CRW2601 EXAM PACK 2022

CRW2601 EXAM PACK 2022. In January 2020, X is charged with drunken driving which he allegedly committed in September 2018. Assume that at that time (in 2018), legislation provided that a first offender could not be sentenced to a period imprisonment for a conviction of drunken driving. However, in 2019, the legislature amends the legislation, giving the courts a discretion to sentence firsts offenders convicted of drunken driving to direct imprisonment 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. With reference to case law, discuss whether the punishment imposed by the court may be challenged on the ground that it violates the principle of legality. [10] QUESTION 2 X’s hobby is to fly a micro-light plane. One day, while flying over a beach, the engine of his plane suddenly stops functioning. X is unable to control the direction of the plane, and it crashes onto the beach. The boat of Y, a fisherman, is damaged as a result of the crash. Y, a very aggressive person, is so furious with X for damaging his boat that he grabs his fishing rod and starts beating X over the head with it. Bystanders come to X’s assistance, but X sustains severe injuries in the attack. (a) If X is charged with malicious injury to the property of Y, discuss which defence X may rely on. (5) (b) Is there any defence that Y may rely on? Briefly explain with reference to case law. (5) [10] QUESTION 3 X stabs Y in his leg with a knife. Y is treated in hospital for the stab wound, and makes good progress. However, after four days in hospital, Y contracts pneumonia. Before he is fully recovered, Y is dismissed from hospital on the ground that there are more critically-ill patients than him who need hospitalisation, and that there are not enough beds available for everybody. Y goes back to his flat where there is nobody to take care of him. He becomes so weak that he stops taking his medication. He dies three days later. The autopsy reveals that Y’s death is the result of the pneumonia. X is charged with Y’s murder. With reference to case law, discuss the burden of proof on the prosecution as regards the element of causation only. [10] S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: miketervis | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace Confidential CRW2601 Page 6 of 6 January/February 2021 [TURN OVER] QUESTION 4 X has recently given 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. With reference to legislation and case law, discuss whether X may be convicted of murder or any other crime if the evidence reveals the following: (i) It comes to light that X was suffering from schizophrenia which is a known disease of the mind, and was labouring under hallucinations when she killed her baby. She was seeing monsters, and was hearing a voice instructing her to destroy the ‘monster’ lying in the cradle. (5) (ii) It comes to light that X had been suffering severely for a long time from depression, and that the hormonal changes she had undergone with the birth of the child exacerbated the depression. It also transpires that X had experienced financial problems. She could see no future for the child, and thought that it would be better for the child to die. (5) [10] QUESTION 5 X is the mother of a five-year-old boy, and a single parent. One night, she is awoken at 04:00 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 of the lounge, she sees a figure moving behind the sofa. Fear overcomes her and, believing it to be a burglar who is hiding behind the sofa, she fires a shot in the direction of the sofa. When the noise dies down, she inspects the scene, and finds that it is her five-year-old son whom she has killed. It appears that the boy was walking in his sleep when his mother took him for a burglar and shot him. Can X be convicted of murder or any other crime? Discuss with reference to case law. [10] TOTAL: [50] © Unisa 2021 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: miketervis | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace Name: Nompilo Wendy Tembe Module: Crw2601 Date: 08 February 2021 Student: Question 1 The principle of legality An accused may (1) not be convicted of a crime – (a) unless the type of conduct with which she is charged has been recognized by the law as a crime (b) in clear terms (c) before the conduct took place (d) without it being necessary to interpret the words in the definition of the crime broadly in order to cover the accused’s conduct; and (2) if convicted, not be sentenced unless the sentence also complies with the four requirements set out above under 1(a) to (d). With regards to the facts of the scenario an accused may not be convicted of a crime unless the type of conduct with which she is charged has been recognized by the law as a crime and before the conduct took place. The accused if convicted, not be sentenced unless the sentence also complies with the four requirements set out above under 1(a) to (d). when X committed the offence of drinking driving in 2018 a first offender could not be sentenced to imprisonment but that changed in 2019 where they could be sentenced to imprisonment. And in January 2020 he was charged and sentenced to in imprisonment with regards to the new legislation which is against the principle of legality because when he committed the offence a first time offender could not be sentenced to imprisonment the legislation came in after he had committed the offence thus it did not apply to him. This is against the nulla poena rule. This study source was downloaded by from CourseH on :32:30 GMT -05:00 This study resource was shared via CourseH S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: miketervis | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace Question 2 (a) Necessity, a person acts out of necessity – and her conduct is therefore lawful – if she acts in the protection of her own or somebody else’s life, physical integrity, property or other legally recognized interest that is endangered by a threat of harm that has already begun or is immediately threatening and that cannot be averted in any other way; provided that the person who relies on the necessity is not legally compelled to endure the danger, and the interest protected by the act of defense is not out of proportion to the interest threatened by such an act. Thus X can rely on the defense of necessity because the engine of his plane stopped functioning and had no choice but to crush onto the beach. He can reply on this defense of necessity even if it is against an innocent third party. (b) The term “criminal capacity” refers to the mental abilities or capacities that a person must have in order to act with culpability and to incur criminal liability. A person is endowed with criminal capacity if he has the mental ability to (1) appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or omission and (2) act in accordance with such an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act or omission. S v Eadie Principles dealt with: 1. Non-Pathological Criminal Incapacity 2. Sane automatism 3. Provocation Outline: Y provoked X into an act of road rage. Both X and Y were drunk. X killed Y with a hockey stick. He was convicted of murder. He appealed using the defense of NPCI. Outcome: Judge dismissed appeal: judge sees no difference between Non-Pathological Criminal Incapacity and sane automatism. Important because the case disallows using Non-Pathological Criminal Incapacity when provoked or under emotional stress. The defense that Y may raise is that of non-pathological criminal incapacity.For this defense to succeed, it is sufficient to prove that Y lacked criminal capacity for This study source was downloaded by from CourseH on :32:30 GMT -05:00 This study resource was shared via CourseH S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: miketervis | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace only a relatively brief period and that the criminal incapacity was not a manifestation of an ailing or sick (pathological) mental disturbance; it would therefore be sufficient to prove that, for a relatively brief period during the commission of the act, Y, owing to, for example, an emotional collapse, was unable to act in accordance with his insights into right or wrong. In this regard Y lost his insight as a result of an emotional collapse. As a result of the Eadie case there has been a debate whether the defense of Non-Pathological Criminal Incapacity still exists thus Y might not succeed in his defense. Question 3 Factual causation, An act is a conditio sine qua non for a situation if the act cannot be thought away without the situation disappearing at the same time. Legal causation comprises of the policy considerations: (a)Individualization theories: According to the individualization theories (or tests), we must look, among all the conditions or factors that qualify as factual causes of the prohibited situation (Y’s death), for that one that is the most operative and regard it as the legal cause of the prohibited situation. (b)Adequate causation: An act is a legal cause of a situation if, according to human experience, in the normal course of events, the act has the tendency to bring about that kind of situation. (c)Novus actus interveniens: This expression means new intervening event which breaks the chain of causation. In the facts of the scenario Y was stubbed by X in the leg as a result he needed hospitalization which he got and was treated. X meets the factual causation but does not meet the legal causation because Y died from pneumonia and not from the stab wound. Thus there was a new intervening event, a novus actus interveniens. This situation is similar to the facts of the S v Mokgethi case: Principles dealt with: 1. Factual and legal causation 2. Novus actus interveniens