A +
PREVIEW
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.
DISTINCTION Footnotes and/or Bibliography
GUARANTEED!!! included. *
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used by our Tutors to draft this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. This document is to be used for comparison, research, and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced,
resold, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the Author. By making use of this document, you agree to fully
accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document. – STUDY BUDDY TUTOR SA
PAST PAPERS & MEMOS, ASSIGNMENT MEMOS, NOTES, SUMMARIES & TUITIONS.
Cell: 062 810 8624 Email:
, 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; (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)
(NB: the question does not require you to provide a comparison between adjournments
and postponements, but to give a straight answer. Please note that you will not be
awarded any marks for merely expressing the difference between adjournments and
postponements)
PREVIEW
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.
DISTINCTION Footnotes and/or Bibliography
GUARANTEED!!! included. *
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used by our Tutors to draft this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. This document is to be used for comparison, research, and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced,
resold, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the Author. By making use of this document, you agree to fully
accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document. – STUDY BUDDY TUTOR SA
PAST PAPERS & MEMOS, ASSIGNMENT MEMOS, NOTES, SUMMARIES & TUITIONS.
Cell: 062 810 8624 Email:
, 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; (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)
(NB: the question does not require you to provide a comparison between adjournments
and postponements, but to give a straight answer. Please note that you will not be
awarded any marks for merely expressing the difference between adjournments and
postponements)
