CRW2601 Exam Questions and Answers
November 2015
Section A
Question 1
Your
1.1 (a) The four requirements of criminal text
liability arehere 1 conduct (act or
the following
omission), compliance with the definitional elements of the offence, unlawfulness and
culpability.
(b) In terms of the ius acceptum principle a court may only find a person guilty of an
offence if the kind of act performed is recognized as a crime at the time of its
commission.
(c) The ius praevium principle requires that a court may only find a person guilty of an
offence if the kind of act performed was recognized as a crime at the time of its
commission.
All statements are correct.
1.2 (a) A South African court is allowed to create new crimes if the court is of the
opinion that the particular conduct is against the good morals of society.
(b) A provision which reads as follows “Nobody may criticise the government and
anybody who contravenes this provision is guilty of a crime” complies with the ius
certum rule of the principle of legality.
(c) In Masiya v Director of Public Prosecutions 2007 (2) SACR 435 (CC) the
Constitutional Court extended the definition of the crime of rape in order to give effect
to the rights of women to dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy.
Only statement (c) is correct
1.3 (a) The rules of the principles of legality need not be complied with in the context of
punishment.
(b) X performs a voluntary act if he can subject his bodily movements to his will or
intellect.
(c) If a person acted negligently, it means that he did not perform a voluntary act.
Only statement (b) is correct.
1.4 (a) If Y tells X that he will kill him unless he (X) kills Z and as a result of this threat
X kills Z, then he (X) acts in a situation of absolute force.
(b) Sane automatism means that a person did not act voluntarily as a result of mental
illness.
(c) In Henry 1999 (1) SACR 12 (SCA) the accused. Who had shot his wife in a fit of rage
relied upon the defence of insane automatism.
None of the statements are correct.
1.5 (a) An omission is punishable only if there is a legal duty upon X to act positively.
(b) The defence of impossibility may be raised if it is objectively impossible for X to
comply with a criminal norm which places a positive duty upon him to act.
(c) Causation is a requirement in all materially-defined crimes.
,All the above statements are correct.
1.6 (a) Teachers may not impose corporal punishment on children.
(b) If X sees that Y is attacked by Z and helps to defend Y, he (X) cannot rely on private
defence since he does not defend his own life or property.
(c) Killing an innocent person in a situation of necessity can never be a defence but only
a mitigating circumstance.
Only statement (a) and (b) are correct.
1.7 (a) In a crime requiring intention, the intention requirement is satisfied irrespective
of whether X had intention in the form of direct intention, indirect intention or dolus
eventualis.
(b) If X wants to kill his enemy Z, but realizes that in order to kill Z, he will necessarily
have to break into his (Z’s) house, he has indirect intention with regard to the crime of
housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime.
(c) In order to have intention, X’s knowledge must refer to all the elements of the
offence, excluding the element culpability.
All these statements are correct.
1.8 (a) If X fires a shot at an object believing it to be an animal and it turns out to be a
human being, X can, on a charge of murder, rely on the defence of mistake.
(b) Whether X had intention to commit an offence necessarily involves an investigates
into his motive for committing the offence,
(c) Aberratio ictus is a form of mistake which affords X a defence provided it was a
material mistake.
Only statement (a) is correct.
1.9 (a) If X fires a shot at his enemy, Y, and the bullet hits the wall, ricochets and fatally
injures Z who suddenly appears behind Y, the transferred-culpability approach requires
that X be convicted of murder in respect of Z.
(b) An accessory after the fact is regarded as a participant in a crime.
(c) A “joiner in” is a person who joins in an attack at a stage when the victim had
already died as a result of the wound inflicted by other persons who acted in a common
purpose.
Only statement (a) is correct.
1.10 (a) An interrupted attempt at a crime can still amount to a punishable attempt
provided X’s actions qualify as acts of execution.
(b) If X thinks that it is a crime to commit adultery and then commits adultery, he may
be convicted of an attempt to commit the impossible.
(c) If X fires a shot while he (Y) is driving a vehicle with bullet proof windows and Y is
not injured, X may be convicted of attempted murder provided the state can prove that
X had the intention to kill Y.
Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
Section B
Question 1(a)
, (a) Y, a 22-year-old woman is obese and very keen to lose weight. She has tried all kinds
of diets but in vain. She sees an advertisement placed in a magazine by a hypnotist, X,
who claims that his clients lose weight as a result as a of his hypnosis. Y makes an
appointment with X and agrees to hypnosis. While Y was under hypnosis, X has sex
with Y. Y lays charges of rape against X. X relies on the defence of consent. He argues
that since Y consented to treatment through hypnosis to lose weight, she implicitly
consented to any treatment that would cure her of obesity, including sexual intercourse.
(i) Name the requirements for successful reliance on the defence of consent. (6)
The consent must be:
(1) Given voluntarily
(2) Given by a person who has certain minimum mental abilities
(3) Based upon knowledge of the true and material facts.
(4) Given either expressly or tacitly
(5) Given before the commission of the fact
(6) Given by the complainant herself
(ii) Indicate by a “yes” or “no” whether X can succeed with the defence and give reasons
for your answer. (2)
No, if a woman is mentally ill, under a certain age, drunk, asleep or unconscious, she cannot
give valid consent to sexual intercourse (C1952 (4) SA 117 (O) 121; K 1958 (3) SA 420 (A))
(b) For successful reliance in the ground of justification known as private defence, it is
required, amongst other things that the defensive action must stand in a reasonable
relationship to the attack.
(i) The Supreme Court of Appeal in Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA) 417 identified
certain factors as relevant in determining whether this requirement is complied with.
However, the court also stated that the list is not exhaustive and that each case should be
determined in the light of its own circumstances. Name four of the factors identified by
the court. (4)
The relationship between the parties
The location of the incident
The means available to avert the attack
The nature of the means used to offer defence
(ii) Discuss the decision in Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA) with reference to the facts, the
finding of the court and the reasons for the finding. (6)
Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 SCA
The appellant shot and killed her former husband when he threatened her with a knife. The
appellant was convicted of culpable homicide. On appeal to the Supreme Court the state
argued that the appellant should have fled and thus avoided being assaulted without the
necessity of shooting at the deceased. The judge remarked as follows “Whether a person is
obligated to flee from an unlawful attack rather than entitled to offer resistance, is a
somewhat vexed question. But in the light of the facts in this case, it is unnecessary to
consider the issue in any detail.”
, Discuss the ground of justification known as “obedience to orders” (10)
In S v Mostert 2006 (1) SACR 560 (N), a traffic officer charged with the crime of assault
relied on the defence of obedience to orders. The court held that obedience to orders entitled
an act performed by a subordinate on the instruction of a superior, and was a recognised
defence in law, Although the defence of obedience to orders usually arises in a military
context, its application is not exclusive to soldiers. For the proper functioning of the police
and the protection services it was essential that subordinates obey the commands of their
superiors.
The court held that there were three requirements for this defence, namely:
(1) the order must emanate from a person in lawful authority over the accused;
(2) the accused must have been under a duty to obey the order; and
(3) the accused must have done no more harm than was necessary to carry out the order.
Regarding the second requirement the test was whether manifestly and palpably unlawful.
Therefore, the court applied the principle laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996 (section 199 (6)), namely that the defence of obedience to orders will be
successful, provided the orders were not manifestly unlawful.
(c) Merely name seven (7) specific instances in which a legal duty to act positively has
been recognised by our courts. (7)
Legal duty: specific instances
(1.) Statute (eg income tax)
(2.) Common law (eg treason – must report)
(3.) Agreement (eg railway crossing – Pitwood)
(4.) Responsibility for control of dangerous or potentially dangerous object (eg failed to
repair cage of baboon that bit child – Fernandez)
(5.) Protective relationship (eg parent/guardian – B)
(6.) Previous positive act (eg lights fire in veldt then walks away without extinguishing)
(7.) Office (eg police – Ewels)
(8.) Order of court (eg omits to pay maintenance)
Question 2
(a) X is a drug dealer and supplies drugs to Y. Y does not pay him and X decides to take
revenge. He approaches Z, who is also a so-called “contact killer” and makes a deal with
him (Z) to kill Y. The exact execution of the killing is not discussed. Z agrees and fires a
shot at Y while he (Y) is driving his car Y, who is shot in the neck, loses control over the
car and collides into an oncoming car, killing the driver of that car, A, instantly. Y is
taken to hospital by an ambulance and treated for his injury. He was dismissed from
hospital after two months, having recovered from the injury. However, he is paralysed
and unable to return to work. His doctor tells him that there is a possibility that he may
develop bed sores if he does not change his position every four hours. He is also advised
to visit the doctor immediately if he should develop bed sores. Y does not listen to the
doctor and develops bed sores from which he eventually dies. Both X and Z are charged
with murder in respect to A and Y.
November 2015
Section A
Question 1
Your
1.1 (a) The four requirements of criminal text
liability arehere 1 conduct (act or
the following
omission), compliance with the definitional elements of the offence, unlawfulness and
culpability.
(b) In terms of the ius acceptum principle a court may only find a person guilty of an
offence if the kind of act performed is recognized as a crime at the time of its
commission.
(c) The ius praevium principle requires that a court may only find a person guilty of an
offence if the kind of act performed was recognized as a crime at the time of its
commission.
All statements are correct.
1.2 (a) A South African court is allowed to create new crimes if the court is of the
opinion that the particular conduct is against the good morals of society.
(b) A provision which reads as follows “Nobody may criticise the government and
anybody who contravenes this provision is guilty of a crime” complies with the ius
certum rule of the principle of legality.
(c) In Masiya v Director of Public Prosecutions 2007 (2) SACR 435 (CC) the
Constitutional Court extended the definition of the crime of rape in order to give effect
to the rights of women to dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy.
Only statement (c) is correct
1.3 (a) The rules of the principles of legality need not be complied with in the context of
punishment.
(b) X performs a voluntary act if he can subject his bodily movements to his will or
intellect.
(c) If a person acted negligently, it means that he did not perform a voluntary act.
Only statement (b) is correct.
1.4 (a) If Y tells X that he will kill him unless he (X) kills Z and as a result of this threat
X kills Z, then he (X) acts in a situation of absolute force.
(b) Sane automatism means that a person did not act voluntarily as a result of mental
illness.
(c) In Henry 1999 (1) SACR 12 (SCA) the accused. Who had shot his wife in a fit of rage
relied upon the defence of insane automatism.
None of the statements are correct.
1.5 (a) An omission is punishable only if there is a legal duty upon X to act positively.
(b) The defence of impossibility may be raised if it is objectively impossible for X to
comply with a criminal norm which places a positive duty upon him to act.
(c) Causation is a requirement in all materially-defined crimes.
,All the above statements are correct.
1.6 (a) Teachers may not impose corporal punishment on children.
(b) If X sees that Y is attacked by Z and helps to defend Y, he (X) cannot rely on private
defence since he does not defend his own life or property.
(c) Killing an innocent person in a situation of necessity can never be a defence but only
a mitigating circumstance.
Only statement (a) and (b) are correct.
1.7 (a) In a crime requiring intention, the intention requirement is satisfied irrespective
of whether X had intention in the form of direct intention, indirect intention or dolus
eventualis.
(b) If X wants to kill his enemy Z, but realizes that in order to kill Z, he will necessarily
have to break into his (Z’s) house, he has indirect intention with regard to the crime of
housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime.
(c) In order to have intention, X’s knowledge must refer to all the elements of the
offence, excluding the element culpability.
All these statements are correct.
1.8 (a) If X fires a shot at an object believing it to be an animal and it turns out to be a
human being, X can, on a charge of murder, rely on the defence of mistake.
(b) Whether X had intention to commit an offence necessarily involves an investigates
into his motive for committing the offence,
(c) Aberratio ictus is a form of mistake which affords X a defence provided it was a
material mistake.
Only statement (a) is correct.
1.9 (a) If X fires a shot at his enemy, Y, and the bullet hits the wall, ricochets and fatally
injures Z who suddenly appears behind Y, the transferred-culpability approach requires
that X be convicted of murder in respect of Z.
(b) An accessory after the fact is regarded as a participant in a crime.
(c) A “joiner in” is a person who joins in an attack at a stage when the victim had
already died as a result of the wound inflicted by other persons who acted in a common
purpose.
Only statement (a) is correct.
1.10 (a) An interrupted attempt at a crime can still amount to a punishable attempt
provided X’s actions qualify as acts of execution.
(b) If X thinks that it is a crime to commit adultery and then commits adultery, he may
be convicted of an attempt to commit the impossible.
(c) If X fires a shot while he (Y) is driving a vehicle with bullet proof windows and Y is
not injured, X may be convicted of attempted murder provided the state can prove that
X had the intention to kill Y.
Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
Section B
Question 1(a)
, (a) Y, a 22-year-old woman is obese and very keen to lose weight. She has tried all kinds
of diets but in vain. She sees an advertisement placed in a magazine by a hypnotist, X,
who claims that his clients lose weight as a result as a of his hypnosis. Y makes an
appointment with X and agrees to hypnosis. While Y was under hypnosis, X has sex
with Y. Y lays charges of rape against X. X relies on the defence of consent. He argues
that since Y consented to treatment through hypnosis to lose weight, she implicitly
consented to any treatment that would cure her of obesity, including sexual intercourse.
(i) Name the requirements for successful reliance on the defence of consent. (6)
The consent must be:
(1) Given voluntarily
(2) Given by a person who has certain minimum mental abilities
(3) Based upon knowledge of the true and material facts.
(4) Given either expressly or tacitly
(5) Given before the commission of the fact
(6) Given by the complainant herself
(ii) Indicate by a “yes” or “no” whether X can succeed with the defence and give reasons
for your answer. (2)
No, if a woman is mentally ill, under a certain age, drunk, asleep or unconscious, she cannot
give valid consent to sexual intercourse (C1952 (4) SA 117 (O) 121; K 1958 (3) SA 420 (A))
(b) For successful reliance in the ground of justification known as private defence, it is
required, amongst other things that the defensive action must stand in a reasonable
relationship to the attack.
(i) The Supreme Court of Appeal in Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA) 417 identified
certain factors as relevant in determining whether this requirement is complied with.
However, the court also stated that the list is not exhaustive and that each case should be
determined in the light of its own circumstances. Name four of the factors identified by
the court. (4)
The relationship between the parties
The location of the incident
The means available to avert the attack
The nature of the means used to offer defence
(ii) Discuss the decision in Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA) with reference to the facts, the
finding of the court and the reasons for the finding. (6)
Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 SCA
The appellant shot and killed her former husband when he threatened her with a knife. The
appellant was convicted of culpable homicide. On appeal to the Supreme Court the state
argued that the appellant should have fled and thus avoided being assaulted without the
necessity of shooting at the deceased. The judge remarked as follows “Whether a person is
obligated to flee from an unlawful attack rather than entitled to offer resistance, is a
somewhat vexed question. But in the light of the facts in this case, it is unnecessary to
consider the issue in any detail.”
, Discuss the ground of justification known as “obedience to orders” (10)
In S v Mostert 2006 (1) SACR 560 (N), a traffic officer charged with the crime of assault
relied on the defence of obedience to orders. The court held that obedience to orders entitled
an act performed by a subordinate on the instruction of a superior, and was a recognised
defence in law, Although the defence of obedience to orders usually arises in a military
context, its application is not exclusive to soldiers. For the proper functioning of the police
and the protection services it was essential that subordinates obey the commands of their
superiors.
The court held that there were three requirements for this defence, namely:
(1) the order must emanate from a person in lawful authority over the accused;
(2) the accused must have been under a duty to obey the order; and
(3) the accused must have done no more harm than was necessary to carry out the order.
Regarding the second requirement the test was whether manifestly and palpably unlawful.
Therefore, the court applied the principle laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996 (section 199 (6)), namely that the defence of obedience to orders will be
successful, provided the orders were not manifestly unlawful.
(c) Merely name seven (7) specific instances in which a legal duty to act positively has
been recognised by our courts. (7)
Legal duty: specific instances
(1.) Statute (eg income tax)
(2.) Common law (eg treason – must report)
(3.) Agreement (eg railway crossing – Pitwood)
(4.) Responsibility for control of dangerous or potentially dangerous object (eg failed to
repair cage of baboon that bit child – Fernandez)
(5.) Protective relationship (eg parent/guardian – B)
(6.) Previous positive act (eg lights fire in veldt then walks away without extinguishing)
(7.) Office (eg police – Ewels)
(8.) Order of court (eg omits to pay maintenance)
Question 2
(a) X is a drug dealer and supplies drugs to Y. Y does not pay him and X decides to take
revenge. He approaches Z, who is also a so-called “contact killer” and makes a deal with
him (Z) to kill Y. The exact execution of the killing is not discussed. Z agrees and fires a
shot at Y while he (Y) is driving his car Y, who is shot in the neck, loses control over the
car and collides into an oncoming car, killing the driver of that car, A, instantly. Y is
taken to hospital by an ambulance and treated for his injury. He was dismissed from
hospital after two months, having recovered from the injury. However, he is paralysed
and unable to return to work. His doctor tells him that there is a possibility that he may
develop bed sores if he does not change his position every four hours. He is also advised
to visit the doctor immediately if he should develop bed sores. Y does not listen to the
doctor and develops bed sores from which he eventually dies. Both X and Z are charged
with murder in respect to A and Y.
