100%
CPR3701
EXAM PACK
DISTINCTION QUALITY
UNISA EXAM
,CPR3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 30 MARCH 2026
A is charged with the following offences, namely,
(1) Rape in terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related
Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007; and
(2) Murder
1. The offences were allegedly committed in Cape Town. However, A was arrested
in Pretoria. Due to the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the
National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) decides that A should first
appear in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be
conducted. Critically discuss the efficacy of this decision.
The NDPP’s plan is ineffective because South Africa’s laws plainly prohibit trying an
accused at first instance in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The SCA is a purely
appellate court with no original criminal jurisdiction, so no trial or first appearance can
lawfully take place there. Under the Constitution and the Superior Courts Act, the SCA
“only deals with cases sent to it from the High Court” and “may decide only appeals and
issues connected with appeals”. In contrast, criminal trials must begin in the courts of
first instance namely the Magistrates’ Courts or the provincial High Courts not in the
SCA.
The Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) requires that a person arrested for a crime be
brought before a lower court (a magistrate’s court) promptly.
Section 50(1)(c) of the CPA provides that an arrested accused must be “brought before
a lower court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after the
arrest”. This means A, having been arrested in Pretoria, must first appear in a
,magistrate’s court (in Pretoria) within 48 hours. A first appearance in the SCA would
directly violate this rule.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has no first-instance jurisdiction, it is an appeal court
only. Section 50 of the CPA obliges the police to bring an arrested person before the
nearest magistrate’s court without delay.
Serious offences like murder and rape are normally tried in the High Court (the Western
Cape Division for crimes in Cape Town), and only arrive at the SCA on appeal.
The NDPP’s attempt to have A “first appear in the SCA” is contrary to law. The NDPP
may choose among competent trial venues for example, requesting a High Court trial,
but cannot override the CPA’s venue rules or create trial jurisdiction where none exists.
Any effort to proceed in the SCA would be a nullity. The NDPP’s decision is therefore
legally ineffectual. It would be struck down or ignored because it conflicts with the
Constitution and the CPA. The decision is legally null, the SCA cannot handle a first
appearance or trial
, Question 2
Critically evaluate A’s argument that “the arrest was not necessary” and that a
summons should have been used.
In terms of section 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), an accused may
be brought before court by way of summons, written notice, indictment or arrest. Arrest
is therefore not the only method available, and because it constitutes a drastic
infringement of personal liberty (sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996), it should not be used lightly.
1. Legal principles
An arrest must be lawful, meaning it must comply with the CPA (either with a warrant or
under a lawful ground for arrest without a warrant).
Arrest should not be used where less invasive means (such as a summons in terms of s
54 CPA) would secure attendance.
However, the police are not obliged to use a summons merely because it is theoretically
available.
The test is whether the arresting officer exercised his discretion properly and rationally,
not whether arrest was the “least drastic” method in hindsight.
Courts have held that even where jurisdictional facts for arrest exist e.g. reasonable
suspicion of a serious offence), the officer must still exercise discretion properly. If
arrest is used for an ulterior purpose e.g. punishment, intimidation, or harassment, it is
unlawful.
CPR3701
EXAM PACK
DISTINCTION QUALITY
UNISA EXAM
,CPR3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 30 MARCH 2026
A is charged with the following offences, namely,
(1) Rape in terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related
Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007; and
(2) Murder
1. The offences were allegedly committed in Cape Town. However, A was arrested
in Pretoria. Due to the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the
National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) decides that A should first
appear in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where the trial will also be
conducted. Critically discuss the efficacy of this decision.
The NDPP’s plan is ineffective because South Africa’s laws plainly prohibit trying an
accused at first instance in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The SCA is a purely
appellate court with no original criminal jurisdiction, so no trial or first appearance can
lawfully take place there. Under the Constitution and the Superior Courts Act, the SCA
“only deals with cases sent to it from the High Court” and “may decide only appeals and
issues connected with appeals”. In contrast, criminal trials must begin in the courts of
first instance namely the Magistrates’ Courts or the provincial High Courts not in the
SCA.
The Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) requires that a person arrested for a crime be
brought before a lower court (a magistrate’s court) promptly.
Section 50(1)(c) of the CPA provides that an arrested accused must be “brought before
a lower court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after the
arrest”. This means A, having been arrested in Pretoria, must first appear in a
,magistrate’s court (in Pretoria) within 48 hours. A first appearance in the SCA would
directly violate this rule.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has no first-instance jurisdiction, it is an appeal court
only. Section 50 of the CPA obliges the police to bring an arrested person before the
nearest magistrate’s court without delay.
Serious offences like murder and rape are normally tried in the High Court (the Western
Cape Division for crimes in Cape Town), and only arrive at the SCA on appeal.
The NDPP’s attempt to have A “first appear in the SCA” is contrary to law. The NDPP
may choose among competent trial venues for example, requesting a High Court trial,
but cannot override the CPA’s venue rules or create trial jurisdiction where none exists.
Any effort to proceed in the SCA would be a nullity. The NDPP’s decision is therefore
legally ineffectual. It would be struck down or ignored because it conflicts with the
Constitution and the CPA. The decision is legally null, the SCA cannot handle a first
appearance or trial
, Question 2
Critically evaluate A’s argument that “the arrest was not necessary” and that a
summons should have been used.
In terms of section 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), an accused may
be brought before court by way of summons, written notice, indictment or arrest. Arrest
is therefore not the only method available, and because it constitutes a drastic
infringement of personal liberty (sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996), it should not be used lightly.
1. Legal principles
An arrest must be lawful, meaning it must comply with the CPA (either with a warrant or
under a lawful ground for arrest without a warrant).
Arrest should not be used where less invasive means (such as a summons in terms of s
54 CPA) would secure attendance.
However, the police are not obliged to use a summons merely because it is theoretically
available.
The test is whether the arresting officer exercised his discretion properly and rationally,
not whether arrest was the “least drastic” method in hindsight.
Courts have held that even where jurisdictional facts for arrest exist e.g. reasonable
suspicion of a serious offence), the officer must still exercise discretion properly. If
arrest is used for an ulterior purpose e.g. punishment, intimidation, or harassment, it is
unlawful.
