Assume for this question only that the legal representative for Dibuseng says the $$following in court concerning the doctrine of common purpose: $$The common pur$-$pose doctrine is completely unnecessary and unconstitutional. Criminal Law can do $$without it$.$ Her reasoning behind this statement is that Dibuseng only pushed Mikey $$over and she did not actively engage in physically assaulting him.Discuss whether you think Dibuseng$$s legal representative is correct in making such $$a statement with reference to the constitutionality of the doctrine of common pur$-$pose as decided on in the case of Jacobs v S $2019(1)$ SACR $623($CC$).$