CPR3701 PORTFOLIO MEMO - MAY/JUNE 2024 - SEMESTER 1 - UNISA - DUE DATE :- 18 MAY 2024 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!)

CPR3701 PORTFOLIO MEMO - MAY/JUNE 2024 - SEMESTER 1 - UNISA - DUE DATE :- 18 MAY 2024 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!) In 1988 Ed Crooke and two accomplices, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief allegedly committed the crimes of robbery with aggravating circumstances, in the Republic of Zamunda, where they were visitors. Ed is subsequently arrested by the police in the Republic of South Africa in 2010. Ed is 72 years old at the time of his arrest. Section 1 1.1 Substantive Law governs the rules which determine whether or not particular conduct constitutes a crime. According to the facts set out above, which part of the facts constitutes substantive law? (1) 1.2 Adjectival/ Procedural Law determines the rules of procedure which must be followed in criminal proceedings. According to the facts set out above, which part of the scenario deals with Procedural/ Adjectival Law? (1) 1.3 The prosecutor, Cruella Persecutor, is of the view that the charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances may be tried in the district court. Briefly explain whether this is possible. If so, why, and if not, why not. (2) 1.4 In terms of section 18 of the Criminal Procedural Act 51 of 1977, the right to prosecute offences by the State lapses after a period of 20 years from the time when the offence was originally committed. Briefly explain whether Ed and his accomplices may be prosecuted in a South African court on the basis of the alleged offence. (2) 1.5 On a charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances in the subsequent trial, Ed and his accomplices plead not guilty, briefly explain whether the State may withdraw the case at this stage of the proceedings? Give reasons for your answer. (2) 9 CPR3701 May/June 2024 [TURN OVER] 1.6 When the South African authorities contemplate the arrest of Ed and his accomplices, the arrest of the suspects must be based on a “reasonable ground” or belief that the arrest is, indeed, necessary. Provide two instances in which a police officer effecting the arrest of the suspects will, objectively, be deemed to have “reasonable grounds to effect arrest” . (2) [10] Section 2 2.1 In South Africa, the prosecution applies for, and obtains warrants for the arrest of Ed Crooke, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief. In the meantime, the information relayed from Zamunda to the South African authorities is that Ed is a dangerous criminal, who should be apprehended with the utmost circumspection, care and planning, as he is known to “carry heavy artillery”. A large contingent of police officers led by Captain Trigga Happi, is sent to Ed’s house to arrest him. Captain Trigga Happi is a 43 year- old, physically strong and robust individual, who takes personal pride in his physical built and fitness. Meanwhile, Ed sees the police through the window, and makes a spirited attempt to escape through the back door of the house. He is spotted by one of the officers, who alerts Captain Trigga Happi. Captain Trigga Happi thereupon orders Ed to stop, however, Ed ignores the instruction and retorts, in the process, “I’m not going back to the slammer, not me!”. He continues to hobble away in the opposite direction. Captain Trigga Happi fires two warning shots in the air, whilst, once more, instructing Ed to stop. Ed continues to ignore the instruction, and gingerly makes his way into the street. Captain Trigga Happi fires a shot at Ed, hitting him on the left leg. Ed is arrested on the spot. Critically evaluate whether Captain Trigga Happi’s actions comply with the requirements for the use of force when effecting arrest, in the context of section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. (21) 2.2 After the arrest, the investigating officer, Warrant Officer Truth Seeker, tries to extract information from Ed through interrogation. However, Ed bluntly refuses to answer any questions, intimating that “in terms of the Constitution, the police do not have a right” to question him. Briefly discuss the rights and duties of Truth Seeker and Ed in this regard. (6) 2.3 In terms of section 50(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 “an arrested person … shall be brought before a lower court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after the arrest”. Due to the injury sustained during the arrest, Ed is only made to appear in court two weeks after the arrest. Explain the lawfulness of bringing Ed to court outside 48 hours in his injured state. (5) [32] 10 CPR3701 May/June 2024 [TURN OVER] Section 3 3.1 During the bail application the prosecutor, Cruella Persecutor, informs the court that the charge (robbery with aggravating circumstances) against the accused, should, for the purposes of the bail application, be classified under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The court agrees with the assertion. Briefly discuss, 3.1.1 the standard of proof which must be discharged in bail applications in general; and (1) 3.1.2 the onus which is required to be discharged in respect of Schedule 6 offences, including the party which is required to discharge such onus. (2) 3.2 Section 84 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and section 35(3)(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, require the indictment or charge sheet to be compiled in sufficient detail for the accused to be able to answer it. In the subsequent trial the accused, Ed, Adam and Petty are arraigned on the charges committed in Zamunda. One of the charges in the charge sheet reads as follows: “The accused Ed Crooke, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief are charged with the crime of robbery with aggravating circumstances of an amount of $1 million, which took place in Pretoria in 1988.” 3.2.1 Briefly explain whether a South African court has jurisdiction over the accused on the charge set out in the charge sheet since the crime was allegedly committed in Zamunda, and not in the Republic. If so, why/ and if not, why not? (4) 3.2.2 Evaluate whether the charge as set out in the charge sheet complies with the requirements of section 84(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. (15) 3.3 At the conclusion of the State’s case, the court calls upon the accused, Ed Crooke, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief to present their own case. The accused have, however, already concluded, on the basis of the evidence already presented by the prosecution that “the State has a weak case” against them. They decide not to answer the State’s case, but to close their case without testifying, or leading any defence witnesses. Critically evaluate the efficacy (workability) or otherwise of the accused’s strategy in the context of prevailing South African law. (6) [28] 11 CPR3701 May/June 2024 [TURN OVER] Section 4 4.1 At the close of the defence case, the court comes to the realization that the elements of the offence established through the evidence do not support a conviction of robbery with aggravating circumstances, but notes instead, that the evidence, in fact, points to a related crime(s) other than that which is cited in the charge sheet. Briefly explain, 4.1.1 The concept of competent verdicts in general; and (2) 4.1.2 The applicable competent verdict(s) in respect of the charge of robbery. (4) 4.2 Ed (who is 72 years old) is subsequently convicted on a charge of theft. The prosecutor, Cruella Persecutor, presents a record of Ed’s previous convictions for two crimes of theft committed in the past few years. (NB: You can assume for the purposes of the facts above, that the previous convictions in question are correctly presented, in respect of time frames which apply to the relevance and applicability of previous convictions) Briefly explain the applicability of mitigating and aggravating factors, in light of the facts set out above. (4) [10] [TOTAL: 80]