2024 – S1 – CRW2601 – ASSESSMENT 2 – Q&A
Assessment 2
Started on Monday, 22 April 2024,
State Finished
Completed on Monday, 22 April 2024,
Time taken
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
In Lungile 1999 (2) SACR 597 (A), the three accused robbed a shop. A policeman
(X) entered upon the scene, and in a wild shoot-out, X shot and killed A, the
shopkeeper. On a charge of murder, the court decided that Lungile was:
Select one:
A.
not guilty as there was no causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
B.
guilty as there was a causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
C.
guilty as there was a substantial difference between the foreseen and the actual
course of events.
D.
not guilty as the shot fired by X, killing A, constituted a novus actus interveniens.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
guilty as there was a causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
Question 2
Read the following facts then choose the correct option: X wants to kill Y. On his way
to Y’s home to kill him, X accidentally hits a person with his car, who dies. On closer
inspection, this person turns out to be Y:
1
, 2024 – S1 – CRW2601 – ASSESSMENT 2 – Q&A
Select one:
A.
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as he had no culpability at the very moment
when the unlawful act was committed.
B.
X will be convicted of murdering Y as his act which complies with the definitional
elements of the crime.
C.
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as there is no causal connection between X’s
act and Y’s death.
D.
X will be convicted of murdering Y as he intended to kill Y.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as he had no culpability at the very moment
when the unlawful act was committed.
Question 3
The appellant in De Oliveira 1993 (2) SACR 59 (A):
Select one:
A.
succeeded with his plea of private defence.
B.
succeeded with his plea of putative self-defence.
C.
did not succeed with his plea of putative self-defence.
D.
did not succeed with his plea of private defence.
Feedback
2
Assessment 2
Started on Monday, 22 April 2024,
State Finished
Completed on Monday, 22 April 2024,
Time taken
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
In Lungile 1999 (2) SACR 597 (A), the three accused robbed a shop. A policeman
(X) entered upon the scene, and in a wild shoot-out, X shot and killed A, the
shopkeeper. On a charge of murder, the court decided that Lungile was:
Select one:
A.
not guilty as there was no causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
B.
guilty as there was a causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
C.
guilty as there was a substantial difference between the foreseen and the actual
course of events.
D.
not guilty as the shot fired by X, killing A, constituted a novus actus interveniens.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
guilty as there was a causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
Question 2
Read the following facts then choose the correct option: X wants to kill Y. On his way
to Y’s home to kill him, X accidentally hits a person with his car, who dies. On closer
inspection, this person turns out to be Y:
1
, 2024 – S1 – CRW2601 – ASSESSMENT 2 – Q&A
Select one:
A.
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as he had no culpability at the very moment
when the unlawful act was committed.
B.
X will be convicted of murdering Y as his act which complies with the definitional
elements of the crime.
C.
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as there is no causal connection between X’s
act and Y’s death.
D.
X will be convicted of murdering Y as he intended to kill Y.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
X will not be convicted of murdering Y as he had no culpability at the very moment
when the unlawful act was committed.
Question 3
The appellant in De Oliveira 1993 (2) SACR 59 (A):
Select one:
A.
succeeded with his plea of private defence.
B.
succeeded with his plea of putative self-defence.
C.
did not succeed with his plea of putative self-defence.
D.
did not succeed with his plea of private defence.
Feedback
2
