1|Page
CRW2601
PAST PAPER SOLUTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMOES FROM MAY JUNE 2015 TO OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018.
QUESTION PAPERS FROM MAY JUNE 2015 TO OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018.
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 2|Page
CRW2601
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018
PART A
1. (2)
2. (1)
3. (4)
4. (4)
5. (4)
6. (3)
7. (5)
8. (5)
9. (1)
10. (3)
PART B
QUESTION 1
(a) (i)The general rule is that there is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal
convictions of the community require him to do so.
(ii) -The general rule in criminal matters is that the onus is on the state (i.e. the prosecution or
state prosecutor) to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The general rule is that there is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal
convictions of the community require him to do so.
- The general rule is that culpability is a requirement for all crimes
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 3|Page
- general rule, it may be assumed that if X has done everything she set out to do in
order to commit the crime, but the crime is not completed, she is guilty of
attempt.
-
(b) (i) Factual causation (conditio sine qua non) Condition without which prohibited
situation would not have materialized (“but for”). If the act cannot be thought away
without the situation disappearing at the same time.
In the facts of the scenario X’s conduct is the factual cause of Y’s death because his act cannot
be thought away without the situation disappearing as well.
(ii) Legal causation [IAN]
1.) Individualisation theories Most operative/proximate cause Objection: 2 or more conditions
are often operative in equal measure
Daniels: court refused to accept that in our law criminal liability is necessarily based on
“proximate cause.”
2.) Adequate causation theory [HENT] If according to Human Experience, in the Normal course
of events, the act has the Tendency to bring about that kind of situation
3.) Novus actus interveniens New intervening event Chain of causation broken
Unexpected/abnormal/unusual occurrence; deviates from normal course of events Differs
slightly from test of adequate causation
Courts’ approach to legal causation Court must be guided by policy considerations –
reasonable, fair and just (Daniels; Mokgethi) May apply one or more theory, or none Wrong for
court to regard only one specific theory as correct one to be applied in every situation
(Mokgethi)
Grotjohn: assisted suicide by providing crippled wife with loaded rifle. Mere fact that last act
causing death was victim’s own act did not necessarily mean person handing gun to victim was
not guilty of any crime. If victim’s final act is the realization for the very purpose accused had in
mind, victim’s act can never be regarded as a novus actus.
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 4|Page
Daniels: X shoots Y in back. Y would die in 30min. Latecomer Z shoots Y in head. Majority: both
acts cause of Y’s death. Shots fired were fatal and would in any case lead to death. Minority:
head shot = novus actus interveniens
Mokgethi: bank teller wounded in robbery – paraplegic. Did not follow doctor’s orders and dies
from septicaemia after 6 months. Wounding is conditio sine qua non but not legal cause. Policy
considerations – X’s act too remote from result. Y’s own unreasonable failure = immediate
cause of his death. X guilty of attempted murder only.
Tembani: accused shoots girlfriend twice in chest. Admitted to hospital. Medical personnel
negligent. Dies from wounds. Deliberate infliction of an intrinsically dangerous wound from
which death likely to occur without medical intervention must generally lead to liability.
Irrelevant whether wound was treatable or whether treatment was negligent or sub-standard.
In facts of the scenario, X can also be regarded as the legal cause of Y’s death because his
pushing of Y of the cliff was more likely to inflict serious wounds which death would occur
without medical treatment. In such instances the Tembani case dictates X must be found that
he is the legal cause of Y’s death irrespective of whether treatment was negligent or sub-
standard.
(c) The consent must be
(1) given voluntarily
(2) given by a person who has certain minimum mental abilities
(3) based upon knowledge of the true and material facts
(4) given either expressly or tacitly
(5) given before the commission of the act
(6) given by the complainant herself
(d) (i) Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA)
Steyn (supra) serves as a good example in this regard. X shot and killed her former husband (Y)
in the following circumstances: Y drank heavily and continuously abused X, both mentally and
physically over a long period of time. He often told her that he would slit her throat and
regularly locked her in her bedroom. X eventually divorced her husband (Y). X got her own fl at,
but because of fi nancial difficulties, she returned to the matrimonial home, although she no
Instagram @llb_tutor
CRW2601
PAST PAPER SOLUTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMOES FROM MAY JUNE 2015 TO OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018.
QUESTION PAPERS FROM MAY JUNE 2015 TO OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018.
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 2|Page
CRW2601
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2018
PART A
1. (2)
2. (1)
3. (4)
4. (4)
5. (4)
6. (3)
7. (5)
8. (5)
9. (1)
10. (3)
PART B
QUESTION 1
(a) (i)The general rule is that there is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal
convictions of the community require him to do so.
(ii) -The general rule in criminal matters is that the onus is on the state (i.e. the prosecution or
state prosecutor) to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The general rule is that there is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal
convictions of the community require him to do so.
- The general rule is that culpability is a requirement for all crimes
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 3|Page
- general rule, it may be assumed that if X has done everything she set out to do in
order to commit the crime, but the crime is not completed, she is guilty of
attempt.
-
(b) (i) Factual causation (conditio sine qua non) Condition without which prohibited
situation would not have materialized (“but for”). If the act cannot be thought away
without the situation disappearing at the same time.
In the facts of the scenario X’s conduct is the factual cause of Y’s death because his act cannot
be thought away without the situation disappearing as well.
(ii) Legal causation [IAN]
1.) Individualisation theories Most operative/proximate cause Objection: 2 or more conditions
are often operative in equal measure
Daniels: court refused to accept that in our law criminal liability is necessarily based on
“proximate cause.”
2.) Adequate causation theory [HENT] If according to Human Experience, in the Normal course
of events, the act has the Tendency to bring about that kind of situation
3.) Novus actus interveniens New intervening event Chain of causation broken
Unexpected/abnormal/unusual occurrence; deviates from normal course of events Differs
slightly from test of adequate causation
Courts’ approach to legal causation Court must be guided by policy considerations –
reasonable, fair and just (Daniels; Mokgethi) May apply one or more theory, or none Wrong for
court to regard only one specific theory as correct one to be applied in every situation
(Mokgethi)
Grotjohn: assisted suicide by providing crippled wife with loaded rifle. Mere fact that last act
causing death was victim’s own act did not necessarily mean person handing gun to victim was
not guilty of any crime. If victim’s final act is the realization for the very purpose accused had in
mind, victim’s act can never be regarded as a novus actus.
Instagram @llb_tutor
, 4|Page
Daniels: X shoots Y in back. Y would die in 30min. Latecomer Z shoots Y in head. Majority: both
acts cause of Y’s death. Shots fired were fatal and would in any case lead to death. Minority:
head shot = novus actus interveniens
Mokgethi: bank teller wounded in robbery – paraplegic. Did not follow doctor’s orders and dies
from septicaemia after 6 months. Wounding is conditio sine qua non but not legal cause. Policy
considerations – X’s act too remote from result. Y’s own unreasonable failure = immediate
cause of his death. X guilty of attempted murder only.
Tembani: accused shoots girlfriend twice in chest. Admitted to hospital. Medical personnel
negligent. Dies from wounds. Deliberate infliction of an intrinsically dangerous wound from
which death likely to occur without medical intervention must generally lead to liability.
Irrelevant whether wound was treatable or whether treatment was negligent or sub-standard.
In facts of the scenario, X can also be regarded as the legal cause of Y’s death because his
pushing of Y of the cliff was more likely to inflict serious wounds which death would occur
without medical treatment. In such instances the Tembani case dictates X must be found that
he is the legal cause of Y’s death irrespective of whether treatment was negligent or sub-
standard.
(c) The consent must be
(1) given voluntarily
(2) given by a person who has certain minimum mental abilities
(3) based upon knowledge of the true and material facts
(4) given either expressly or tacitly
(5) given before the commission of the act
(6) given by the complainant herself
(d) (i) Steyn 2010 1 SACR 411 (SCA)
Steyn (supra) serves as a good example in this regard. X shot and killed her former husband (Y)
in the following circumstances: Y drank heavily and continuously abused X, both mentally and
physically over a long period of time. He often told her that he would slit her throat and
regularly locked her in her bedroom. X eventually divorced her husband (Y). X got her own fl at,
but because of fi nancial difficulties, she returned to the matrimonial home, although she no
Instagram @llb_tutor
