CPR3701
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
8 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
On a Saturday evening on 20 June 2009, four male assailants allegedly attack a home
in Mamelodi, where the occupants are enjoying a leisurely time, having drinks. The
attackers use physical threats to allegedly relieve the occupants of valuable items,
which include cellphones, wristwatches and cash. The attackers manage to escape
from the house.
Question 1:
Ten years after the incident, the investigating officer F, receives information through an
informant regarding the whereabouts of two of the alleged assailants, A and B. He, thereupon,
proceeds to a house in Johannesburg to investigate further.
F is accompanied, on this exercise, by his colleague, G. Upon arrival at the address provided,
F and G perceive movement inside, which indicates the presence of people inside the house.
F knocks on the door, introduces himself as a police officer, announces that he is there to
investigate a crime of robbery which took place 10 years earlier, and requests to be admitted
into the house to conduct investigations. A responds, through the window, that he is not
prepared to open the door if a warrant is not presented. F and G try to open the door, which is
locked. F and G decide to break open the door, and enter the house.
Briefly discuss the legality of F and G’s actions. (10)
Question 2:
Upon entry into the house, B, one of the occupants, inquires about the reasons for the police’s
presence. F informs A and B that they (F and G) are there to arrest them for “an offence which
was committed a decade earlier”, and that he will “explain everything to them at the police
station”. He thereupon orders them out of the house. A and B are then requested to accompany
F and G on foot to the police station, whilst they (F and G) proceed to “conduct other
investigations”. As they walk out of the yard, B seizes the opportunity and runs away.
Critically explain whether
2.1 the suspects’ arrest conforms with the requirements of arrest, in terms of section 39 of
the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977; and (10)
2.2 B’s escape can be regarded as unlawful. (5)
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
9 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
Question 3:
As already indicated above, the offence in question was committed in Mamelodi, whereas the
suspects were arrested in Johannesburg. Critically discuss which court has jurisdiction over
the accused in respect of
3.1 hierarchy. In other words, whether the district, regional or high court has jurisdiction, and
the reason why the case can be heard in the court concerned. (2)
3.2 geographical location. In other words, whether the case should be tried in Mamelodi or
Johannesburg, and the reasons for that. (4)
Question 4:
In terms of section 59A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977, a prosecutor may, in respect
of the offences referred to in Schedule 7, and in consultation with the police investigating
officer, authorise the release of an accused on bail.
Briefly discuss whether the prosecutor, P, should release the accused on bail, in light of the
alleged offences, after their first appearance in court. (7)
Question 5:
In terms section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977, the right to institute a prosecution
for any offence lapses after a certain period. During the subsequent proceedings, the
prosecutor, P, informs the court that the State intends to charge the accused with the offence
of robbery. A and B contend, firstly, that the period within which they could still be prosecuted
has, in fact, lapsed, due to the effluxion of time. Secondly, they point out that the offence with
which they are being charged falls outside the ambit of section 18, and that the case should,
therefore, be struck off the roll.
Critically discuss the accused’s assertion. (7)
Question 6:
C and D are arrested three months after A and B. According to the allegations, C and D were
involved in taking the complainants’ items on the day in question.
6.1 Which word is used to describe the role played by C and D in the commission of the
offence. (2)
6.2 Briefly elaborate on whether C and D may be joined as co-accused after A and B have
pleaded, and one witness has already testified. (5)
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
10 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
Question 7:
“As a general rule, any magistrate or judge who is aware that he or she has any feeling of
partiality, enmity or any motive which might influence his or her decision, must recuse himself
or herself from the matter”.
Before the start of the trial, A notices the prosecutor (P) entering the magistrate’s (M) chambers
(office) in possession of (what he suspects to be) the case docket which is the subject of the
allegations. A informs D about his observations. D approaches M in his chambers, accuses
him of being a “corrupt scoundrel … and a disgrace to the bench”, and demands that he recuse
himself from the proceedings.
Critically discuss D’s actions, and whether his observations represent a reasonable
apprehension of bias. (10)
Question 8:
P, the prosecutor, conducts the evidence-in-chief of the witness, H. After this process, J, the
accused’s attorney, is instructed by M, the magistrate, to proceed with re-examination. Critically
analyse the sequential and substantive correctness of this process. (10)
Question 9:
At the close of the defence case, all the accused bring an application for a discharge in terms
of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977. Their application is premised on the
notion that there are “exceptional circumstances” which warrant a discharge.
Discuss the correctness or otherwise of this argument. (3)
Question 10:
A, B, C and D are subsequently convicted of robbery and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment
by the district court. Because the regional court has higher jurisdiction than the district court, J
lodges an appeal in the regional court. Briefly evaluate,
10.1 the correctness or otherwise of J’s approach regarding an appeal to the regional court.
(3)
10. 2 the grounds upon which the accused may bring an appeal (2)
[TOTAL: 80]
©
Unisa 2025
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
8 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
On a Saturday evening on 20 June 2009, four male assailants allegedly attack a home
in Mamelodi, where the occupants are enjoying a leisurely time, having drinks. The
attackers use physical threats to allegedly relieve the occupants of valuable items,
which include cellphones, wristwatches and cash. The attackers manage to escape
from the house.
Question 1:
Ten years after the incident, the investigating officer F, receives information through an
informant regarding the whereabouts of two of the alleged assailants, A and B. He, thereupon,
proceeds to a house in Johannesburg to investigate further.
F is accompanied, on this exercise, by his colleague, G. Upon arrival at the address provided,
F and G perceive movement inside, which indicates the presence of people inside the house.
F knocks on the door, introduces himself as a police officer, announces that he is there to
investigate a crime of robbery which took place 10 years earlier, and requests to be admitted
into the house to conduct investigations. A responds, through the window, that he is not
prepared to open the door if a warrant is not presented. F and G try to open the door, which is
locked. F and G decide to break open the door, and enter the house.
Briefly discuss the legality of F and G’s actions. (10)
Question 2:
Upon entry into the house, B, one of the occupants, inquires about the reasons for the police’s
presence. F informs A and B that they (F and G) are there to arrest them for “an offence which
was committed a decade earlier”, and that he will “explain everything to them at the police
station”. He thereupon orders them out of the house. A and B are then requested to accompany
F and G on foot to the police station, whilst they (F and G) proceed to “conduct other
investigations”. As they walk out of the yard, B seizes the opportunity and runs away.
Critically explain whether
2.1 the suspects’ arrest conforms with the requirements of arrest, in terms of section 39 of
the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977; and (10)
2.2 B’s escape can be regarded as unlawful. (5)
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
9 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
Question 3:
As already indicated above, the offence in question was committed in Mamelodi, whereas the
suspects were arrested in Johannesburg. Critically discuss which court has jurisdiction over
the accused in respect of
3.1 hierarchy. In other words, whether the district, regional or high court has jurisdiction, and
the reason why the case can be heard in the court concerned. (2)
3.2 geographical location. In other words, whether the case should be tried in Mamelodi or
Johannesburg, and the reasons for that. (4)
Question 4:
In terms of section 59A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977, a prosecutor may, in respect
of the offences referred to in Schedule 7, and in consultation with the police investigating
officer, authorise the release of an accused on bail.
Briefly discuss whether the prosecutor, P, should release the accused on bail, in light of the
alleged offences, after their first appearance in court. (7)
Question 5:
In terms section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977, the right to institute a prosecution
for any offence lapses after a certain period. During the subsequent proceedings, the
prosecutor, P, informs the court that the State intends to charge the accused with the offence
of robbery. A and B contend, firstly, that the period within which they could still be prosecuted
has, in fact, lapsed, due to the effluxion of time. Secondly, they point out that the offence with
which they are being charged falls outside the ambit of section 18, and that the case should,
therefore, be struck off the roll.
Critically discuss the accused’s assertion. (7)
Question 6:
C and D are arrested three months after A and B. According to the allegations, C and D were
involved in taking the complainants’ items on the day in question.
6.1 Which word is used to describe the role played by C and D in the commission of the
offence. (2)
6.2 Briefly elaborate on whether C and D may be joined as co-accused after A and B have
pleaded, and one witness has already testified. (5)
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
10 CPR3701
Oct/Nov 2025
Question 7:
“As a general rule, any magistrate or judge who is aware that he or she has any feeling of
partiality, enmity or any motive which might influence his or her decision, must recuse himself
or herself from the matter”.
Before the start of the trial, A notices the prosecutor (P) entering the magistrate’s (M) chambers
(office) in possession of (what he suspects to be) the case docket which is the subject of the
allegations. A informs D about his observations. D approaches M in his chambers, accuses
him of being a “corrupt scoundrel … and a disgrace to the bench”, and demands that he recuse
himself from the proceedings.
Critically discuss D’s actions, and whether his observations represent a reasonable
apprehension of bias. (10)
Question 8:
P, the prosecutor, conducts the evidence-in-chief of the witness, H. After this process, J, the
accused’s attorney, is instructed by M, the magistrate, to proceed with re-examination. Critically
analyse the sequential and substantive correctness of this process. (10)
Question 9:
At the close of the defence case, all the accused bring an application for a discharge in terms
of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977. Their application is premised on the
notion that there are “exceptional circumstances” which warrant a discharge.
Discuss the correctness or otherwise of this argument. (3)
Question 10:
A, B, C and D are subsequently convicted of robbery and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment
by the district court. Because the regional court has higher jurisdiction than the district court, J
lodges an appeal in the regional court. Briefly evaluate,
10.1 the correctness or otherwise of J’s approach regarding an appeal to the regional court.
(3)
10. 2 the grounds upon which the accused may bring an appeal (2)
[TOTAL: 80]
©
Unisa 2025
