2.1 Three assailants, A, B and C are engaged in a crime of robbery at one of the jewellery stores in the newly-built African Mall. During the ensuing fracas, a firefight ensues as the security guards at the jewellery store attempt to foil the robbery. F, one of the security guards, orders C, who is cornered inside the store to give up. However, C responds by firing shots at F, who fires back injuring C on the left leg. F apprehends C and hands him over to the police, whilst A and B make away with an undisclosed amount in fine jewellery and cash. C is held under guard in hospital, pending his appearance in court.

2.1.1 Discuss whether F's actions comply with the requirements for the use of force as set out on p. 171 - 173 par. 5.8.2 of the Handbook. (15)

Hints: i. your answer should not merely tabulate the contents of the Handbook, but must, critically discuss said requirements in conjunction and in synergy with the facts advanced above; ii. your answer should state the main requirement without necessarily elaborating on the additional information in respect of every requirement set out in par. (1) - (9).

2.1.2 In terms of s 35(1)(d) of the Constitution, an accused person must be brought before court '48 hours after the arrest'. Due to the nature of his injuries, the investigating officer, E, is unable to bring C before court within the requisite 48 hours. Briefly discuss how C can be brought to court without necessarily breaching the socalled 48-hour rule. (5)

2.2 B is arrested, upon information received from an informant, by the investigating officer, X, in connection with the crime of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft at Mnandi Tavern. During the investigations, finger print samples are lifted from the scene of the crime which X would like to compare with those of the arrested suspect, B. After his arrest, B refuses to have his fingerprints taken on the basis that the taking of his fingerprints,

2.2.1 will essentially 'criminalise him forever' because the record of his fingerprints will 'remain with the police for good';

2.2.2 violates his right to privacy, as enshrined in the Constitution.

Briefly discuss whether C's concerns are reasonable, in light of the finding in S v Huma 1996 (1) SA 232 (W).