CRW2602 CRIMINAL LAW EXAM PACK.

CRW2602 CRIMINAL LAW EXAM PACK.Question 1 (a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.2 (vi). (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.2.7. Dolus eventualis is a sufficient form of intention. (c) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.6. You should, therefore, have chosen option (4) since only statements (a) and (c) are correct. Question 2 (a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.3.4. (b) This statement is correct. See SG 1.3.4. (c) This statement is correct. See SG 1.3.4. You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since all the statements are correct. Question 3 (a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 10.1.7. The Appellate division in Heyne 1956 (3) SA 604 (A) has held that attempted fraud is in fact possible where a misrepresentation has been made by X, but which has not yet come to Y’s attention as in the case where a letter containing a misrepresentation has been lost in the post. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 10.1.3 (3). The misrepresentation in the crime of fraud can also be committed by an omission where there is a legal duty on X to disclose a fact. (c) This statement is correct. See SG 2.4.6. “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 2 You should, therefore, have chosen option (4) since only statement (c) is correct. Question 4 (a) This statement is correct. See SG 7.4.6. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.4.8. For the crime of abduction to be completed, it is not required that the marriage or sexual intercourse should have taken place, as all that is required is the intention on the part of X to commit either one of these acts.. (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1 and the Mshumpa-case in Casebook 264. The legal definition speaks to the unlawful and intentional causing of the death of another human being and a foetus is excluded from this definition. You should, therefore, have chosen option (1) since only statement (a) is correct. Question 5 (a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1 and SG 6.2.7. X would be convicted of the crime of culpable homicide if he is negligent as the crime of murder requires the element of intention. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.4. The speed limit on a public road outside an urban area is 100km/h. (c) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.6. You should, therefore, have chosen option (3) since only statement (c) is correct. Question 6 (a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.3. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.5 and SG 3.6.3.3 (Activity and feedback). A police officer who responds to an emergency and causes a motor vehicle collision while crossing a red traffic light, can be convicted of negligent driving if he does not drive with ‘due regard’ for the safety of other road users. See also S v Groep 2002 (1) SACR 538 (E). “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 3 (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.5. This crime can be committed negligently but other road-users had to be present on the road at the time in order for this offence to have been committed. You should, therefore, have chosen option (1) since only statement (a) is correct. Question 7 (a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 8.6.1.2; 8.6.1.3 and Casebook 251-252. The mere assumption of control over property which belongs to someone else is insufficient for completed theft, but it is sufficient to amount to the crime of attempted theft. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1. X complies with the definition of murder which is the unlawful and intentional causing of the death of another person. (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 12.4 and Summary (5). The structure may be any movable or immovable property that is or might ordinarily be used for human habitation, or any immovable structure which is, or might be used for storage or housing of property. You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since none of these statements is correct. Question 8 (a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.2.4. Crimen iniuria involves only two parties whereas the crime of defamation involves three parties. (b) This statement is correct. See SG 7.2.7.3.(5) (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.1.9. The crime of assault is an intentional crime and can take the form of direct intention, indirect intention or dolus eventualis. You should, therefore, have chosen option (2) since only statement (b) is correct. Question 9 “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 4 (a) This statement is correct. See SG 6.1.11. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.1.6 and 6.1.7. Assault can also take the form of indirect application of force or inspiring fear that force may immediately be applied upon another. An example of indirect force is where X sets his vicious dog on Y. (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.2.1 SUMMARY (10) and Criminal Law 514. X need not necessarily touch the property when he receives it. You should, therefore, have chosen option (1) since only statement (a) is correct. Question 10 (a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.1.5. The threat of violence in the crime of robbery may be express or implied. (b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.2 SUMMARY (3). The crimes of assault and theft are committed. For robbery there must be a causal connection between the violence (or threats of violence) and the acquisition of the property. (c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 11.2.3. The property must be corporeal and may be movable or immovable. You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since none of these statements is correct. PART B Important advice for answering problem-type questions: The purpose of asking problem-type questions in this module is to test your understanding of the various specific crimes. This requires knowledge and understanding of the definitions of these crimes. The second step in answering a problem-type question is to discuss the legal principles that are relevant to providing the answer to the problem. Most of the legal “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 5 principles discussed in this module come from court decisions (case law). You must therefore make reference to a decided case(s) whenever a legal principle is stated. You are reminded that even if you fail to remember the name of a case, you can simply state: “It has been decided” or “According to a decision” when stating the principle. Please note, however, that the discussion of an incorrect principle will not be credited, irrespective of whether the case reference (name) is appropriate. In other words, referring to the correct case name will not award you a mark if it is done to support an inappropriate legal principle. Students who do this merely indicate to the lecturer that they do not understand what the cited case actually decided. The third step in answering a problem-type question is to apply the relevant legal principles to the facts of the problem. Students often combine the second and third steps when answering problem-type questions. In other words, they would discuss the principle(s) while applying it to the facts. There is nothing inappropriate about doing this. However, the chances of omitting a relevant principle (if there is more than one) are greater when adopting this approach. To minimise this possibility we would advise the separation of the second from the third step. Another advantage of discussing the legal principle(s) before applying them to the facts is that you can more easily identify the relevant facts at the stage of discussing the principle(s). This will enable you to address as many relevant facts as possible and prepare you for a more in-depth analysis at the stage of application. The final step in answering a problem-type question is to provide a conclusion to the problem. Please ensure that you have addressed the question(s) that has (have) been asked. If, for example, the question requires you to determine the criminal liability of X on a charge of murder, then your conclusion should state either “X is criminally liable of murder”, or “X is not criminally liable on a charge of murder”. If the question requires you to determine whether X caused Y’s death, then your conclusion should state either “X caused Y’s death”, or “X did not cause Y’s death”, et cetera. Please note also that in order for your conclusion to have any basis it must be a deduction of your reasoning. QUESTION 1 (a)(i) SG 9.1.2 and 9.1.7 “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 6 - Theft of property - Use of actual violence or threats of violence - Causal connection between the violence and acquisition of the property - Unlawfulness - Intention Discussion: Yes - the court has held that the grabbing of a cell phone amounts to robbery in the Salman-case, as it is sufficient that any force is applied to the person of a victim, however slight, that amount to a physical intervention necessary for dispossession. OR (ii) SG 1.2.7 It is required that the act is performed with an intention, or an act which by its nature and context, can reasonably be regarded as being intended, directly or indirectly to FIRST COMPONENT • threaten the unity and territorial integrity of the Republic • intimidate or cause feelings of insecurity within the public or a segment of the public, including economic security, or to cause feelings of terror, fear or panic in a civilian population or • unduly compel, intimidate, force, coerce, induce or cause a person a government, the public or a segment of the public or a domestic or an international organization or intergovernmental organization to do or to abstain or refrain from doing any act, or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint, or to act in accordance with certain principles. and “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 7 SECOND COMPONENT It is required that the act be committed, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of the advancement of an individual or collective, political, religious, ideological or philosophical motive, objective, cause or undertaking. (b) SG 3.6.5.3 Section 65(1) in actual fact prohibits two different acts: • Driving of a vehicle while under the influence. • Occupying a driver’s seat with the engine of the vehicle running while under the influence. • Even if a person is in a stationary vehicle they can be found guilty. • It must be proved that the driver was affected by the intoxicating liquor or drug to such a degree that the skill and judgment normally required of a driver was diminished or impaired as a result (Lloyd 1929 EDL 270). • "Skill" refers to the driver's physical powers, and is diminished or impaired when the driver's vision, judgment or muscular coordination is affected (Donian 1935 TPD .