RESOURCES
source.pdf (namiblii.org)
S v Rickerts (CC 8 of 2015) [2016] NAHCMD 30 (25 February 2016) - NamibLII
Hangue v S (29 of 2003) [2015] NASC 33 (15 December 2015) - NamibLII
S v Semete (CC 05 /2023) [2023] NAHCMD 477 (7 August 2023) - NamibLII
OLD IRISH- IN DRIVE
QUEENSLAND IN DRIVE
INTOXICATION CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY- IN DRIVE
S11572- IN DRIVE
Question 1: (Due Date 30 April 2024) Page Limit: 8 pages including references and
footnotes (Font - Arial 12, spacing 1.5 intext and 1.0 in footnotes)
Pius and Alushe found out that their best friend Musonda from childhood was murdered. They
both became upset, suspecting that he was killed by Pandu who had been in an argument with
Musonda the week before. Several days later, on the date of their friend’s funeral, Alushe and
Pius consumed alcohol, became emotional, and angrily decided to find Pandu. Pius wanted to
kill Pandu who he felt responsible for the death of Musonda. He asked Alushe to go with him to
find Pandu to “get even for their friend, Musonda, and kill him”. Pius showed Alushe the pistol
he was going to take with him to shoot Pandu. Alushe agreed to go along with Pius to look for
Pandu.
Alushe drove them in her car 5 kilometres away to a neighbourhood street corner where they
saw Pandu. Alushe parked the car, and Pius approached Pandu 1 metres away and fired ten
rounds directly at Pandu while Alushe waited in his car and watched. Pius ran back to the car
and threw the gun into a storm drain as he did so. They fled away in Alushe’s car. Pandu
suffered serious injuries and died that same day.
Discuss Pius and Alushe’s culpability for intentional forms of unlawful killing of a
person, if any. What defences, if any, might Alushe and Pius raise? [50]
1.2.2 Rule: There are five requirements that need to be determined before a person could be
held criminally liable, firstly, the conduct must have been criminalised by the law or in a statute
before the conduct was committed,this is the principle of legality. Secondly, the conduct must be
voluntary, in other words, the accused must have committed the conduct on his own free will
,the conduct can either be an act or omission.
The third requirement is that, the conduct committed must comply with the definitional elements
of that specific crime as dictated by the relevant law or statute. The fourth requirement is
culpability, which essentially means that the accused must have had a guilty and blameworthy
mind when the conduct is committed, culpability requires someone to be at fault for committing
such conduct, fault can either be in the form of intention or negligence. In short, the accused
ought to have been aware that the conduct would amount to a crime or he just simply intended
to commit such a crime, culpability also looks at the capacity of the accused when the conduct
was committed, whether or not the accused was in his right mind that he could appreciate the
wrongfulness and acted upon that appreciation. The last requirement is the lawfulness , whether
the accused , in committing such a crime, lacked the necessary defence accepted to justify his
actions.
The court in Mouton v Mouton & Another held that a strong foundation for provocation must be
laid and the caution and care shall be applied by the court in scrutinising the evidence because
there is an expectation that a provoked person must resist the urge and control the emotions.
Provocation does not amount to a general defence but rather a mitigating factor.
I. Introduction (1 Page)
● Briefly introduce the case involving Pius, Alushe, Musonda, and Pandu.
● Define intentional forms of unlawful killing (e.g., murder, manslaughter).
● Outline relevant legal principles and statutes that govern intentional killing in your
jurisdiction (briefly mention actus reus and mens rea).
III. Analysis of Pius's Actions and Culpability (2 Pages)
A. Mens Rea (Mental State)
● Define Mens Rea and its relevance to unlawful killing.
● Analyze Pius's intent based on the facts:
○ Premeditation and intent to kill (planning with the gun, asking Alushe to
"get even")
● Identify the possible type(s) of murder Pius might be culpable for (e.g.,
first-degree murder, depending on your jurisdiction's legal definition).
B. Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
● Define Actus Reus and its role in unlawful killing.
● Explain Pius's actions fulfilling the Actus Reus:
○ Firing the gun at Pandu with the intention to kill.
○ Causation - direct causation of Pandu’s death by the shooting.
C. Legal Qualification of Pius’s Acts (likely murder)
D. Possible Defenses for Pius
● Provocation – Was it sufficient to mitigate murder to manslaughter?
● Intoxication – Was it voluntary, and did it affect his intent?
● Briefly analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each defense.
IV. Analysis of Alushe’s Actions and Culpability (2 Pages)
A. Role and Participation in the Crime
● Agreement to accompany Pius with knowledge of his intent.
● Act of driving Pius to the location.
B. Assessing Alushe's Mens Rea
● Shared intent or merely facilitation?
● Knowledge of the pistol and Pius's statements.
C. Actus Reus of Alushe
● Presence at the crime scene and role as a getaway driver.
● Indirect participation in the actual shooting.
D. Legal Qualification of Alushe's Acts (accomplice liability, aiding, and abetting)
E. Possible Defenses for Alushe
● Lack of direct participation in the shooting.
● Duress or intoxication affecting capacity or intent.
● Briefly analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each defense.
V. Comparative Analysis of Liability (1 Page)
● Direct vs. indirect participation and their implications for culpability (consider joint
enterprise if applicable in your jurisdiction).
● Evaluate the proportionality of their roles and respective liabilities.
VI. Conclusion (1 Page)
● Recapitulate the main findings: Pius's direct culpability for murder and Alushe’s
liability as an accomplice.
● Final assessment of potential defenses and their likely effectiveness.
● Implications of this case for understanding intentional unlawful killing and
accomplice liability.
I. Introduction
A. Brief overview of the scenario
B. Statement of the problem/question
II. Pius and Alushe's Actions
A. Description of their emotional state and reaction to Musonda's death
B. Decision to seek revenge on Pandu
C. Planning and execution of the act
D. Details of the shooting incident
III. Legal Analysis of Pius and Alushe's Culpability
A. Definition of intentional forms of unlawful killing
B. Assessment of Pius's actions
1. Intent to kill
2. Pre-meditation
3. Actus reus and mens rea
C. Assessment of Alushe's involvement
1. Accomplice liability
2. Knowledge and intent
D. Comparative culpability of Pius and Alushe
IV. Possible Defenses for Pius and Alushe
A. Self-defense
B. Defense of others
C. Duress or coercion
D. Intoxication as a defense
E. Mistake of fact or law
F. Lack of intent
V. Conclusion
A. Summary of findings regarding Pius and Alushe's culpability
B. Discussion of potential defenses and their applicability
C. Final assessment of the case and recommendations, if any
VI. References
A. List of legal sources and relevant cases
B. Citations for any referenced materials
VII. Footnotes
A. Clarifications or additional information supporting the analysis
B. Explanation of legal principles and case law referenced