CPR3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
DUE MARCH 2025
SEMESTER 1 2025
, Four assailants, A, B, C and D are engaged in an armed robbery at Shiny Thingz, a
jewellery store located inside the Mall For All shopping centre in Kimberley, Northern
Cape. During the ensuing fracas, a firefight ensues, as the security guards employed
by the shopping centre attempt to foil the robbery. A is arrested inside the jewellery
store by F, one of the security guards. However, B, C and D manage to escape with
an undisclosed amount in fine jewellery and cash.
1. B and C are subsequently arrested two weeks later in Cape Town, Western Cape,
in the process of committing another robbery.
(a) Briefly state the court(s) (according to the hierarchy of courts, not the
location) which should enjoy trial jurisdiction in respect of the charges set out
above, and the reason why the case may be heard in the jurisdiction(s)
concerned;
Hierarchy of South African courts
1. Magistrates' Court (District or Regional Court)
Since the offence was committed in Kimberley, Northern Cape, the Kimberley
Magistrates’ Court (District or Regional Court) has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Section 90 of the Magistrates’ Court Act allows jurisdiction for offences committed
within the district.
The case could also be heard in the Regional Court if the seriousness of the offence
(armed robbery) warrants it.
2. Cape Town Magistrates’ Court (District or Regional)
B and C were arrested in Cape Town while committing another robbery, meaning the
Cape Town Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction over the new offence.
Section 90 allows for jurisdiction where the offence was committed within a specific
district or regional division.
3. Possible Consolidation of Trials (DPP Discretion)
Since B and C are linked to crimes in both Kimberley and Cape Town, the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the discretion to consolidate the matters and order that
all the charges be heard in a single Magistrates’ Court within the DPP’s jurisdiction.
ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
DUE MARCH 2025
SEMESTER 1 2025
, Four assailants, A, B, C and D are engaged in an armed robbery at Shiny Thingz, a
jewellery store located inside the Mall For All shopping centre in Kimberley, Northern
Cape. During the ensuing fracas, a firefight ensues, as the security guards employed
by the shopping centre attempt to foil the robbery. A is arrested inside the jewellery
store by F, one of the security guards. However, B, C and D manage to escape with
an undisclosed amount in fine jewellery and cash.
1. B and C are subsequently arrested two weeks later in Cape Town, Western Cape,
in the process of committing another robbery.
(a) Briefly state the court(s) (according to the hierarchy of courts, not the
location) which should enjoy trial jurisdiction in respect of the charges set out
above, and the reason why the case may be heard in the jurisdiction(s)
concerned;
Hierarchy of South African courts
1. Magistrates' Court (District or Regional Court)
Since the offence was committed in Kimberley, Northern Cape, the Kimberley
Magistrates’ Court (District or Regional Court) has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Section 90 of the Magistrates’ Court Act allows jurisdiction for offences committed
within the district.
The case could also be heard in the Regional Court if the seriousness of the offence
(armed robbery) warrants it.
2. Cape Town Magistrates’ Court (District or Regional)
B and C were arrested in Cape Town while committing another robbery, meaning the
Cape Town Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction over the new offence.
Section 90 allows for jurisdiction where the offence was committed within a specific
district or regional division.
3. Possible Consolidation of Trials (DPP Discretion)
Since B and C are linked to crimes in both Kimberley and Cape Town, the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the discretion to consolidate the matters and order that
all the charges be heard in a single Magistrates’ Court within the DPP’s jurisdiction.
