ASSIGNMENT DUE 5 MAY 2014 9.30 AM IN SC201

UNIVERSITY OF ZULULAND

CRIMINAL LAW A LCCL201

                  ASSIGNMENT (SECOND SEMESTER MARK)

DUE DATE 5 MAY 2014 at 9.30 am in SC201

Internal Examiners                         Moderator

Mrs T Oosthuizen                    Mrs K Naidoo

Instructions to Candidates

ANSWER EACH QUESTION ON YOUR OWN.  YOU MAY CONSULT YOUR HANDBOOK BUT YOU MAY NOT COPY YOUR HANDBOOK.

YOUR ANSWERS CAN BE HAND WRITTEN ON ANY PAPER AND MUST BE HANDED IN ON THE 23 APRIL, DURING OUR FIRST CLASS FOR CRIMINAL LAW AT 12.30.

YOU MUST REMEMBER TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME, SURNAME AND STUDENT NUMBER ON YOUR PAPER.

ANY TWO ANSWERS THAT ARE SIMILAR AND CLEARLY COPIED FROM EACH OTHER MAY RESULT IN A 0 MARK ENTERED AGAINST BOTH PAPERS, REGARDLESS OF WHO COPIED FROM WHO.  IT IS ADVISABLE NOT TO HAND IN GROUP DISCUSSED WORK.  IF YOU DO DISCUSS IT IN GROUPS YOUR ANSWERS MUST REMAIN YOUR OWN!

NO LATE SUBMISSIONS – LATE SUBMISSION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED WITH COURT APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF TIME WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DUE DATE.  IF APPLICATION NOT IN CORRECT FORMAT (COURT FORMAT) APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

Question 1

FOR EACH QUESTION STATE CORRECT OR INCORRECT WITH A ONE LINE REASONS FOR YOUR ANSWER

1.1        The correct sequence of investigation into the elements of criminal liability is conduct, compliance with definitional             elements, culpability and unlawfulness.

1.2        Crimes are directed against public interests, while delicts are directed against private interests.

1.3        A statutory provision will best comply with the principle of legality if it contains a criminal norm only.

1.4        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.

1.5        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.

1.6        The Constitution contains a provision which expressly sets out the ius acceptum rule.

1.7        Conduct is voluntary if it is willed.

1.8        Relative force excludes X’s ability to subject his bodily movements to his will or intellect.

1.9        Sane automatism refers to cases in which X relies on the defence of mental illness.

1.10      Antecedent liability is a qualification of the rule that bodily movements performed in a condition of automatism do not          result in criminal liability.

1.11      There is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal convictions of the community require him to do so.

1.12      In Leeuw 1975 (1) SA 439 (O) it was held that mere inconvenience in complying with a legal duty did not constitute          impossibility.

1.13      In formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain type of conduct irrespective of what the result of     the conduct is.

1.14      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.

1.15      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.

1.16      Mental illness is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.

1.17      X can rely on private defence if he defends himself against an attack by an animal.

1.18      There is an irrebuttable presumption that a child who is below the age of seven lacks criminal capacity.

1.19      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.

1.20      The mere fact that somebody has committed an error of judgment does not necessarily mean that he was negligent.

                                                                                                                                                            2X20

QUESTION 2

X is the housemaster of a university hostel. According to the university rules, no student may be subjected to any form of initiation. At the hostel where X is the housemaster, there is a tradition that first-year students are initiated by being subjected to all kinds of initiation activities. Students are, for instance, compelled to dive into a swimming pool while being blindfolded. X does not take part in these practices but condones them and actually watches while the senior students push the blindfolded first-year students into the swimming pool. One day, during such an initiation ceremony, a first-year student, Y, dives into the swimming pool and hits the bottom, breaking his neck, and dies.

Discuss whether X and the university (a legal person) may have criminal conduct for Y’s death.