CPR3701 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE March 2025

CPR3701 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE March 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. For assistance, Whats-App 0.6.7-1.7.1-1.7.3.9. Ensure your success with us... Four assailants, A, B, C and D are engaged in an armed robbery at Shiny Things, 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; (3) (b) Critically evaluate which court should enjoy jurisdiction over A, B and C, in light of the facts set out above. (4) 2. In terms of section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution, and section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an arrestee must be brought before court as soon as reasonably possible. B and C (the accused) were arrested on Tuesday at 10h00, and detained at the Cape Town police station, whilst awaiting to be transferred to Kimberley, to be joined with A in respect of the robbery committed in Kimberley. Inspector Nosey Kekana only brings the accused before court on Friday (of the same week), at 15h00. The accused subsequently challenge their detention as unlawful and "falling foul of legislative and Constitutional imperative". Critically evaluate the accused's argument, in light of the facts set out above. (5) 3. After pleading 'not guilty' to the charges. Two state witnesses are led in evidence. The court sets down the case to a different date for further hearing. Briefly explain whether the 'setting down' of the case to a different date as explained above constitutes a postponement or an adjournment (and why you say so). (3) A and B are subsequently arrested a few weeks after the robbery. A, B, C and D apply for bail. The prosecutor, Ms. PP, argues, during the bail proceedings, that the accused will be charged, in the subsequent criminal trial, with robbery with aggravating circumstances. The accused contend, on the other hand, that the State does not have a strong case against them, and that “the interests of justice” justify their release on bail. During the bail application, Ms.PP, is adamant that the accused must not be granted bail. She further contends before court, that (a) the crime of robbery with aggravating circumstances is classified under Schedule 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (1) (b) the prosecution must discharge its onus beyond any reasonable doubt; (2) (c) in terms of section 60(11)(a) the prosecution bears the onus to prove to the court beyond any reasonable doubt that “substantial and compelling” circumstances exist which justify release on bail (2) Discuss the accuracy or otherwise dynamics of the aspects referred to in (a), (b) and