Cpr3701 Assignment 1 (Answers) Semester 2 2025 - Distinction Guaranteed

Achieve a distinction with this comprehensive and well-organized set of CPR3701 Assignment 1 (ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. Ensure accuracy and excellence in your submission!!! ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS Three assailants, A, B and C are engaged in an armed robbery at one of the jewellery stores in the newly-built Mall For All shopping centre. During the ensuing fracas, a firefight ensues as the security guards employed by the shopping centre attempt to foil the robbery. F, one of the security guards, orders A, who is cornered inside the store to surrender. However, A responds by running out of the jewellery store towards an opposite exit of the shopping centre. Still in hot pursuit, F issues three instructions to A to stop, but A continues running away in the opposite direction. F thereupon takes out his firearm, and shoots at A (who, at this point is about 10 metres away from F), hitting him on his left shoulder. A is, thereupon apprehended by F. Meanwhile, B and C make away with an undisclosed amount in fine jewellery and cash. 1. “In terms of s 35(1)(d)(i) of the Constitution and section 50(1)(d) of the CPA, everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48 hours after the arrest” After A’s arrest, he is placed in hospital where he is recuperating from his injuries. He is only made to appear in court ten weeks after his initial arrest. Upon his first appearance in court, A instructs his attorney L, to apply for the case to be ‘struck off the roll’ on the grounds that his Constitutional right to appear before court within 48 hours has been violated. Critically evaluate and discuss the merits of A’s contention. (7) 2. A subsequently applies for bail. The prosecutor, P, informs the court that the accused will be charged, in the subsequent criminal trial, with robbery with aggravating circumstances. A argues, inter alia, that “the interests of justice justify” his release on bail. The investigating officer, Sgt. Nosey Kekana, and the prosecutor, P, are, however, of the opposite view. In their preparations to oppose bail, they are convinced that the interests of justice do not warrant the accused’s release on bail because: 2.1 the accused was “arrested at the scene of the crime” and cannot, therefore, be presumed innocent; (3) 2.2 the nature and the seriousness of the offences suggest that the accused must be kept in custody as “a measure of punishment” before trial, and also to “ensure that the public does not lose faith in the criminal justice system by releasing the obviously guilty” on bail. (2) 2.3 the charges against the accused (A) are classified under Schedule 6 of the CPA, and, therefore, 2.3.1 the prosecution bears the onus to prove to the court beyond any reasonable doubt that the interests of justice do not warrant C’s release. (2) 2.3.2 the prosecution must, inter alia, prove that “substantial and compelling” circumstances are absent which warrant C and D’s release on bail. (2) Critically evaluate the aspects raised by the prosecutor and the investigating officer against the background of South African jurisprudence. 3. During the subsequent trial the prosecutor, P, calls the first witness, Q, whom she intends to cross-examine. Critically evaluate the correctness or otherwise of P’s course of action in the context of the function of cross-examination. (5) 4. At the end of the defence case the magistrate, M, convicts the accused (after the initial charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances) with assault with intent and to cause grievous bodily harm. Critically evaluate M’s finding in line with the principles of South African law. (4)