CPR3701
EXAM PACK
,CPR3701 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
MODEL ANSWERS
Total: 80 marks
QUESTION 1 (10 marks)
Legality of F and G's actions
F and G's entry into the house was unlawful.
As a general rule, police officials may not enter a private dwelling without lawful
authority. A search warrant may ordinarily be obtained where the police wish to search
premises for evidence. There are limited exceptions allowing entry or a search without a
warrant.
Section 26 of the CPA permits a police official investigating an offence to enter
premises without a warrant for the purpose of interrogating a person who may have
information about the offence. However, the section expressly provides that a private
dwelling may not be entered without the consent of the occupier. The facts
indicate that A expressly refused entry unless F produced a warrant.
Section 27 permits a police official who is otherwise lawfully entitled to search or enter
premises to use reasonably necessary force to overcome resistance, including breaking
a door, but the underlying entry must first be lawful. Similarly, section 48 allows a
person who may lawfully arrest another to break open premises after audibly
demanding entry and stating the purpose of entry.
Here, F expressly stated that he was entering to investigate the robbery, not to arrest
A and B. He did not have a warrant and had no consent from the occupier. The fact that
,he received information from an informant and saw movement inside the house does
not, by itself, create an unrestricted power to enter a private dwelling.
Therefore, F and G's breaking open of the door and entering the house was unlawful.
Conclusion: F and G could not rely on sections 26, 27 or 48 because the statutory
requirements for lawful warrantless entry had not been satisfied.
QUESTION 2
2.1 Whether the arrest complied with section 39 (10 marks)
The arrest does not fully comply with section 39 of the CPA.
Section 39(1) provides that an arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. Unless
the suspect submits to custody, the arrest must be effected by actually touching the
person or, where circumstances require, forcibly confining the person's body.
Section 39(2) further requires the person effecting the arrest to inform the arrested
person, at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter, of the cause of the arrest.
F told A and B that they were being arrested for "an offence which was committed a
decade earlier" and that he would explain everything at the police station.
This is problematic because merely saying that they are being arrested for an
unspecified offence committed ten years earlier does not adequately identify the cause
of the arrest. They should have been informed, at least sufficiently clearly, that they
were being arrested on suspicion of having committed the robbery at Mamelodi.
There is also a distinction between an arrest and merely asking someone to accompany
the police. The facts state that A and B were "requested to accompany" F and G. If they
voluntarily submitted to custody, physical touching was unnecessary under section
39(1). However, if they did not submit to custody, the statutory method of arrest was not
properly completed.
, Furthermore, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant where the requirements of
section 40 are satisfied. Section 40(1)(b) permits a peace officer to arrest without a
warrant a person reasonably suspected of having committed a Schedule 1 offence.
Robbery falls within the relevant category, provided the reasonable-suspicion
requirement is satisfied.
Conclusion: Although F may have had grounds to arrest A and B without a warrant, the
arrest as described is defective because the cause of arrest was not properly
communicated and the manner of arrest is questionable.
2.2 Whether B's escape was unlawful (5 marks)
B's escape can only constitute the statutory offence of escaping from custody if he had
been lawfully arrested.
Section 51(1) of the CPA provides that a person who escapes or attempts to escape
from custody after being lawfully arrested, but before being lodged in a correctional
facility, police cell or lock-up, commits an offence.
Therefore, the legality of B's escape depends upon the validity of his arrest.
If B had been lawfully arrested and had submitted to custody, his running away would
constitute an unlawful escape under section 51.
However, if the arrest was unlawful because F failed to comply with section 39, B was
not in lawful custody. In that event, his running away would not constitute the statutory
offence contemplated by section 51.
Conclusion: On the facts given, B has a strong argument that his escape was not
unlawful because the arrest itself was defective. Section 51 specifically requires a
lawful arrest.
QUESTION 3
EXAM PACK
,CPR3701 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
MODEL ANSWERS
Total: 80 marks
QUESTION 1 (10 marks)
Legality of F and G's actions
F and G's entry into the house was unlawful.
As a general rule, police officials may not enter a private dwelling without lawful
authority. A search warrant may ordinarily be obtained where the police wish to search
premises for evidence. There are limited exceptions allowing entry or a search without a
warrant.
Section 26 of the CPA permits a police official investigating an offence to enter
premises without a warrant for the purpose of interrogating a person who may have
information about the offence. However, the section expressly provides that a private
dwelling may not be entered without the consent of the occupier. The facts
indicate that A expressly refused entry unless F produced a warrant.
Section 27 permits a police official who is otherwise lawfully entitled to search or enter
premises to use reasonably necessary force to overcome resistance, including breaking
a door, but the underlying entry must first be lawful. Similarly, section 48 allows a
person who may lawfully arrest another to break open premises after audibly
demanding entry and stating the purpose of entry.
Here, F expressly stated that he was entering to investigate the robbery, not to arrest
A and B. He did not have a warrant and had no consent from the occupier. The fact that
,he received information from an informant and saw movement inside the house does
not, by itself, create an unrestricted power to enter a private dwelling.
Therefore, F and G's breaking open of the door and entering the house was unlawful.
Conclusion: F and G could not rely on sections 26, 27 or 48 because the statutory
requirements for lawful warrantless entry had not been satisfied.
QUESTION 2
2.1 Whether the arrest complied with section 39 (10 marks)
The arrest does not fully comply with section 39 of the CPA.
Section 39(1) provides that an arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. Unless
the suspect submits to custody, the arrest must be effected by actually touching the
person or, where circumstances require, forcibly confining the person's body.
Section 39(2) further requires the person effecting the arrest to inform the arrested
person, at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter, of the cause of the arrest.
F told A and B that they were being arrested for "an offence which was committed a
decade earlier" and that he would explain everything at the police station.
This is problematic because merely saying that they are being arrested for an
unspecified offence committed ten years earlier does not adequately identify the cause
of the arrest. They should have been informed, at least sufficiently clearly, that they
were being arrested on suspicion of having committed the robbery at Mamelodi.
There is also a distinction between an arrest and merely asking someone to accompany
the police. The facts state that A and B were "requested to accompany" F and G. If they
voluntarily submitted to custody, physical touching was unnecessary under section
39(1). However, if they did not submit to custody, the statutory method of arrest was not
properly completed.
, Furthermore, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant where the requirements of
section 40 are satisfied. Section 40(1)(b) permits a peace officer to arrest without a
warrant a person reasonably suspected of having committed a Schedule 1 offence.
Robbery falls within the relevant category, provided the reasonable-suspicion
requirement is satisfied.
Conclusion: Although F may have had grounds to arrest A and B without a warrant, the
arrest as described is defective because the cause of arrest was not properly
communicated and the manner of arrest is questionable.
2.2 Whether B's escape was unlawful (5 marks)
B's escape can only constitute the statutory offence of escaping from custody if he had
been lawfully arrested.
Section 51(1) of the CPA provides that a person who escapes or attempts to escape
from custody after being lawfully arrested, but before being lodged in a correctional
facility, police cell or lock-up, commits an offence.
Therefore, the legality of B's escape depends upon the validity of his arrest.
If B had been lawfully arrested and had submitted to custody, his running away would
constitute an unlawful escape under section 51.
However, if the arrest was unlawful because F failed to comply with section 39, B was
not in lawful custody. In that event, his running away would not constitute the statutory
offence contemplated by section 51.
Conclusion: On the facts given, B has a strong argument that his escape was not
unlawful because the arrest itself was defective. Section 51 specifically requires a
lawful arrest.
QUESTION 3
