lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
1
lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CRW2602 Questions and Answers
CRIMINAL LAW 201 QUESTION PACK:
TOPIC – PERPETRATOR/ACCOMPLICE:
For a person to be guilty as an accomplice, there are certain
requirements which must be complied with. Name and discuss these
requirements. (7)
A person is an accomplice if
1) Although he does not comply with all the requirements for liability
set out in the definition of the crime, and
2) Although the conduct required for a conviction is not imputed to
him in terms of the doctrine of common purpose,
He engages in conduct whereby he furthers the commission of the crime
by somebody else.
Requirements for liability as an accomplice
1) Act
2) Unlawfulness
3) Intention
4) Accessory character of liability
Explain the difference between a perpetrator, an accomplice and an
accessory after the fact. In your answer you must also give an example of
each. (8)
A person is a perpetrator if:
(1) his conduct, the circumstances in which it takes place (including,
where relevant, a particular description with which he as a person
must, according to the definition of the offence, comply), and the
culpability with which it is carried out are such that he satisfies all the
requirements for liability contained in the definition of the offence
OR
(2) if, although his own conduct does not comply with that required in
the definition of the crime, he acted together with one or more persons
and the conduct required for a conviction is imputed to him by virtue
of the principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose.
A person is an accomplice if:
(1) although he does not comply with all the requirements for liability
set out in the definition of the crime, and
(2) although the conduct required for a conviction is not imputed to
him in terms of the doctrine of common purpose, he engages in
conduct whereby he furthers the commission of the crime by somebody
else.
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
2
A person is an accessory after the fact to the commission of a crime if,
after the commission of the crime, she unlawfully and intentionally
engages in conduct intended to enable the perpetrator of or accomplice
to the crime to evade liability for her crime, or to facilitate such a
person's evasion of liability.
A shoots Y. Y falls to the ground mortally wounded. B (who has not
previously agreed with A to kill Y) appears on the scene and stabs Y with
a knife. The stab wound does not hasten Y’s death. Y dies as a result of
the bullet wound. A needs help to dispose of the body. For this purpose,
A calls in the help of C, who has agreed before the killing to assist A in
the disposing of the body, and D, a friend of C’s who had no such prior
agreement with A. Briefly discuss the criminal liability of B, C and D.
(6)
You have to discuss the criminal liability of B, C and D in this set of facts.
Allocate 2 marks for B, C and D respectively and do not waste any time in
discussing the liability of A.
B is guilty of attempted murder and can be referred to as a “joiner-in”
since he associated himself with others’ common purpose at a stage when
Y’s lethal wound had already been inflicted, although Y was then still
alive.
C may be a perpetrator or an accomplice , if his conduct, culpability and
personal qualities accord with the definition of murder, he will be a co-
perpetrator. He may also be an accomplice because he furthered the
commission of the crime.
D is an accessory after the fact. A person is an accessory after the fact to
the commission of a crime if, after the commission of the crime, he
unlawfully and intentionally engages in conduct intended to enable the
perpetrator of or accomplice to the crime to evade liability for the crime,
or to facilitate such a person’s evasion of liability. Helping a perpetrator to
dispose of the body of a person he has killed is an example of conduct that
makes a person an accessory after the fact.
Discuss the liability of the participant who is commonly referred to
as a “joiner-in”. (6)
The “joiner-in” is a person
Whose attack on Y did not hasten Y’s death
Whose blow was administered at a time when Y was still alive
Who did not act with a common purpose together with the other
persons who also inflicted wounds on Y.
Thus, here, the person comes onto the scene AFTER the mortal wound
has been inflicted on Y, but while Y is still alive and the wound inflicted
on Y does NOT hasten his death PLUS this “joiner-in” has NO prior
agreement with the persons who inflicted the mortal wound on Y.
Critical Law Studies cc ©
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
3
X1, X2 and X3 are members of a criminal gang. Their main activity is to
break into residential homes with the purpose of stealing valuable items.
They usually watch the houses they intend to break into in order to
establish at which time the owner is not home. One evening X1, X2 and
X3 take three guns and travel by car to the house of Z. Because they
have been watching Z’s house over a period of time, they know that he
goes out between seven and eight o’clock every evening. They climb over
the electronic gate of Z’s property at exactly fifteen minutes past seven.
X1 inserts a screwdriver in the lock of the backdoor of Z’s house and
breaks it open. He and his mates (X2 and X3) enter the house. Suddenly
the alarm goes off. They start running away but as they approach the
gate, Z (the owner of the house) enters with his car through the gate. X2
starts to panic and fires a shot at Z. Z is killed instantly. X1, X2 and X3
are all charged with murder.
You are the state prosecutor. Discuss the relevant legal principles and case law
which you will rely upon in order to prove that X1, X2 and X3 are all guilty of
the crime of murder. (12)
You are required to discuss the legal principles which a state prosecutor
will rely upon to prove that all the participants (X1, X2 and X3) are guilty
of murder. The legal principles applied in terms of the doctrine of common
purpose are relevant to this particular set of facts.
The definition of this doctrine of common purpose is the following: if two
or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act
together in order to achieve the purpose, the acts of each of them in
execution of such a purpose are imputed to the others. Therefore when the
doctrine is applied, a causal link between each participant’s act and the
prohibited result is NOT required. The existence of a common purpose
may be proved on the basis of prior agreement, or active association and
participation in a common criminal design. The state must, however,
prove that each participant had the necessary intention to commit the
crime of murder. The relevant case law is Safatsa; Mgedezi and Thebus.
According to the facts, there was prior agreement among the three
participants to commit housebreaking. Moreover, each participant
performed an act of association with the execution of the housebreaking.
X2 fired the shot at Z which caused his death. The state nevertheless has
to prove that X2 had the intention to kill Z before he can be convicted of
the crime of murder.
As far as X1 and X3 are concerned, the state has to prove that they had
foreseen the possibility that the acts of any of the participants might
result in a person’s death, and that they had reconciled themselves to
such a possibility.
An important fact in support of proof of the existence of dolus eventualis
on the part of X1 and X3 is that they also had guns with them when they
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
4
embarked upon the housebreaking. The state can therefore argue that
each participant had the necessary dolus eventualis can be convicted of
murder.
Name and discuss the requirements for liability as an accessory after the
fact.
An accessory after the fact is someone who engages in some conduct (an
act or omission) whereby the perpetrator or accomplice is assisted to
evade liability. It is required that the act take place after the commission
of the crime. The act must be of such a nature that it assists the
perpetrator or accomplice to evade liability for his/her crime, or facilitate
such a person’s evasion of liability. It is not required that the protection
or assistance given be successful. The act must be unlawful, which means
that there must be no justification for it. The accessory after the fact
must furthermore render assistance intentionally. This means that he/she
must know that the person was assisted, committed the crime. Moreover,
he/she must have the intention of assisting the perpetrator (or
accomplice) to evade liability or to facilitate the evasion of liability.
Similar to the accomplice, the liability of an accessory after the fact is
accessory in character. This means that there can only be an accessory
after the fact if somebody else committed the crime as the perpetrator.
You must also briefly discuss Gani.
A, B, C and D are members of a gang known as the “Untouchables.” They
are known for their drug abuse and their violent behaviour people who do
not use drugs and who do not wish to take part in their activities. They
live together in a remote neighbourhood where they use dagga on a daily
basis. One evening while they are on their way back to their flat a
nightclub, they see X, a diligent medical student, walking in the street.
They try and sell dagga to X. when X refuses to either purchase it from
them or speak to them, they decide amongst themselves to “fix him up”.
They then start to assault X with a club each of them taking a turn to hit
X with a club. X loses consciousness as a result of the attack. When they
realize that X is unconscious, they decide to run away. A few minutes later
Y, one of X’s previous girlfriends arrive on the scene and sees X lying on
the ground. She’s been bearing a grudge on X for a long time and kicks
him in the stomach. A few minutes later X dies. When A, B, C and D later
arrive at their flat, they find Z, A’s girlfriend waiting for them. A tells Z
about everything and gives the club with which they had assaulted X to
her. Z takes the club and throws it in the gutter where it is found by the
police a few days later. The post mortem performed on X reveals that X had
dies as a result of an injury to his head inflicted by a blunt object.
You are the state prosecutor in this case. Discuss the relevant principles and
authority you would rely on to prove that A, B, C and D should be convicted in
terms of the doctrine of common purpose. (12)
(Answered above in X1, X2, X3 questions)
Critical Law Studies cc ©
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
1
lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CRW2602 Questions and Answers
CRIMINAL LAW 201 QUESTION PACK:
TOPIC – PERPETRATOR/ACCOMPLICE:
For a person to be guilty as an accomplice, there are certain
requirements which must be complied with. Name and discuss these
requirements. (7)
A person is an accomplice if
1) Although he does not comply with all the requirements for liability
set out in the definition of the crime, and
2) Although the conduct required for a conviction is not imputed to
him in terms of the doctrine of common purpose,
He engages in conduct whereby he furthers the commission of the crime
by somebody else.
Requirements for liability as an accomplice
1) Act
2) Unlawfulness
3) Intention
4) Accessory character of liability
Explain the difference between a perpetrator, an accomplice and an
accessory after the fact. In your answer you must also give an example of
each. (8)
A person is a perpetrator if:
(1) his conduct, the circumstances in which it takes place (including,
where relevant, a particular description with which he as a person
must, according to the definition of the offence, comply), and the
culpability with which it is carried out are such that he satisfies all the
requirements for liability contained in the definition of the offence
OR
(2) if, although his own conduct does not comply with that required in
the definition of the crime, he acted together with one or more persons
and the conduct required for a conviction is imputed to him by virtue
of the principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose.
A person is an accomplice if:
(1) although he does not comply with all the requirements for liability
set out in the definition of the crime, and
(2) although the conduct required for a conviction is not imputed to
him in terms of the doctrine of common purpose, he engages in
conduct whereby he furthers the commission of the crime by somebody
else.
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
2
A person is an accessory after the fact to the commission of a crime if,
after the commission of the crime, she unlawfully and intentionally
engages in conduct intended to enable the perpetrator of or accomplice
to the crime to evade liability for her crime, or to facilitate such a
person's evasion of liability.
A shoots Y. Y falls to the ground mortally wounded. B (who has not
previously agreed with A to kill Y) appears on the scene and stabs Y with
a knife. The stab wound does not hasten Y’s death. Y dies as a result of
the bullet wound. A needs help to dispose of the body. For this purpose,
A calls in the help of C, who has agreed before the killing to assist A in
the disposing of the body, and D, a friend of C’s who had no such prior
agreement with A. Briefly discuss the criminal liability of B, C and D.
(6)
You have to discuss the criminal liability of B, C and D in this set of facts.
Allocate 2 marks for B, C and D respectively and do not waste any time in
discussing the liability of A.
B is guilty of attempted murder and can be referred to as a “joiner-in”
since he associated himself with others’ common purpose at a stage when
Y’s lethal wound had already been inflicted, although Y was then still
alive.
C may be a perpetrator or an accomplice , if his conduct, culpability and
personal qualities accord with the definition of murder, he will be a co-
perpetrator. He may also be an accomplice because he furthered the
commission of the crime.
D is an accessory after the fact. A person is an accessory after the fact to
the commission of a crime if, after the commission of the crime, he
unlawfully and intentionally engages in conduct intended to enable the
perpetrator of or accomplice to the crime to evade liability for the crime,
or to facilitate such a person’s evasion of liability. Helping a perpetrator to
dispose of the body of a person he has killed is an example of conduct that
makes a person an accessory after the fact.
Discuss the liability of the participant who is commonly referred to
as a “joiner-in”. (6)
The “joiner-in” is a person
Whose attack on Y did not hasten Y’s death
Whose blow was administered at a time when Y was still alive
Who did not act with a common purpose together with the other
persons who also inflicted wounds on Y.
Thus, here, the person comes onto the scene AFTER the mortal wound
has been inflicted on Y, but while Y is still alive and the wound inflicted
on Y does NOT hasten his death PLUS this “joiner-in” has NO prior
agreement with the persons who inflicted the mortal wound on Y.
Critical Law Studies cc ©
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
3
X1, X2 and X3 are members of a criminal gang. Their main activity is to
break into residential homes with the purpose of stealing valuable items.
They usually watch the houses they intend to break into in order to
establish at which time the owner is not home. One evening X1, X2 and
X3 take three guns and travel by car to the house of Z. Because they
have been watching Z’s house over a period of time, they know that he
goes out between seven and eight o’clock every evening. They climb over
the electronic gate of Z’s property at exactly fifteen minutes past seven.
X1 inserts a screwdriver in the lock of the backdoor of Z’s house and
breaks it open. He and his mates (X2 and X3) enter the house. Suddenly
the alarm goes off. They start running away but as they approach the
gate, Z (the owner of the house) enters with his car through the gate. X2
starts to panic and fires a shot at Z. Z is killed instantly. X1, X2 and X3
are all charged with murder.
You are the state prosecutor. Discuss the relevant legal principles and case law
which you will rely upon in order to prove that X1, X2 and X3 are all guilty of
the crime of murder. (12)
You are required to discuss the legal principles which a state prosecutor
will rely upon to prove that all the participants (X1, X2 and X3) are guilty
of murder. The legal principles applied in terms of the doctrine of common
purpose are relevant to this particular set of facts.
The definition of this doctrine of common purpose is the following: if two
or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act
together in order to achieve the purpose, the acts of each of them in
execution of such a purpose are imputed to the others. Therefore when the
doctrine is applied, a causal link between each participant’s act and the
prohibited result is NOT required. The existence of a common purpose
may be proved on the basis of prior agreement, or active association and
participation in a common criminal design. The state must, however,
prove that each participant had the necessary intention to commit the
crime of murder. The relevant case law is Safatsa; Mgedezi and Thebus.
According to the facts, there was prior agreement among the three
participants to commit housebreaking. Moreover, each participant
performed an act of association with the execution of the housebreaking.
X2 fired the shot at Z which caused his death. The state nevertheless has
to prove that X2 had the intention to kill Z before he can be convicted of
the crime of murder.
As far as X1 and X3 are concerned, the state has to prove that they had
foreseen the possibility that the acts of any of the participants might
result in a person’s death, and that they had reconciled themselves to
such a possibility.
An important fact in support of proof of the existence of dolus eventualis
on the part of X1 and X3 is that they also had guns with them when they
, lOMoARcPSD|5967629
CLS cc ©
Criminal Law 2 Questions
4
embarked upon the housebreaking. The state can therefore argue that
each participant had the necessary dolus eventualis can be convicted of
murder.
Name and discuss the requirements for liability as an accessory after the
fact.
An accessory after the fact is someone who engages in some conduct (an
act or omission) whereby the perpetrator or accomplice is assisted to
evade liability. It is required that the act take place after the commission
of the crime. The act must be of such a nature that it assists the
perpetrator or accomplice to evade liability for his/her crime, or facilitate
such a person’s evasion of liability. It is not required that the protection
or assistance given be successful. The act must be unlawful, which means
that there must be no justification for it. The accessory after the fact
must furthermore render assistance intentionally. This means that he/she
must know that the person was assisted, committed the crime. Moreover,
he/she must have the intention of assisting the perpetrator (or
accomplice) to evade liability or to facilitate the evasion of liability.
Similar to the accomplice, the liability of an accessory after the fact is
accessory in character. This means that there can only be an accessory
after the fact if somebody else committed the crime as the perpetrator.
You must also briefly discuss Gani.
A, B, C and D are members of a gang known as the “Untouchables.” They
are known for their drug abuse and their violent behaviour people who do
not use drugs and who do not wish to take part in their activities. They
live together in a remote neighbourhood where they use dagga on a daily
basis. One evening while they are on their way back to their flat a
nightclub, they see X, a diligent medical student, walking in the street.
They try and sell dagga to X. when X refuses to either purchase it from
them or speak to them, they decide amongst themselves to “fix him up”.
They then start to assault X with a club each of them taking a turn to hit
X with a club. X loses consciousness as a result of the attack. When they
realize that X is unconscious, they decide to run away. A few minutes later
Y, one of X’s previous girlfriends arrive on the scene and sees X lying on
the ground. She’s been bearing a grudge on X for a long time and kicks
him in the stomach. A few minutes later X dies. When A, B, C and D later
arrive at their flat, they find Z, A’s girlfriend waiting for them. A tells Z
about everything and gives the club with which they had assaulted X to
her. Z takes the club and throws it in the gutter where it is found by the
police a few days later. The post mortem performed on X reveals that X had
dies as a result of an injury to his head inflicted by a blunt object.
You are the state prosecutor in this case. Discuss the relevant principles and
authority you would rely on to prove that A, B, C and D should be convicted in
terms of the doctrine of common purpose. (12)
(Answered above in X1, X2, X3 questions)
Critical Law Studies cc ©
