CRW2601
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2024
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
2024 Assessments UNISA
CRW2601 Assessment 02
Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X is a minibus taxi-driver and transports
children to school. X always crosses a railway crossing with his taxi just before the train passes, while
ignoring the warning lights and bypassing the boom. X knows that his conduct is dangerous. One
morning, X again approaches the crossing with his minibus taxi. X thinks he will manage to cross in
time, as he has always done so. However, the taxi is hit by the train, resulting in the death of the
children in the minibus. X will:
A. not be guilty of murder as he had no direct intention in causing the children’s death.
B. be guilty of murder as he had indirect intention in causing the children’s death.
C. be guilty of murder as he had dolus eventualis in causing the children’s death.
D. not be guilty of murder as he did not reconcile himself to the possibility of the train hitting the taxi.
ANSWER: D
Explanation:
The facts in this question are based on the Humphreys case which is discussed in your SG on p. 123.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the accused – although he had foreseen the
possibility of harm – he did not reconcile himself to the possible consequences of his actions. As
such, he did not comply with the second requirement of the test for dolus eventualis. Humphreys'
convictions of murder and attempted murder were set aside, and he was found guilty only of culpable
homicide in respect of the children killed. Please read especially the last paragraph in SG 123. As X
will not be guilty of murder, options B and D are immediately eliminated. Option A is also incorrect as
direct intention is not the only form of intention that will qualify in order to be held guilty of the crime of
murder. The correct answer is then Option D, as explained above.
Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X wants to shoot and kill Z. X fires a
shot at Z but misses him. The bullet strikes a pole, ricochets, and kills Y, who is sitting in a stationary
car across the street. Y dies immediately as a result of the bullet wound. X had become aware of Y's
presence before he fired the shot but decided that there was no possibility of Y being struck by the
bullet. In view of the decision of the Appeal Court in Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A), X may be convicted
of:
A. attempted murder in respect of Z, and culpable homicide in respect of Y if the state can prove
that X was negligent in causing the death of Y.
B. attempted murder in respect of Z, and murder in respect of Y because of the transferred intent
approach.
C. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and murder in respect of Y because
of the transferred intent approach.
D. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and culpable homicide in respect of Y
if the state can prove that X was negligent in causing the death of Y.
ANSWER: A
Explanation:
The case of Mtshiza was the hint provided to you here in order to answer the question correctly. See
your SG 138-139 where certain points from the case are presented as to how aberratio ictus
situations should be judged. You already know that if X wishes to kill Z, X has direct intention towards
Z. If X does kill Z, X is guilty of murder. But if X does not manage to kill Z (as in the scenario), X is
guilty of attempted murder in respect of Z. As X will be guilty of attempted murder as regards Z,
options C and D are immediately eliminated. The second part of the answer concerns X's liability
towards Y (the person actually struck by X's blow). The SG provides three options here, of which the
answer in A is the correct one. The answer in B is wrong as the transferred intent approach amounts
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2024
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
2024 Assessments UNISA
CRW2601 Assessment 02
Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X is a minibus taxi-driver and transports
children to school. X always crosses a railway crossing with his taxi just before the train passes, while
ignoring the warning lights and bypassing the boom. X knows that his conduct is dangerous. One
morning, X again approaches the crossing with his minibus taxi. X thinks he will manage to cross in
time, as he has always done so. However, the taxi is hit by the train, resulting in the death of the
children in the minibus. X will:
A. not be guilty of murder as he had no direct intention in causing the children’s death.
B. be guilty of murder as he had indirect intention in causing the children’s death.
C. be guilty of murder as he had dolus eventualis in causing the children’s death.
D. not be guilty of murder as he did not reconcile himself to the possibility of the train hitting the taxi.
ANSWER: D
Explanation:
The facts in this question are based on the Humphreys case which is discussed in your SG on p. 123.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the accused – although he had foreseen the
possibility of harm – he did not reconcile himself to the possible consequences of his actions. As
such, he did not comply with the second requirement of the test for dolus eventualis. Humphreys'
convictions of murder and attempted murder were set aside, and he was found guilty only of culpable
homicide in respect of the children killed. Please read especially the last paragraph in SG 123. As X
will not be guilty of murder, options B and D are immediately eliminated. Option A is also incorrect as
direct intention is not the only form of intention that will qualify in order to be held guilty of the crime of
murder. The correct answer is then Option D, as explained above.
Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X wants to shoot and kill Z. X fires a
shot at Z but misses him. The bullet strikes a pole, ricochets, and kills Y, who is sitting in a stationary
car across the street. Y dies immediately as a result of the bullet wound. X had become aware of Y's
presence before he fired the shot but decided that there was no possibility of Y being struck by the
bullet. In view of the decision of the Appeal Court in Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A), X may be convicted
of:
A. attempted murder in respect of Z, and culpable homicide in respect of Y if the state can prove
that X was negligent in causing the death of Y.
B. attempted murder in respect of Z, and murder in respect of Y because of the transferred intent
approach.
C. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and murder in respect of Y because
of the transferred intent approach.
D. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and culpable homicide in respect of Y
if the state can prove that X was negligent in causing the death of Y.
ANSWER: A
Explanation:
The case of Mtshiza was the hint provided to you here in order to answer the question correctly. See
your SG 138-139 where certain points from the case are presented as to how aberratio ictus
situations should be judged. You already know that if X wishes to kill Z, X has direct intention towards
Z. If X does kill Z, X is guilty of murder. But if X does not manage to kill Z (as in the scenario), X is
guilty of attempted murder in respect of Z. As X will be guilty of attempted murder as regards Z,
options C and D are immediately eliminated. The second part of the answer concerns X's liability
towards Y (the person actually struck by X's blow). The SG provides three options here, of which the
answer in A is the correct one. The answer in B is wrong as the transferred intent approach amounts
