You are on page 1of 5




+ 15 minutes reading time


External Examiner: Internal Examiner:

Professor J Burchell Mr A Ramdhin

STUDENTS ARE REQUESTED, IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, TO WRITE LEGIBLY. PLEASE NOTE: This paper consists of 5 pages. Please see that you have all the pages.

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Please note that Section A is compulsory. You have a choice in Section B. 2. Please note the marks allocated for each question and apportion your time accordingly. _________________________________________________________________________

Although the accused was intoxicated when he drove his motor vehicle into a crowd of people. He sees B lying on the floor bleeding (B is still alive at this time) and he pulls the trigger. thereby killing A in the process. C who has just escaped from a mental institution. They subsequently convince Z to drive them to the store and tell him to „keep the engine running while the deed is being done‟. and then pretends that he is „the bad guy in a movie‟. Question 2 (10 marks) In S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A). Z and C in the above instance. an innocent bystander who is hiding under a counter. One shot strikes B in his chest causing him to collapse to the ground. X then takes the gun and fires two shots.SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL. witnesses the incident. the evidence suggests that the shot fired at B‟s chest would have cause d death within 30 minutes were it not for the subsequent shot to the head. PIETERMARITZBURG EXAMINATIONS: MAY/JUNE 2009 CRIMINAL LAW PAGE 2 SECTION A (50 marks) PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SECTION IS COMPULSORY AND THAT YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH QUESTION 1 AND QUESTION 2 Question 1 (40 marks) X and Y form a common purpose to rob a particular store owned by A. Y threatens to kill him if he does not obey his instructions. which was passed subsequent to this case. When X refuses. in his drunken state he was under the misapprehension that the persons standing in the road would move out of his way. hands the gun to X and then tells him to kill B. Assess the criminal liability of X. Although medical evidence conclusively establishes that the immediate cause of B‟s death is the wound to the head. Five minutes later. which he thinks is a toy. However. The other shot ricochets off a steel door and strikes Y in the head thereby killing him instantly. Y subsequently spots B. X is shocked by what has just transpired and he then drops the gun on the floor. B is shot in the head and dies instantly. C picks up the gun. B. leaves the store and is driven by Z away from the scene of the crime. the gun falls out of Y‟s pocket. before A has a chance to respond. X grabs a gun and gives it to Y who then places the gun in his pocket. Explain whether Chretien could incur criminal liability in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1 of 1988. hits the floor and goes off. the accused was acquitted of attempted murder and common assault on the basis that he lacked the required intention for these crimes. X and Y confront A and they demand that he give them all of the money from the shop‟s cash register. Upon entering the store. . enters the store with a view to purchase cigarettes.

both legally and jurisdictionally. PIETERMARITZBURG EXAMINATIONS: MAY/JUNE 2009 CRIMINAL LAW PAGE 3 SECTION B (50 marks) PLEASE ANSWER ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: Question 1 (25 marks) Peter Jones has recently inherited a farm in Gauteng from his uncle Old MacDonald. Peter then phones his attorney. and both psychologists and psychiatrists seem to agree that there is only a remote possibility that an accused could be so provoked as to act involuntarily…After having gone from one extreme. the court comes close to eliminating provocation as a defence. 204. in our law. Along the way. Question 2 (25 marks) „…By equating loss of control with automatism. Unfortunately. In light of the above statement. Peter loads the livestock in his truck and then heads towards KwaZulu-Natal. Austin later phones Peter and tells him that he will not require a permit. . of allowing provocation as a complete defence. Peter wants to transport some livestock to an area in KwaZulu-Natal. Only once has the Appellate Division found in favour of an accused raising the defence of provocation (S v Wiid 1990 (1) SACR 561 (A)). a second year law student who is doing vacation work with Eli Stone‟s firm. Austin tells Peter that he is still a law student but he promises to research the matter.SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL. Eli is not available at that time but the secretary transfers him to Austin Legal. he is stopped at a road block and is told that he has contravened certain regulations which require a person transporting livestock across different provinces to have a permit. however. Eli Stone to enquire whether he would require a permit for this purpose. critically discuss the case of S v Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA). Explain whether Peter can avoid liability in this instance on the basis that he was merely acting upon the legal advice given to him. Acting on this advice. we have effectively excluded it entirely even as a partial defence…‟ R Louw “S v Eadie: The end of the road for the defence of provocation?” (2 003) 16 SACJ 200. whether partial or complete.

Dewey and Louis are staying.2. Y then shouts: „Let‟s burn the bastard! Let him know what it feels like to suffer!‟ Upon hearing this. Huey and Dewey leave the game lodge in order to go hunting. Expecting Louis to also leave the game lodge shortly. When Q arrives at the factory in his brand new BMW. Q subsequently dies as a result thereof. It subsequently transpires that he shot and killed Louis. X becomes uneasy and he subsequently tries to leave the scene.2 Steyn wants to kill Louis whom he suspects is having an affair with his wife. Would your answer have been different had Steyn succeeded in killing Louis but it subsequently transpired that Louis was not in fact having an affair with his wife? (7 marks) . the workers stage a protest outside the factory. This causes great concern amongst the workers as most of them are poverty stricken and depend on this job for their livelihood. On 10 March 2009. including X. Steyn decides to follow them. Steyn gets ready to shoot.2 (25 marks) Explain the distinction between dolus eventualis and conscious negligence. You are appointed as X‟s legal representative. Question 4 4. are apprehended by the police and charged with murder. Huey is subsequently charged with murder. PIETERMARITZBURG EXAMINATIONS: MAY/JUNE 2009 CRIMINAL LAW PAGE 4 Question 3 (25 marks) On 10 April 2009. Shortly. and he waits for the perfect opportunity to kill Louis. Huey sees what he thinks is the silhouette of a deer. Q who is the owner of CBS factories tells his workers that due to the economic recession. Dewey and Louis are going on a hunting expedition. at a meeting held in Pietermaritzburg. he is shot and killed by Steyn who was under the misapprehension that he was shooting Louis. Unbeknown to Steyn.1 4. Explain the legal position in the following separate instances: 4.SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL. and Steyn sees them going off into the distance. The crowd thereafter pours petrol over Q‟s body and sets him on fire. go on a hunting expedition. The next day. (3 marks) 4. Louis and his two friends. (10 marks) During March 2009. Steyn hides in the bushes opposite the front entrance of the game lodge where Huey.1 While hunting. He takes his gun and fires three shots. A number of members of the crowd. Upon obtaining his binoculars. Huey and Dewey. thereafter the police arrive and fire rubber bullets at the crowd. the workers start throwing stones at him. X and Y are amongst those in the crowd and they also throw stones at Q. Assess the criminal liability of Steyn in this instance.2. Dewey uses the front entrance to leave the game lodge. As soon as he steps outside. Upon learning that Huey. Advise him whether he can be held liable for Q‟s murder in these circumstances. Dewey returns the game lodge (using the back entrance) in order to get his binoculars which he forgot inside. most of them will have to be retrenched next year.

SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL. On 10 May 2009. PIETERMARITZBURG EXAMINATIONS: MAY/JUNE 2009 CRIMINAL LAW PAGE 5 4. after a night of heavy drinking.3 Depressed that his two best friends (i. Louis tells his wife (Sarah) that he wants to shoot himself.2. Sarah is charged with the murder of Huey. Huey takes the gun and shoots himself. Sarah goes to the safe grabs a gun and gives it to Huey. Tired of Huey‟s endless whining and fluctuating moods. Huey feels as though he cannot go on living.e. Louis and Dewey) have been killed. (5 marks) . He threatens to commit suicide on a number of occasions.