, namely
conduct, which complies with the definitional elements of the crime and which is
unlawful and culpable, need not follow a certain sequence.
Question 2
(a) In cases of sane automatism the onus is on the state to prove that the act was
voluntary, but in cases of insane automatism the onus is on the accused to prove that
he suffered from a mental illness.
(b) An omission to act is punishable whenever there is a moral duty on X to act positively.
(c) X cannot succeed with a defence of impossibility if he himself is responsible for the
situation of impossibility.
Question 3
(a) Since putative private defence is not real private defence, it cannot exclude X’s
culpability.
(b) For X to succeed with a defence of private defence, his defensive act must have been
directed against an attack that has already been completed.
(c) The test to determine whether X’s act fell within the limits of the ground of justification
known as necessity is an objective test.
Question 4
(a) For a plea of necessity to succeed, it is immaterial whether the situation is the result of
human action (eg coercion) or chance circumstances (eg famine or a flood).
(b) Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) is authority for the statement that the killing of an innocent
defence.
(c) According to the South African Constitution, a husband who imposes corporal
punishment on his wife, may successfully rely on the ground of justification known as
“the right of chastisement”.
Question 5
(a) The courts regard X’s act as the legal cause of Y’s death only if it is the most operative condition
for Y’s death.
(b) In Mokgethi 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) the Appeal Court held that the wounding of the deceased had
been the factual and the legal cause of his death.
(c) Consent by the victim can, in certain circumstances, operate as a defence against a charge of
murder.
Question 1
(a) In the decision of Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) the court held that, in determining an
appropriate sentence, the courts must take into consideration only the interests of
society.
(b) According to the relative theories of punishment, punishment is a means to a
secondary end or purpose for example, prevention, deterrence or reformation.
(c) The confiscation of a driver’s licence is an example of punishment which strives to
prevent crime.
Question 2
(a) According to the ius acceptum principle, courts may create new crimes.
(b) A legal norm is a provision in an act which makes it clear that certain conduct
constitutes a crime.
(c) The Constitution of South Africa contains no provision in respect of the nulla poena
sine lege rule.
Question 3
(a) Rape is an example of a materially defined crime.
(b) In terms of the theory of adequate causation an act is a legal cause of a situation if,
according to human experience, in the normal course of events, the act has the
tendency to bring about that kind of situation.
(c) Unlawfulness is usually determined with reference to X’s state of mind.
(5) None of the statements are correct.
Question 4
(a) The prohibition on corporal punishment in schools applies equally to parents in relation
to their children.
(b) When applying the criterion of policy considerations to determine legal causation, a
court may consider any one of the specific theories of legal causation.
(c) The voluntary nature of an act is excluded by relative force.
Question 5
(a) An act which complies with the definitional elements of a crime is necessarily also
unlawful.
of any security service may obey a manifestly unlawful order.
(c) Physical harm inflicted on a person with his/her consent is never regarded by the
criminal law as unlawful conduct.
Unit 1 - Intro
Distinguish between a crime and a delict.(5)
Crime Delict
1 Directed against public interests. Directed against private interests.
2 Form part of public law. Form part of private law.
3 State prosecutes. Private party institutes action.
4 Result in the imposition of punishment by the Result in the guilty party being ordered to pay
state. damages to the injured party.
5 State prosecutes perpetrator irrespective of the Injured party can choose whether he wishes to
desires of private individual. claim damages or not.
6 Trial governed by rules of criminal procedure. Trial governed by rules of civil procedure.
(a) Name the four requirements for criminal liability in the correct sequence. (5)
1. Conduct - -Conduct can lead to liability only if it is voluntary ie. capable of subjecting his
bodily or muscular movements to his will or intellect.
- An omission can lead to liability only if the law imposed a duty on X to act positively and he
failed to do so.
2. which complies with the definitional elements of the crime - Definitional elements is the
concise definition of the type of conduct and the circumstances in which that conduct must
take place in order to constitute an offence
3. which is unlawful - Conduct that is contrary to the totality of the rules of law, including rules
which in certain circumstances allow a person to commit an act which is contrary to the letter
of legal prohibition or norm.
4. and culpable - ie. grounds upon which X may personally be blamed.

CRW2601 Exam Answers 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CRW2601 Exam Answers 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRW2601 Exam Answers 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

b) The

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

(5) None of these statements is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

(4) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

(5) All of these statements are correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (c) is correct.

(3) Only statement (b) is correct.

(4) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

(5) All these statements are correct.

(2) Only statement (c) is correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) All these statements are correct.

(5) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (c) is correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) All these statements are correct.

(5) Only statements (a) and (c) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (c) is correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

(5) All the statements are correct.

(1) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

(3) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct

(5) All these statements are correct.

Ius acceptum rule:

Ius praevium rule:

Ius certum rule:

-­‐ Crimes ought not to be formulated vaguely.

Ius strictum rule:

Nulla poena sine lege rule:

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) None of the statements is correct.

(5) Only statement (c) is correct

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) Only statement (c) is correct.

(5) None of these statements is correct

(1) Only statement (c) is correct.

(2) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

(3) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

(5) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (c) is correct.

(2) None of the statements is correct.

(3) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

-‐ Crimes ought not to be formulated vaguely.

a) annual income-‐tax return.