(1) A B C D
(a)
Our courts may not create and declare a
certain conduct as a crime.
(b)
If an act committed by an accused was not a
crime when he committed the said act but only a rule the courts as keeper of
the morals can punish the accused for braking the rule.
(2) A B C D
(a)
Ius acceptum means that the court may find
an accused guilty of a crime only if the kind of conduct preformed is
recognised by the law as a crime and it is punishable as a crime.
(b)
A free translation of ius acceptum would be
“the law as we all accept it and agree with it”.
(3) A B C D
(a)
Normally if Parliament wishes to create a
crime such legislation should expressly declares that the particular conduct is
a crime and that it is punishable to comply with the principles of legality.
(b)
A criminal norm is a rule of law for which
you can be punished and such a norm fully complies with the principles of
legality.
(4) A B C D
(a)
A statutory provision “No person may travel
on a train without a ticket” is a legal norm and not a crime.
(b)
A statutory provision “No person may travel
on a train without a ticket and any person who contravenes this provision
commits a crime and will be punished” contains a prohibition and therefore is a
crime punishable by law.
(5) A B C D
(a)
A statutory provision adopted on the 1 of
March 2003 that reads “ any person smoking tabacco will be guilty of a crime
and if found guilty will be punished with a R100.00 fine. This provision will apply to everybody who
smoked from 1 March 2002”, complies with the principles of legality.
(b)
The principles of legality implies that a
person should not be found guilty of a crime unless at the moment it took place
the type of conduct committed was recognised by law as a crime.
(6) A B C D
(a)
Ius Praevium means that the conduct
prohibited as a crime should be accepted into the law as a crime.
(b)
If the formulation of a crime is unclear and
vague it will not comply with the principles of legality.
(7) A B C D
(a)
Ius certum means that the provisions
creating crime must be interpreted strictly.
A
court is free to interpret the words that define crime in a wide manner.
(1) A B C D
(a)
The requirements for criminal liability are
capacity, causation, unlawfulness and fault.
(b)
The requirements for criminal liability are
human, voluntary, causation, positive action and unlawfulness.
(2) A B C D
(a)
If X knows that he suffers from epileptic
attacks for years and that he could get an attack at any minute and he gets in
the car to drive to the shop to by a newspaper and on his way he gets an attack
and cause an accident. He will not be
held criminally liable for the accident because he had no voluntary conduct in
causing the accident.
(b)
If A puts a gun to X’s head, instructing X
to kill Y then X will have voluntary conduct if he kills Y.
(3) A B C D
(a)
The state must proof beyond reasonable doubt
that X, who relies on insane automatism that X’s conduct was in fact a
voluntary conduct.
(b)
If a person were found not guilty due to
sane automatism he would receive an unqualified acquittal.
(4) A B C D
(a)
The accused wants to rely on consent as a
justification for his unlawful conduct.
He must proof all the requirements for consent on a balance of
probabilities.
(b)
Unlawful conduct is excluded by way of an
automatism.
(5) A B C D
(a)
A child of six years of age commits a
murder. If the state can proof that he
knew what he was doing was wrong and that he could act in accordance with that
appreciation he could be found liable for murder.
(b)
There is a rebuttable presumption that a
person of 16 years has criminal liability.
(6) A B C D
(a)
If you raise insanity as a defense you must
be suffering from a mental illness or mental decease at the time of the trial.
(b)
If you raise the defense of insanity you
have to proof on a balance of probabilities that you were insane at the time of
the commission of the crime.
(7) A B C D
(a)
If you raise the defense of emotional sock
and provocation, you have to proof on a balance of probabilities that you
lacked criminal capacity at the time of the commission of the crime.
(b)
Intoxication can successfully be raised as a
defense against capacity and you will be found not guilty.
(8) A B C D
(a)
X wants to shoot D, who is standing in a
closed room in front of a window. The
window is closed. X shoots D. In shooting D he breaks the window. For shooting D he has Dolus eventualis.
(b)
X wants to shoot D, who is standing in a
closed room in front of a window. The
window is closed. X shoots D. In shooting D he breaks the window. For braking the window has Dolus eventualis.
(9) A B C D
(a)
X is shot in the back and as a result of the
gunshot wound he is paralyzed. When he
leaves the hospital he is warned to lift himself regularly to avoid pressure
sore. He does not lift himself and
develops pressure sores which gets septic and X dies as a result of
septicemia. The septicemia would act as
a conditio sine qua non in
determining the cause of death.
(b)
To determine condictio sine qua non we ask the question does this, in human
experience normaly bring about the outcome.
(10) A B C D
(a)
The tests for intention is a subjective
test.
(b) The
test for negligence is an objective test.
11 Name the requirements for criminal liability.
(1) A B C D
(a)
The requirements for criminal liability are
conduct, causation, unlawfulness intent and negligence.
(b)
The requirements for criminal liability are
conduct, causation, capacity, unlawfulness and fault.
(2) A B C D
(a)
A person who does not know that something is
wrong and who cannot act in accordance with this knowledge has no criminal
capacity.
(b)
If we rely on emotional sock and prolonged
abuse as an excluding ground for capacity we must comply with the requirements
of Sec 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(3) A B C D
(a)
If you raise the defense of emotional sock
and provocation, you have to proof on a balance of probabilities that you
lacked criminal capacity at the time of the commission of the crime
(b)
Emotional sock can lead to a defense
excluding capacity.
(4) A B C D
(a)
Before the case of S v Arnold 1985 (3) SA
256(C), provocation could not be a defense to exclude criminal liability.
(b)
In S v Arnold 1985 (3) SA 256(C), Arnold was
found not to have voluntary conduct due to provocation but the court also said
that, if he had conduct he would not have had capacity.
(5) A B C D
(a)
If you rely on intoxication as a defense you
must proof that you were so drunk that you could not act in accordance with any
knowledge of wrongfulness.
(b)
Intoxication can successfully be raised as a
defense against capacity.
(6) A B C D
(a)
X shoots Y and is charged with murder. He, X
raises intoxication as his defense, saying that at the time of the murder he
was so drunk he did not knew what he was doing was wrong. X would still be found guilty of murder due
to Sec.1 of Act 1 of 1988.
(b)
X shoots Y and is charged with murder. He, X
raises intoxication as his defense, saying that at the time of the murder he
was so drunk he did not knew what he was doing was wrong. X would be found guilty of culpable homicide
due to Sec.1 of Act 1 of 1988.
(7) A B C D
(a)
X wants to shoot D, who is standing in a
closed room in front of a window. The
window is closed. X shoots D. In shooting D he breaks the window. For shooting D he has Dolus directus.
(b)
X wants to shoot D, who is standing in a
closed room in front of a window. The
window is closed. X shoots D. In shooting D he breaks the window. For braking the window has Dolus eventualis.
(8) A B C D
(a)
Dolus indirectus will always be a foreseen
possibility.
(b)
For Dolus eventualis we need to foresee that
the consequence will happen, accept that it will happen and continue to act.
(9) A B C D
(a)
X wants to shoot a duck on the water on a
small dam in a quite park. He thinks
that he might shoot someone if he misses the duck but continue to shoot the
duck because the possibility was very small that anybody would be in the way of
the bullet. X shoots the duck, misses
and shoots D who walks pass at that time.
X will not be guilty of murder because he lacks dolus eventualis because
the possibility was too small.
(b)
X wants to rob the bank. He takes his gun and foresees that he might
have to shoot the teller if he puts up a struggle. As x walks into the bank he trips and falls
down. In the fall he accidentally pulls
the trigger and hit the teller. X will
have dolus eventualis in respect of the murder of the teller.
(10) A B C D
(a)
X shoots at Y but misses Y and kills D who
was walking past at that moment. X’s
intent must be established by applying the principles of dolus eventualis.
(b)
X shoots at Y but misses Y and kills D who
was walking past at that moment. With
the doctrine of abberatio ictus we will transfer the intent you had to kill Y
unto the person you have infact killed namely D.
(11) A B C D
(a)
Ignorance of the law can never be an excuse.
(b) Motive plays no
role in determining your intention.
(12) A B C D
(a)
Necessity can exclude intention.
(b)
The test for intention will always be
objective.
(1) A B C D
(a)
The
requirements for criminal liability are principles, conduct, unlawfulness,
capacity and fault.
(b)
The
requirements for criminal liability are conduct, unlawfulness and intent.
(2) A B C D
(a)
Unlawfulness
could be excluded by way of an automatism.
(b)
Unlawfulness
could be excluded by private defense.
(3) A B C D
(a)
The
accused wants to rely on consent as a justification for his unlawful
conduct. He must not proof all the
requirements for consent but raise it and lay a foundation for it.
(b)
For
consent to succeed as a valid defence it must be recognized as a possible
defence, it must be real consent and it must be given by a person capable in
law of consenting.
(4) A B C D
(a)
A
child of six years of age commits a murder.
If the state can proof that he knew what he was doing was wrong and that
he could act in accordance with that appreciation he could be found liable for
murder.
(b)
There
is a rebuttable presumption that a person of 12 years has criminal liability.
(5) A B C D
(a)
If
we rely on insanity as an excluding ground for capacity we will be found guilty
of the offence charged.
(b)
A
person who does not know that something is wrong and who cannot act in
accordance with this knowledge will always be insane and therefore has no
criminal capacity.
(6) A B C D
(a)
Sec
78(1) requires that a person must, at the time of the crime be incapable of
understanding the wrongfulness of his actions.
(b)
In
terms of sec 78 (1) there will be two legs to determine your capacity.
(7) A B C D
(a)
If
you raise the defense of insanity you have to proof on a balance of
probabilities that you were insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
(b)
If
you raise insanity as a defense you must be suffering from a mental illness or
mental decease at the time of the trial.
(8) A B C D
(a)
Depression
can never be a mental illness, which can lead to a defense of insanity.
(b)
A
Psychopath can raise the defense if insanity.
(9) A B C D
(a)
If
a child under the age of 12 wants to raise a defense that she did not know what
she was doing was wrong she must raise insanity and proof that she did not know
it was wrong.
(b)
An
insanity plea would mean that you would be found guilty of the crime but
because you are insane you will go to a mental institution instead of to jail.
(10) A B C D
(a)
Intoxication
can successfully be raised as a defense against criminal liability and you will
be found not guilty.
(b)
If
you rely on intoxication as a defense you must proof that you were so drunk
that you could not act in accordance with any knowledge of wrongfulness.
(11) A B C D
(a)
X
hits Y and is charged with assault. He, X raises intoxication as his defense,
saying that at the time of the assault he was so drunk he did not knew what he
was doing was wrong. X would still be
found guilty of assault due to Sec.1 of Act 1 of 1988.
(b) The prosecution can only use Section 1 of
act 1 of 1988 if the defence was successful in raising his defence of
intoxication. Due to the intoxication
the accused had a lack of criminal capacity and he did not know what he was
doing or he could not act in accordance with his knowledge.
(12) A B C D
(a)
If
you lack fault due to intoxication you would be found not guilty and the
prosecution can not rely on sec.1 of act 1 of 1988.
(b)
If
you lack conduct due to intoxication you would be found not guilty and the
prosecution can not rely on sec.1 of act 1 of 1988.
(13). If I rely on intoxication as a defense today,
stating that I was so drunk that I did not know what I have done, I will be
found not guilty for that crime. Is this
statement true or false?
QUESTION 1
Z is the
leader of a prison gang. He is afraid that Y, the leader of another gang in the
same prison, will try to kill him. He instructs X, a young and timid man who
shares a room with Y, to stab Y with a knife while he (Y) is asleep. Z
threatens X that he will make sure that X will be killed if he (X) does not
obey his orders. X, who is terrified of Z, takes drugs so that he can build up
the courage to execute the order. In his drunken state, he stabs and kills Y. X
is charged with the murder of Y.
You are
X’s legal representative. Discuss which defense you will invoke to ensure a
complete acquittal of X.
QUESTION 2
In
January 2010, X was charged with drunken driving, a crime which he had
allegedly committed in September 2008. Assume that at that time (in 2008)
legislation provided that a first offender could not be sent to prison for a
conviction of drunken driving. However, in 2009 the legislature amended the
legislation, giving the courts discretion to send a first offender convicted of
drunken driving to prison for a period not exceeding six months. X, a first
offender, is convicted of the crime of drunken driving. The court, relying on
the new legislation, sentences him to a period of three months’ imprisonment.
Discuss
whether the punishment imposed by the court may be challenged on the ground
that it violates the principle of legality.
QUESTION 3
X shoots
Y twice in the chest and the abdomen with the intention to kill him. Y is
admitted to a state
hospital, where he receives inadequate and negligent care. He dies two weeks
later as a result
of septicaemia, caused by the gun wounds. X is charged with murder. X’s lawyer
argues that the
negligence and inadequate care in the hospital constituted a novus actus
interveniens which
broke the chain of causation between X’s original act and the ultimate result.
You are
the state prosecutor. Discuss the arguments that you will present to prove that
X’s act
was the
cause of Y’s death.
QUESTION 4
X’s
hobby is to fly a micro-light plane. One day, while flying over a beach, the
engine of his plane suddenly stalls. X is unable to control the plane and it
crashes on the beach. The boat of Y, a fisherman, is damaged by the impact. X
is charged with malicious injury to the property of Y.
Discuss
which defense X could invoke.
QUESTION 2
Y feels very depressed and threatens to
commit suicide. X, who harbours a grudge
against Y, hands him a loaded firearm, stating that he may shoot and kill
himself with it if he so wishes.
Y takes the firearm and shoots and kills
himself.
Discuss if X ‘s action can be seen as
criminal conduct in the causation of Y’s death. 10
QUESTION 3
Discuss the rule that only voluntary acts
may serve as a basis for criminal liability (criminal conduct).
10
QUESTION 4
(a) The two grounds for justification known
as necessity and private defence are closely related. Briefly explain the difference between these
two defences. 5
(b) Name the requirements for consent. 5
QUESTION 5
X, an alcoholic for many years are suffering
from delirium tremens and in a state
of total confusion he shoots D, who he saw as a horrible monster. Fully discuss if X would have criminal
capacity. 10
QUESTION
6
Indicate whether in each of the following
sets of facts X intended to kill Y.
Briefly give reasons for your answers.
(a)
X
shoots ducks in a dam. On the opposite
bank a number of people are having a picnic.
He is aware of their presence and realises that if he shoots at a duck
and misses, the bullet may in some way or another hit one of the people on the
opposite bank. He hopes that he will not
hit one of them, because he does not wish to deal with the unpleasant
consequences, which will follow from such an event. He knows he is taking a chance and proceeds
to shoot at the duck. The bullet misses
the duck and hits Y, one of the people at the picnic, with fatal consequences. 5
(b)
X shoots ducks in a dam. On the opposite bank a number of people are
having a picnic. He is aware of their
presence and realises that if he shoots at a duck and misses, the bullet may in
some way or another hit one of the people on the opposite bank. After considering the matter thoroughly, he
decides that the bullet wil not hit one of them because he is a champion shot,
has often in the past shot duck on the same dam and has never missed his
target. He shoots at the duck. The bullet misses the duck and hits Y, one of
the people at the picnic, with fatal consequences. 5
(c)
Y
is 87 years old and has been suffering of cancer for a long time. He has no prospect of recovering. X, his son, a medical doctor who loves his
father feels great pity for him because he has to suffer so much. In order to release Y from his pain x gives
him a lethal injection, killing him. 5
QUESTION 7
X and D are sitting in the bar having a
few drinks. After a while D decides to
leave the bar. At the door of the bar X
calls his name and when D looks at X, X throws him a beer, shouting, “have one
for the road”. X thought that D would
catch the beer.
D, being caught by surprise does not
catch the beer, instead it falls on a table, the bottle breaks and one of the
pieces of glass spattered away and lodged in D’s main neck artery, instantly
killing him.
Fully discuss X’s criminal liability in
respect of murder. 30
