Criminal Law: General Principles CRW2601 (LLB)

SET OF FACTS

1.)During the Covid-19 lockdown period, X and his wife Y have a terrible argument. X repeatedly hits his wife over the head with a blunt object. She eventually collapses and loses consciousness. Y's friend only discovers her lying on the kitchen floor the following morning and takes her to hospital. Because the hospital is full she is only taken to a ward after five hours. She is only examined the next day for the first time by a doctor. The doctor is very busy and does not make a proper diagnosis. Y receives no medical treatment whatsoever and dies the same night. X is charged with the murder of Y. The report of the pathologist who did the autopsy brings to light that Y had died from bleeding in the brain. The pathologist testifies that Y might possibly have lived if she had received proper medical treatment at an earlier stage. He is of the opinion that an intrinsically dangerous wound was administered to her from which she would most probably have died without medical intervention.

Discuss the following questions which relate to the requirement of causation.

(i) Is X's act the factual cause of Y's death? Explain.

(ii) Is X's act also the legal cause of Y's death? Motivate your answer with reference to relevant authority.

2.)(a) Culpability deals with the question whether the conduct of a particular person is against the objective legal convictions of society.

(b) If X, who had killed his wife and children, is charged with murder and acquitted on the ground that he had lacked criminal capacity as a result of a mental illness, he may nevertheless be convicted of the lesser crime of culpable homicide.

(1) None of the statements are correct.

(2) Only statement (a) is correct.

(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

3.)(a) Provocation is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.

(b) Although a child between the ages of 10 and 14 years is presumed to lack criminal capacity, the state is free to rebut this presumption.

(1) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) None of the statements are correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

4.)(a) The test for culpability in the form of intention includes an investigation regarding the motive of the accused for committing the offence.

(b) An example of dolus indirectus is where X, in firing a shot at Y, foresees the possibility that his shot may hit Y's child who is standing next to Y, and that he reconciles himself to this possibility.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) None of the statements are correct.

(4) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

5.)(a) In Humphreys 2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA), the court held that dolus eventualis was present because X ought to have foreseen or must have foreseen the possibility of the consequence ensuing.

(b) If X assaults Y, and then ties her to a tree in a remote area where no person ever comes so that she cannot report the crime to the police, and Y's dead body is later found, it may be argued that X had intention to commit murder in the form of dolus eventualis.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

6.)(a) If X fires a shot at an object believing it to be an animal, and it turns out to be a human being, X can, on a charge of murder, rely on the defence of mistake.

(b) Mistake must be reasonable in order to exclude intention.

(1) None of the statements are correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

7.)(a) If X fires a shot at Y, and the bullet hits a telephone pole, moves in a different direction, and hits and kills Z instead, X, if charged with the murder of Z, may rely on the defence of mistake.

(b) Putative private defence is a defence which excludes the element of culpability, and not the element of unlawfulness.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

8.)(a) If a person acted negligently, it means that he did not perform a voluntary act. (b) In Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A), the court found the accused guilty of assault in respect of the persons that he had injured.

(1) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) None of the statements are correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

9.)(a) X may rely on the defence of provocation on a charge of murder only as a ground for mitigation of punishment.

(b) If X buys drugs for his own use and Y acts merely as interpreter to the transaction, Y can qualify as an accomplice.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) None of the statements are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

10.)(a) A "joiner-in" is a person who does not act with a common purpose with other persons to commit a crime.

(b) In Molimi 2006 (2) SACR 8 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal held that conduct by a member of a group of persons which differs from the original mandate may not be imputed to the other members unless each member had intention in respect of the prohibited result caused by the act.

(1) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

11.)(a) The same legal principles that are used to determine the liability of an accused in a situation of interrupted attempt, also apply where an accused voluntarily withdraws from his criminal plan of action.

(b) According to Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A), X can be found guilty of an attempt to commit the impossible regardless of whether the impossibility arose from his/her mistaken view of the facts or whether it arose from his/her mistaken view of the law.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) Only statement (b) is correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct

12 set of facts

X1, X2 and X3 are crew on a whaling boat. A and B are fanatical members of an organisation that campaigns for putting an end to whaling. A and B continuously ram their boat into the whaling boat in an effort to damage it. X1 fears that the actions of A and B might gouge a hole in the hull of the whaling boat, causing it to sink. In an effort to stop them, X1 blasts A and B from their boat with his boat's water cannon. A and B fall into the water. A drowns. In the meantime, B gets hold of a lifebuoy, and hangs on to it. The lifebuoy is meant for one person but can keep a maximum of two people afloat. Meanwhile, it transpires that the whaling boat has indeed been damaged, and is busy sinking. X2 and X3 swim up to the lifebuoy, and try to hold on to it. The three men start sinking. B and X2 both hit X3, who cannot swim well and is very overweight, until he releases his hold on the lifebuoy and drowns. X1, X2 and B are saved.

Answer the following questions:

(i)X1 is charged with the murder of A.

(ii)Briefly state which ground of justification X1 can rely on and give reasons for your answer. (Do not give the definition of the defence and do not discuss all the requirements of it. Confine your answer to the relevant requirement/s of the defence.)

(iii)B is charged with the murder of X3. Briefly state, in one sentence, whether B may raise the same defence as X1 and give a reason for your answer.

(iv)State which ground of justification B may rely on and briefly consider whether he can succeed. (Give the definition of the defence and discuss all the requirements of it.)

13 (a) Criminal capacity is a prerequisite to the existence of culpability in the form of intention or negligence.

(b) In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA), the court held that there is no distinction between non-pathological criminal incapacity owing to emotional stress and provocation on the one hand, and the defence of sane automatism on the other hand.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) None of the statements are correct.

(3) Only statement (b) is correct.

(4) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

14 (a) X cannot rely on the defence of mental illness to escape liability if it is established that, at the time of committing the alleged offence, his mental illness did not affect any of the psychological legs of criminal capacity.

(b) According to the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008, a 10-year-old child is irrebuttably presumed to lack criminal capacity.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) Only statement (b) is correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

15 (a) If X fires a shot at Y while he (Y) is driving a vehicle with bullet-proof windows, and Y is not injured, X may be convicted of attempted murder provided the state can prove that X had the intention to kill Y.

(b) If X wants to kill his enemy Z, but realizes that in order to kill Z, he will necessarily have to break into his (Z's) house, he has indirect intention with regard to the crime of housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) None of the statements are correct.

(4) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

16 (a) An example of dolus eventualis is where X did not foresee that his conduct may cause a prohibited result but that the reasonable person would have foreseen it.

(b) In Maarohanye 2015 (1) SACR 337 (GJ), the murder conviction of X and Y was set aside as they had not foreseen the possibility that they may cause the death or injury of pedestrians or reconciled themselves with such eventualities.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

17 (a) In Goosen 1989 (4) SA 1013 (A), it was held that a mistake relating to the chain of causation may in certain circumstances exclude intention.

(b) Aberratio ictus is a form of mistake which affords X a defence provided it was a material mistake.

(1) None of the statements are correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

18 (a) In Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius 2016 (1) SACR 431 (SCA), the court applied a subjective instead of an objective test to determine whether X had lacked knowledge of unlawfulness.

(b) If X fires a shot at his enemy, Y, and the bullet hits a wall, ricochets and fatally injures Z who suddenly appears behind Y, the transferred-culpability approach requires that X be convicted of murder in respect of Z.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct.

19 (a) If X merely did not foresee the possibility that his conduct of driving recklessly might result in the death of another human being, but the court finds that a reasonable person in the same position would have foreseen the possibility, and would have taken steps to prevent it from occurring, X may be convicted of culpable homicide.

(b) A person who is charged with murder and is acquitted on the ground that he lacked criminal capacity as a result of intoxication may nevertheless be convicted of the crime created in section 1 of Act 1 of 1988.

(1) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) None of the statements are correct.

(3) Only statement (a) is correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

20 (a) If X hires Z to murder Y, and Z murders Y, Z is the indirect perpetrator.

(b) In Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A), the Appeal Court held that where a common purpose to kill had been proved, it was not necessary to establish a causal connection between each individual's conduct and the death of the deceased.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) None of the statements are correct.

(4) Only statement (b) is correct.

21 (a) An accessory after the fact is regarded as a participant in a crime.

(b) A "joiner in" is a person who joins in an attack at a stage when the victim had already died as a result of the wounds inflicted by other persons who acted in a common purpose.

(1) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.

(3) None of the statements are correct.

(4) Only statement (a) is correct.

22 (a) The same legal principles that are used to determine the liability of an accused in a situation of interrupted attempt, also apply where an accused voluntarily withdraws from his criminal plan of action.

(b) According to Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A), X can be found guilty of an attempt to commit the impossible regardless of whether the impossibility arose from his/her mistaken view of the facts or whether it arose from his/her mistaken view of the law.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.

(3) Only statement (b) is correct.

(4) None of the statements are correct

23. In June 2018, X is charged with drunken driving, a crime which he had allegedly committed in September 2014. Assume that, at that time (in 2015), legislation provided that a first offender could not be sent to prison for a conviction for drunken driving. However, in February 2018 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.

24. 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 defence X could invoke.

25. 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 gunshot 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 would present to prove that X's act was the cause of Y's death.

26. Y, a 60-year-old woman, lives on her own in a flat. One evening, while lying in bed, she hears a noise in the passage. She switches on the light, only to discover a young man, aged about 17, standing at her bed. The man has a knife in his hand. He pushes her onto the bed, telling her that he is going to rape her and that, as long as she keeps quiet, he will not kill her. Y has a gun, which she keeps under her bed. Before X can rape her, she manages to get hold of the gun. She shoots X in the forehead. X dies instantly as a result of the gunshot wound. Y is charged with murder. You are her legal representative.

Discuss which defence you will invoke and on which authority you will rely.

27. Question 5 X recently gave birth. She is still in hospital. One night she gets up from her bed, walks to the ward where the babies are kept, and strangles her baby. Discuss whether X can be convicted of murder or any other crime if the evidence reveals the following: X suffers from schizophrenia, a well-known disease of the mind, and was labouring under hallucinations when she killed her baby. She was seeing monsters and hearing a voice instructing her to destroy the "monster lying in the cradle".

Which rules should be applied to determine whether or not a youth has criminal capacity?

28. X is the mother of a five-year-old boy, and a single parent. One night, at 04:00, she is woken by the sound of a person walking down the passage of her house. She gets up, grabs her pistol and creeps down the passage. In the dark lounge she sees a figure moving behind the sofa. Fear overcomes her and, believing it to be a 28 burglar who is hiding behind the sofa, she fires a shot in the direction of the sofa. After the noise has died down, she inspects the scene and finds that she has killed her five-year-old son. It appears that the boy was sleepwalking when his mother mistook him for a burglar and shot him.

Can X be convicted of murder or any other crime? Discuss.

29. X and his entire family go boating at the local dam. X drinks one beer after the other and decides to race around the dam in his ski-boat. X steers the boat. As he is intoxicated, X fails to keep a proper lookout and runs over Y, who is swimming in the dam. Y succumbs owing to blood loss from a wound to his head made by the propeller of X's boat. The court finds that, although X was not so intoxicated that he lacked criminal capacity, he was so intoxicated that he could not have had the intention to cause Y's death.

Can X be convicted of a contravention of section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 and/or culpable homicide? Explain in detail.

30. Question 9 X and Z are both taxi drivers. They work in the same areas and use the same route. X knows that Z's taxi is always filled to capacity. X feels that he has the sole right to that particular route, and decides to shoot and kill Z. One day, having stopped next to each other at a red traffic light, X is overcome with anger. The windows of Z's taxi CRW2601/101/3/2021 29 are tinted, so that it is impossible to see whether there are any passengers inside. X fires a shot in the direction of the driver's seat of Z's taxi, hoping to kill Z. The bullet misses Z, but hits Y, who is sitting next to Z. Y is very badly wounded, but miraculously survives.

Discuss X's criminal liability.

31. Question 10 X, P and Q decide to steal money from Y, a shopkeeper. X tells P and Q that he knows that Y does not possess a firearm. He also tells them that, although none of them has a firearm, he (X) has a toy pistol with which he plans to threaten Y. They then decide that the three of them will go to the shop and that X will point the toy pistol at Y and threaten to shoot him if he does not hand over the money in the cash register. Before going to the shop, P sees X concealing a sharp knife under his clothes. He foresees that X may use the knife in the shop and that somebody may get killed as a result. However, he does not say anything to X about the knife and voluntarily goes with the others to the shop. Q does not know that X has a knife concealed under his clothes. X, P and Q go into the shop. X points the toy pistol at Y and threatens to shoot him if he refuses to hand over the money. A scuffle ensues, and during the commotion P and Q remove the money from the cash register. In the course of the scuffle between X and Y, X draws the knife from under his clothes and stabs Y in the chest while P shouts: "Kill him!" P and Q run away with the money. Y dies as a result of the stab wound.

Discuss the question of whether X, P and Q may all be convicted of murder in terms of the doctrine of commonpurpose