• Wrong document? Swap it for free
  • Written by students who passed
  • Immediately available after payment
  • Read online or as PDF
Sell
Where do you study
Your language
Document preview thumbnail
Preview 2 out of 9 pages
Exam (elaborations)

Cpr3701 Assignment 1 Memo - Semester 1 - 2025 Unisa – Due Date: - 24 March 2025 (Detailed Answers With Footnotes And A Bibliography - Distinction Guaranteed!)

Document preview thumbnail
Preview 2 out of 9 pages

CPR3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 1 - 2025 UNISA – DUE DATE: - 24 MARCH 2025 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!) 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) 4. D is subsequently arrested after the plea (‘not guilty’) of A, B and C as set out in (3), above. Briefly evaluate whether the joinder of D is still possible, under these circumstances. (5)

Content preview

Tutors you can trust. Voted “BEST
SELLING” memos for the year 2024.




CPR3701
Criminal Procedure

ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO
+ FREE EXTRA EXAMPACK/
NOTES BOOKLET
SEMESTER 1 – 2025 - UNISA
UNIQUE NUMBER: -
DUE DATE: - 24 MARCH 2025
Footnotes/Bibliography included



ASSIGNMENT PREVIEW
Questions

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.
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. – LLB EXAMPACKS
& TUTORIALS.
PAST PAPERS & MEMOS, ASSIGNMENT MEMOS, NOTES, SUMMARIES & TUITONS.
Cell: 062 810 8624 Email:
Fax: 086 096 5452 www.llbexampacksandtutorials.co.za

, 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)

Connected book
 image
Publisher: 2001 ISBN: 9780702156236 Edition: Unknown

Document information

Uploaded on
March 19, 2025
Number of pages
9
Written in
2024/2025
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers
R99,99

Wrong document? Swap it for free Within 14 days of purchase and before downloading, you can choose a different document. You can simply spend the amount again.
Written by students who passed
Immediately available after payment
Read online or as PDF

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
Sold
5421
Followers
2508
Items
752
Last sold
1 month ago



Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their exams and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can immediately select a different document that better matches what you need.

Pay how you prefer, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card or EFT and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Working on your references?

Create accurate citations in APA, MLA and Harvard with our free citation generator.

Working on your references?

Frequently asked questions