CRIMINAL
LAW
SFR 114
Class tests
Module 1
Class test 1
1. Discuss the doctrine of precedence in context of the High Courts of South Africa (4)
2. Dissect the following case name: (6)
S v Baby and Another 2000(1) SACR 465 T
3. Place the following in the correct hierarchical order: (5)
Small claims courts, Constitutional Court, Lower courts, Higher courts, Supreme Court of
Appeal
4. Identify the following abbreviations: (5)
A
NmS
DJP
N
AJA
TOTAL: 20
* Bonus marks are awarded
Memorandum 1
1. Discuss the doctrine of precedence in context of the High Courts of South Africa (4)
•Bound by the judgements of the Appellant Division
•If there is no Appelant Division, they are bound by their own judgements unless they were incorrect
•A single judge is bound by the decisions of a full bench (2 or more judges)
•HCourts in one province are NOT bound by the decisions of HCourts in other provinces (persuasive power
only)
2. Dissect the following case name: (6)
S v Baby and Another 2000(1) SACR 465 T
•S v Baby: case name [BONUS: S – State Baby and Another – accused]
•2000: year of report
•(1): volume of report
•SACR: series of law reports [BONUS: South African Criminal Law Reports]
•465: page on which case starts
•T: court where case was decided [BONUS: Transvaal Provincial Division – Pretoria]
3. Place the following in the correct hierarchical order: (5)
Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, High Courts, Lower Courts, Small Claims Court
4. Identify the following abbreviations: (5)
A – Appellant Division [BONUS: Bloemfontein]
NmS – Namibian Supreme Court [BONUS: Windhoek]
DJP – Deputy Judge President
N – Natal Provincial Division [BONUS: Pietermaritzburg]
AJA – Acting Judge of Appeal
Module 2
Class test 2
1. Provide a definition of legality: (10)
* Use both the English and Latin terminology
2. Translate the following: (6)
•Nulla crimen sine lege
•Nulla poena sine lege
•Nulla crimen sine poena legali
3. List two cases which dealt with legality: (4)
TOTAL: 20
Memorandum 2
1. Provide a definition of legality: (10)
An accused ought not to be found guilty of a crime and sentenced unless (1)
• the types of conduct with which he is charged has been recognised by the law as a crime
(1) – ius acceptum (1)
• in clear terms (1) – ius certum (1)
• before the conduct took place (1) – ius praevium (1)
• without the court having to stretch the meaning of the words and concepts in the
definition to bring the particular conduct of the accused within the compass of the
definition (1) – ius strictum (1)
and after conviction, the imposition of punishment also complies with the four principles
set out immediately above (1)
2. Translate the following: (6)
Nulla crimen sine lege – no crime without law (2)
Nulla poena sine lege – no penalty/punishment without law (2)
Nulla crimen sine poena legali – no crime without legal penalty/punishment (2)
3. List two cases which dealt with legality: (4)
•S v Francis (2)
•Director of Public Prosecutions v Masiya (2)
TOTAL: 20
Module 3,4&5
Class test 3
Identify the following case. Provide the case name as well as the relevant criminal element dealt with in the case. (10 x 2)
1.
A mother has a protective relationship towards her child and failing to protect her child may lead to criminal liability.
2. If:
a) the victim failed to get medical attention or to follow the instructions of the medical doctor;
b) the wound was not lethal at the time of death; and
c) the failure of the victim to comply with the instructions of the medical doctor were unreasonable
it may not be said that person X who not fatally shot person Y, who then healed and later died of septicemic infection, was
the cause of death.
3. In this case the interest in property weighed heavier/ more than the interest in life in a decision regarding self- defence.
4. In certain instances the legal convictions of the community will be used to decide that a duty exists which requires a
person in a certain position or who holds a certain office to act positively.
5. A person should not be prosecuted for triviality and if they are, they should be acquitted.
6. A person who is in control of and has custody over a potentially dangerous object has a legal duty to ensure that the
object does not cause harm to others and any omission to do so may lead to legal liability.
7. Consent will never constitute a defence against a murder charge.
8. Medical negligence is never a novus actus interveniens unless the victim was fully recovered from the original wound.
9. If a person raises a defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity, the State carries the onus to rebut this and if there is
doubt, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.
10. In this case, Rumpff said: “it is clear that in law the accused person … cannot be held liable for every condition which
gave rise to the ultimate result. Somewhere a limitation must be placed.”
TOTAL: 20
Memorandum 3
1. S v B and Another (1)
Conduct (1)
2. Mokgethi (1)
Causation (1)
3. Van Wyk (1)
Unlawfulness (1)
4. Ewels (1)
Conduct (1)
5. Kgogong (1)
Unlawfulness (1)
6. Fernandez (1)
Conduct (1)
7. Nkwanyana (1)
Unlawfulness (1)
8. Tembani (1)
Causation (1)
9. Wiid (1)
Capacity (1)
10. Loubser (1)
Causation (1)
Module 5,6&7
Class test 4
Sammy is 11 years old and very hyperactive, especially when he has sweets. When he has
sugar, he becomes hyperactive and then very ill and normally, he has to be taken to the
doctor. Because of this, he is not allowed sweets during the week. One Wednesday he noticed
that a window of the school tuck-shop was open so he climbed through the window and stole
Jawbreakers, Fireballs, Jelly babies, Nerds, lollipops, chewing gum, all the chocolates and 4
cans of Coke. When he was climbing back through the window, he got caught by the principal
who verbally chastised him and sent him home. At home, his mother Marianne who works as
an antiques appraiser got angry at him because he did not listen to her about how sweets
affect him and also about his actions at school that day. He stuck out his tongue and tried to
run away but she caught him, grabbed a priceless and fragile African wooden spoon which she
was apprising for a client, and gave Sammy 3 lashes, accepting the possibility that the spoon
might break. Sammy yelled: “Child abuse! Child abuse!” On the last lashing, the spoon
splintered into tiny pieces. Because of Sammy yelling, the neighbour had phoned the police
who arrived at the scene and arrested Marianne for assault on Sammy. Marianne’s clients
arrive as she is taken away; they see the spoon and have a charge of malicious damage to
property brought against Marianne.
1. Discuss, with reference to case law where applicable, the liability of the relevant party for
the following:
a. the theft of the sweets; (12)
b. the alleged assault; and (6)
c. the damage to property regarding the spoon. (6)
2. Why did the principal only verbally chastise Sammy? (6)
TOTAL: 30
Memorandum 4
1a. To be held criminally liable a person must be criminally
accountable (1). This means that a person understands right from
wrong (1) and is able to control themselves according to this
understanding (1). This is referred to as the two- legged test (1)
for criminal capacity and it entails a cognitive and a conative
element. The relevant ground of justification here would be
youth (1) which was described as “Jeugdigheid is
onvolwassenheid, gebrek aan lewenservaring, onbesonnenheid
en veral ‘n geestestoestand van vatbaarheid vir beïnvloeding,
veral deur volwassenes” (1) in the Lehnberg case (1). Sammy is
only 11 so he falls in the group of 10 to 14 year old minors (1).
This means there is a rebuttable presumption that not criminally
accountable (1). He cannot be held accountable and liable for the
theft of the sweets (1). Youth as grounds of justification which
exclude unlawfulness was discussed in the S v F case (1). Facts (1).
Legal question (1). Decision (1).
1b. Marianne may raise the defence of disciplinary chastisement
(1) on the charge of assault on Sammy. If this defence is successful,
it will exclude the unlawfulness of her actions and thus she will not
be held criminally liable (1). For this defence to be successful,
Marianne must prove that the disciplinary chastisement met the
following requirements:
the minor deserved punishment; (1)
the punishment was moderate; and (1)
punishment was imposed with the aim of improving the minor’s
behaviour. (1)
In casu these requirements were met and Marianne’s defence will
be successful. She will not be held liable on a charge of assault (1).
1c. When Marianne broke the spoon she acted with dolus
eventualis (1) which is intention with knowledge of possibility (1).
Marianne foresaw the possibility that the spoon could break and
she accepted this possibility into the bargain (1). She thus had
dolus directus in respect of given Sammy a hiding dolus
eventualis in respect to breaking the spoon. (1) It was not the
object to break the spoon but Marianne foresaw the possibility
and recklessly continued (1). Since Marianne had dolus
eventualis, which is a form of intent, it may be argued that the
element of fault is present in the form of intent and Marianne
will be liable on a charge of malicious damage to property (1).
2. A child may only be chastised physically by a parent guardian
or person acting in loco parentis (1). S10 of the SA Schools Act 84
of 1996 has declared that no person may administer corporal
punishment to a learner at a school (1). This was dealt with in
the Williams case (1). Facts (1). Legal question (1). Decision (1).