CPR3701 Frequently Tested Questions &
Detailed Solutions for Exam Prep 2026
, 1. Y is allegedly killed in a fight with Z over a long-standing feud. During the
investigation of the crime, Sergeant A receives information that B was,
apparently, present during the killing, but is not willing to provide a formal
statement, or to testify in a subsequent trial, simply because he is ‘not interested’,
and there is nothing that A can do in the matter because he (B) ‘knows his rights’.
In fact, B believes that the police do not have the right to question him.
Briefly discuss the legal powers and duties of A and B respectively, and the limitations
(if any) thereto.
According to section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 51 of 1977, a potential
witness may be compelled to reveal his/her knowledge of an alleged crime, which
he/she has refused to disclose to the police. In terms of section 205(1), A the police
officer may approach the director of public prosecutions or public prosecutor to request
the attendance of B before him/her, or any other judge, regional court magistrate or
magistrate, to be answer questions relating to the murder that he/she witnessed. The
request for attendance B by A must be lodged with the magistrate or judge in writing.
B’s examination may be conducted in court, B is entitled to legal assistance. He may
be requested through a summons or informally to appear. In terms of section 185, the
director of public prosecutions, may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of B.
if B furnishes information to the satisfaction of the director of public prosecutions or
public prosecutor before arranged date, he or she must be under no further obligation
to appear before such judicial official. B is, however, not obliged to answer
selfincriminating questions. If B refuses to give the necessary information or refuses
to answer questions, the court may, enquire into the reasons for such refusal or failure.
If B refuses to answer a question, he must, in terms of section 189 to show a ‘just
excuse’ for such refusal. In the case of Nel v Le Roux 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC) the court
held that a clergyman does not have a right to silence.
Conclusion: From the set of facts, it does not appear as if B is providing reasonable
reasons for his refusal to give a testimony and therefore A will succeed with on relying
on s 205 of CPA to get B to testify.
Detailed Solutions for Exam Prep 2026
, 1. Y is allegedly killed in a fight with Z over a long-standing feud. During the
investigation of the crime, Sergeant A receives information that B was,
apparently, present during the killing, but is not willing to provide a formal
statement, or to testify in a subsequent trial, simply because he is ‘not interested’,
and there is nothing that A can do in the matter because he (B) ‘knows his rights’.
In fact, B believes that the police do not have the right to question him.
Briefly discuss the legal powers and duties of A and B respectively, and the limitations
(if any) thereto.
According to section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 51 of 1977, a potential
witness may be compelled to reveal his/her knowledge of an alleged crime, which
he/she has refused to disclose to the police. In terms of section 205(1), A the police
officer may approach the director of public prosecutions or public prosecutor to request
the attendance of B before him/her, or any other judge, regional court magistrate or
magistrate, to be answer questions relating to the murder that he/she witnessed. The
request for attendance B by A must be lodged with the magistrate or judge in writing.
B’s examination may be conducted in court, B is entitled to legal assistance. He may
be requested through a summons or informally to appear. In terms of section 185, the
director of public prosecutions, may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of B.
if B furnishes information to the satisfaction of the director of public prosecutions or
public prosecutor before arranged date, he or she must be under no further obligation
to appear before such judicial official. B is, however, not obliged to answer
selfincriminating questions. If B refuses to give the necessary information or refuses
to answer questions, the court may, enquire into the reasons for such refusal or failure.
If B refuses to answer a question, he must, in terms of section 189 to show a ‘just
excuse’ for such refusal. In the case of Nel v Le Roux 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC) the court
held that a clergyman does not have a right to silence.
Conclusion: From the set of facts, it does not appear as if B is providing reasonable
reasons for his refusal to give a testimony and therefore A will succeed with on relying
on s 205 of CPA to get B to testify.
