CRIMINAL LAW 171
TEST APRIL 2016: MEMO
Vraag 1: Waar of onwaar / Question 1: True or false [10]
(a) O/F
(b) W/T
(c) W/T
(d) O/F
(e) W/T
(f) W/T
(g) O/F
(h) O/F
(i) W/T
(j) O/F
Vraag 2(1) / Question 2(1) [6]
Regsvraag: mag S aanspreeklik gehou word vir ʼn late / versuim – maw, was daar ʼn
regsplig op hom om positief te handel om die aanranding op U te voorkom?
Legal question: may S be held liable for a failure to act / an omission – i.e., did he have a
legal duty to act positively to prevent the assault on U?
• JA / YES:
o spesiale / beskermingsverhouding (broer-suster)
special / protective relationship (brother-sister)
o ooreenkoms (het T belowe hy sal vir haar sorg)
agreement (promised T he would look after her)
• regspraak: veral S v B, waar moeder skuldig is aan aanranding omdat sy nie
aanranding op haar jong kind voorkom het nie
case law: especially S v B, where a mother was convicted of assault for failing to
prevent / stop the assault on her young child
Vraag 2(2)(a) / Question 2(2)(a) [4]
Regsvraag: mag S aanspreeklik gehou word vir ʼn late / versuim – maw, was daar ʼn
regsplig op hom om positief te handel om dood van V te voorkom?
Legal question: may S be held liable for a failure to act / an omission – i.e., did he have a
legal duty to act positively to prevent V’s death?
• twee moontlike argumente / two potential arguments:
o omissio per commissionem: deur U alleen in die motor te los het S ʼn potensieel
gevaarlike situasie geskep, en daar was ʼn regsplig op hom om te verhoed dat
die gevaar verwesenlik (R v Miller)
omissio per commissionem: by leaving U alone in the car S created a potentially
1
TEST APRIL 2016: MEMO
Vraag 1: Waar of onwaar / Question 1: True or false [10]
(a) O/F
(b) W/T
(c) W/T
(d) O/F
(e) W/T
(f) W/T
(g) O/F
(h) O/F
(i) W/T
(j) O/F
Vraag 2(1) / Question 2(1) [6]
Regsvraag: mag S aanspreeklik gehou word vir ʼn late / versuim – maw, was daar ʼn
regsplig op hom om positief te handel om die aanranding op U te voorkom?
Legal question: may S be held liable for a failure to act / an omission – i.e., did he have a
legal duty to act positively to prevent the assault on U?
• JA / YES:
o spesiale / beskermingsverhouding (broer-suster)
special / protective relationship (brother-sister)
o ooreenkoms (het T belowe hy sal vir haar sorg)
agreement (promised T he would look after her)
• regspraak: veral S v B, waar moeder skuldig is aan aanranding omdat sy nie
aanranding op haar jong kind voorkom het nie
case law: especially S v B, where a mother was convicted of assault for failing to
prevent / stop the assault on her young child
Vraag 2(2)(a) / Question 2(2)(a) [4]
Regsvraag: mag S aanspreeklik gehou word vir ʼn late / versuim – maw, was daar ʼn
regsplig op hom om positief te handel om dood van V te voorkom?
Legal question: may S be held liable for a failure to act / an omission – i.e., did he have a
legal duty to act positively to prevent V’s death?
• twee moontlike argumente / two potential arguments:
o omissio per commissionem: deur U alleen in die motor te los het S ʼn potensieel
gevaarlike situasie geskep, en daar was ʼn regsplig op hom om te verhoed dat
die gevaar verwesenlik (R v Miller)
omissio per commissionem: by leaving U alone in the car S created a potentially
1
