CRW Multple Qs

CONFIDENTIAL
THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF 18 PAGES.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR A FULL MCQ EXAM WITH ASSESSMENT INFO TOOL ON

MYUNISA
1. The examination is consists of Multiple-Choice Question types only.
2. The examination question paper counts 100 marks and consists of 50 Multiple-Choice
Questions each worth 2 marks. Answer all of the questions.
3. The duration of the examination is 2 hours. You will be allowed a further thirty (30)
minutes after the conclusion of the official examination period to upload your
examination responses (answers) onto the myUnisa platform for further processing.
4. This is a closed-book examination. While the examination is in progress, you are not
allowed to consult another person or any source in order to assist you to answer any of
the questions contained in this question paper. You may also not assist another student
in answering any of the questions contained in this question paper.
5. The answers to this MCQ examination may only be submitted online on myUnisa. The
Unisa MCQ App cannot be used for examination submissions.
5.1 Access myUnisa at https://my.unisa.ac.za/portal and login using your student number
and myUnisa password.
5.2 Click on the “myAdmin” tab in the top navigation
[TURN OVER]
Page 2 of 19 CRW2601
Confidential May/June 2020
5.3 In the “Assessments” submenu, click on the “Assessment Info” tool in the drop-down
list
• A list of all available assessments will display
• Find the corresponding examination assessment number for your module
• Click on the Submit link in the Action column and follow the steps described
below.
Step 1: Enter the total number of questions required for the assessment.
• Enter the total number of questions for your assessment in the Number of
Questions field
• Click on the Continue button.
Step 2: Fill out multiple-choice question answers

The number of questions requested in the previous step will now be displayed with five
answer options next to each one. Please note that each row represents a question in
your assignment.
• Click on the radio button [the small circle] that corresponds to your answer for
that question.
• Click on the Continue button to move to step 3.
• If you want to restart the assignment, click on Clear Form to removeall your
selections and start from new.
Step 3: Verify the answers to your multiple-choice assignment

This screen presents a summary of all your answers. Use it as a final check.
• Click on the Continue button to submit your assignment. If you do not click
Continue, no submission action will take place.
• If you want to redo the answers to the assignment, click Back to go back to the
previous step.
Step 4: Assessment submission report

This is your proof that your examination answers were successfully submitted. If
you do not see this screen, Unisa has not received your submission.
It is advisable to print this page or make a screen capture for record purposes. A copy
of this page will also be emailed to your myLife email account.
PLEASE NOTE:
If you experience technical problems, of any kind, on the day of the examination and your
examination answers are not submitted by the cut-off time, you will be marked as absent and
automatically deferred to the October/November 2020 examination. No other type of
submission of your examination answers will be accepted.
[TURN OVER]
Question 1
(a) The correct sequence of investigation into the elements of criminal liability is conduct,
compliance with definitional elements, culpability and unlawfulness.
(b) In criminal law, the concept “culpability” refers to a blameworthy state of mind in which a
person performs an unlawful act.
(1) Only statement (a) is correct.
(2) Only statement (b) is correct.
(3) Both statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(4) None of the statements are correct.
Question 2
(a) The principle of legality is one of the elements of a crime that an accused, by his conduct
and subjective attributes, must comply with to be criminally liable.
(b) The rules of the principle of legality need not be complied with in the context of
punishment.

Question 3
(a) A legal norm in an Act is a provision which makes it clear that certain conduct constitutes
a crime.
(b) Before one can assume that a provision in an Act of legislation created a crime, it must be
clear that the provision contains a criminal norm.

[TURN OVER]
Question 4
(a) The ius certum rule, which forms part of the principle of legality, implies that nobody ought
to be convicted of a crime unless the kind of act performed by him/her had already been
recognised by the law as a crime at the time of its commission.
(b) A provision which reads as follows: “Nobody may criticise the government and anybody
who contravenes this provision is guilty of a crime” complies with the ius certum rule of
the principle of legality.

Question 5
(a) The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 does not contain an express
provision regarding the ius certum rule.
(b) The idea underlying the ius strictum rule is that where doubt exists concerning the
interpretation of a criminal provision, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Question 6
(a) In terms of the ius acceptum principle, a court may only find a person guilty of an offence
if the kind of act performed is recognised by the law as a crime.
(b) The ius praevium rule prohibits the creation of a crime with retrospective effect.
[TURN OVER]
Question 7
(a) A South African court is allowed to create new crimes if the court is of the opinion that the
particular conduct is against the good morals of society.
(b) The Constitutional Court in Masiya v Director of Public Prosecutions 2007 (2) SACR 435
(CC) held that one of the central tenets underlying the understanding of legality is that of
foreseeability.
Question 8
(a) If X encourages his dog to attack Y, and Y is injured as a result of such attack, X cannot
be convicted of assault or any other offence because he did not perform an act in the legal
sense of the word.
(b) There is a legal duty upon X to act positively if the legal convictions of the community
require him to do so.

Question 9
(a) If Y tells X that he will kill him unless he (X) kills Z, and, as a result of this threat X kills Z,
then he (X) acts in a situation of absolute force.
(b) Relative force renders X’s conduct involuntary.
[TURN OVER]
Question 10
(a) Where X relies on automatism as a defence, he must provide a basis for his defence by
calling medical or other expert evidence which may create doubt regarding the
voluntariness of his conduct.
(b) Sane automatism means that a person did not act voluntarily as a result of mental illness.
Question 11
(a) In Henry 1999 (1) SACR 13 (SCA) the accused, who had shot his wife in a fit of rage,
relied upon the defence of insane automatism.
(b) In cases of sane automatism, the onus is on the state to prove that the act was voluntary,
but in cases of insane automatism the onus is on the accused to prove that he suffered
from a mental illness.
Question 12
(a) According to the decision in Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A), persons
who hold certain offices have a duty to protect others from being harmed.
(b) If X keeps a dangerous bull-terrier dog in his unfenced yard in an urban area, and the dog
bites and kills a child in the street, X may be held liable for culpable homicide on the
ground of omission.
[TURN OVER]
Question 13
(a) The defence of impossibility can be pleaded only in cases where the infringed legal
provision placed a positive duty on X to act.
(b) X can succeed with a defence of impossibility even if he himself was responsible for
causing the situation of impossibility.
Question 14
(a) Causation is a requirement in all materially defined crimes.
(b) The possession of drugs is a materially-defined crime.

Question 15
(a) In formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain type of conduct.
(b) The definitional elements of a crime contain a reference to the requirements of
unlawfulness and culpability.
Question 16
(a) An act is a novus actus interveniens if, according to human experience, and in the normal
course of events, the act tends to bring about a certain situation.
(b) In Mokgethi 1990 (1) SA 32 (A), the Appellate Division held that a court should be guided
by policy considerations in deciding both the factual and legal cause of the prohibited
situation.

[TURN OVER]
Question 17
(a) In deciding which reasonable and fair policy considerations should be used to determine
legal causation, the courts need not necessarily regard any specific theory (e.g. adequate
causation).
(b) In S v Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA), X’s act was viewed as the factual cause, but
not as the legal cause of Y’s death.

Question 18
(a) Defences that exclude the element of unlawfulness are referred to as grounds of
justification.
(b) The limits of the grounds of justification are determined by the legal convictions of society.

Question 19
(a) Private defence always stems from an unlawful human attack.
(b) If X sees that Y is attacked by Z, and helps to defend Y, he (X) cannot rely on private
defence since he does not defend his own life or property.

[TURN OVER]
Question 20
(a) If X strikes his attacker Y, but Y has no criminal capacity because of mental illness, X
cannot rely on private defence because the attack on him (X) was not unlawful.
(b) In Mogohlwane 1982 (2) SA 587 (T), the court held that X had exceeded the bounds of
private defence because the attack by Y had already been completed when he (X) acted.

Question 21
(a) In Ex parte die Minister van Justisie: in re S v Van Wyk 1967 (1) SA 488 (A), the court
held that on a charge of murder, X may only succeed with a defence of private defence if
he had killed the attacker in protection of his own life, or the life of another person.
(b) Since putative private defence is not real private defence, it cannot exclude X’s culpability.

Question 22
(a) One of the differences between private defence and necessity relates to the object at
which the act of defence is directed.
(b) X can rely on necessity if he defends himself against an attack by an animal.

[TURN OVER]
Question 23
(a) In Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A), the court held that killing an innocent person in a situation of
compulsion may be a complete defence provided that the compulsion was so strong that
a reasonable man in the particular circumstances would not have been able to withstand
it.
(b) Killing an innocent person in a situation of necessity can never be a defence but only a
mitigating circumstance.
Question 24
(a) Parents have a right to administer moderate and reasonable corporal punishment on their
children in order to maintain authority and discipline.
(b) Teachers may not impose corporal punishment on children.

Question 25
(a) If Y consents to an assault by X, but the law regards such consent as contra bonos mores,
the consent will not afford X a valid defence.
(b) Consent is no defence in the case of euthanasia where X (a doctor) kills Y (a dying cancer
patient who is experiencing excruciating pain) on the latter’s request.
[TURN OVER]
Question 26
(a) The decision in Mostert 2006 (1) SACR 560 (N) confirms the principle laid down in the
Constitution (s 199(6)) that the defence of obedience to orders will be successful, provided
the orders were not manifestly unlawful.
(b) If X attempts to arrest a suspected criminal (Y) who then flees, X is allowed to kill to Y
(under certain circumstances) because of the ground of justification of official capacity.

Question 27
(a) Culpability deals with the question whether the conduct of a particular person is against
the objective legal convictions of society.
(b) Criminal capacity is a prerequisite for the existence of culpability in the form of intention
or negligence.
Question 28
(a) If X, who had killed his wife and children, is charged with murder and acquitted on the
ground that he had lacked criminal capacity as a result of a mental illness, he may
nevertheless be convicted of the lesser crime of culpable homicide.
(b) In Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA), the court held that there is no distinction between
non-pathological criminal incapacity owing to emotional stress and provocation on the one
hand, and the defence of sane automatism on the other hand.
[TURN OVER]
Question 29
(a) Provocation is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.

(b) X cannot rely on the defence of mental illness to escape liability if it is established that, at
the time of committing the alleged offence, his mental illness did not affect any of the
psychological legs of criminal capacity.

Question 30
(a) Although a child between the ages of 10 and 14 years is presumed to lack criminal
capacity, the state is free to rebut this presumption.
(b) According to the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008, a 10-year-old child is irrebuttably presumed
to lack criminal capacity.
Question 31
(a) In a crime requiring intention, the intention requirement is satisfied irrespective of whether
X had intention in the form of direct intention, indirect intention or dolus eventualis.
(b) In order to have intention, X’s knowledge must refer to all the elements of the offence,
excluding the element of culpability.

[TURN OVER]
Question 32
(a) The test for culpability in the form of intention includes an investigation regarding the
motive of the accused for committing the offence.
(b) If X fires a shot at Y while he (Y) is driving a vehicle with bullet-proof windows, and Y is
not injured, X may be convicted of attempted murder provided the state can prove that X
had the intention to kill Y.

Question 33
(a) An example of dolus indirectus is where X, in firing a shot at Y, foresees the possibility
that his shot may hit Y’s child who is standing next to Y, and reconciles himself to this
possibility.
(b) If X wants to kill his enemy Z, but realizes that in order to kill Z, he will necessarily have
to break into his (Z’s) house, he has indirect intention with regard to the crime of
housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime.

Question 34
(a) If X assaults Y, and then ties her to a tree in a remote area where no person ever comes
so that she cannot report the crime to the police, and Y’s dead body is later found, it may
be argued that X had intention to commit murder in the form of dolus eventualis.
(b) An example of dolus eventualis is where X did not foresee that his conduct may cause a
prohibited result but that the reasonable person would have foreseen it.

[TURN OVER]
Question 35
(a) In Humphreys 2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA), the court held that dolus eventualis was present
because X ought to have foreseen or must have foreseen the possibility of the
consequence ensuing.
(b) In Maarohanye 2015 (1) SACR 337 (GJ), the murder conviction of X and Y was set aside
as they had not foreseen the possibility that they may cause the death or injury of
pedestrians or reconciled themselves with such eventualities.

Question 36
(a) Mistake must be reasonable in order to exclude intention.
(b) In Goosen 1989 (4) SA 1013 (A), it was held that a mistake relating to the chain of
causation may in certain circumstances exclude intention.
Question 37
(a) If X fires a shot at an object believing it to be an animal, and it turns out to be a human
being, X can, on a charge of murder, rely on the defence of mistake.
(b) Aberratio ictus is a form of mistake which affords X a defence provided it was a material
mistake.
[TURN OVER]
Question 38
(a) If X fires a shot at Y, and the bullet hits a telephone pole, moves in a different direction,
and hits and kills Z instead, X, if charged with the murder of Z, may rely on the defence of
mistake.
(b) If X fires a shot at his enemy, Y, and the bullet hits a wall, ricochets and fatally injures Z
who suddenly appears behind Y, the transferred-culpability approach requires that X be
convicted of murder in respect of Z.

Question 39
(a) Putative private defence is a defence which excludes the element of culpability, and not
the element of unlawfulness.
(b) In Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius 2016 (1) SACR 431 (SCA), the
court applied a subjective instead of an objective test to determine whether X had lacked
knowledge of unlawfulness.

Question 40
(a) If a person acted negligently, it means that he did not perform a voluntary act.
(b) If X merely did not foresee the possibility that his conduct of driving recklessly might
result in the death of another human being, but the court finds that a reasonable person
in the same position would have foreseen the possibility, and would have taken steps to
prevent it from occurring, X may be convicted of culpable homicide.

[TURN OVER]
Question 41
(a) In Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A), the court found the accused guilty of assault in respect
of the persons that he had injured.
(b) A person who is charged with murder and is acquitted on the ground that he lacked
criminal capacity as a result of intoxication may nevertheless be convicted of the crime
created in section 1 of Act 1 of 1988.
Question 42
(a) X may rely on the defence of provocation on a charge of murder only as a ground for
mitigation of punishment.
(b) If X is charged with common assault, the evidence of provocation may result in X being
completely acquitted.

Question 43
(a) The distinction between a direct and an indirect perpetrator is of no significance for the
purposes of determining criminal liability.
(b) If X hires Z to murder Y, and Z murders Y, Z is the indirect perpetrator.

Question 44
(a) If X buys drugs for his own use and Y acts merely as interpreter to the transaction, Y can
qualify as an accomplice.
(b) An accomplice is someone who does not comply with all the requirements in the definition
of a crime.

[TURN OVER]
Question 45
(a) An accessory after the fact is regarded as a participant in a crime.
(b) In Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A), the Appeal Court held that where a common purpose to
kill had been proved, it was not necessary to establish a causal connection between each
individual’s conduct and the death of the deceased.

Question 46
(a) In Thebus 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC), it was held that where no prior agreement to commit
an offence is proved, common-purpose liability may arise from an active association and
participation in a common criminal design.
(b) In Molimi 2006 (2) SACR 8 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal held that conduct by a
member of a group of persons, which differs from the original mandate, may not be
imputed to the other members unless each member had intention in respect of the
prohibited result caused by the act.

Question 47
(a) A “joiner in” is a person who joins in an attack at a stage when the victim had already
died as a result of the wounds inflicted by other persons who acted in a common purpose.
(b) A “joiner-in” is a person who does not act with a common purpose with other persons to
commit a crime.

[TURN OVER]
Question 48
(a) An example of a completed attempt to commit murder is where X fires a shot at Y with the
intention to kill him, and the shot misses Y.
(b) The same legal principles that are used to determine the liability of an accused in a
situation of interrupted attempt, also apply where an accused voluntarily withdraws from
his criminal plan of action.

Question 49
(a) In Schoombie 1945 AD 541, the Appeal Court confirmed X’s conviction of (completed)
arson on the basis that X’s act qualified as an act of execution or consummation.
(b) According to Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A), X can be found guilty of an attempt to commit
the impossible regardless of whether the impossibility arose from his/her mistaken view
of the facts or whether it arose from his/her mistaken view of the law.

Question 50
(a) Liability for an attempt to commit the impossible is determined by the courts with the aid
of an objective test that distinguishes between acts of preparation and acts of execution.
(b) Where X, who is HIV-positive and is fully aware of this, rapes Y without taking preventative
measures (for example, using a condom), he/she may be convicted of rape as well as
attempted murder.

TOTAL: [100]
©
Unisa 2020
[TURN OVER]
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY
I,………………………………………………………………(Full name/s and surname)
Student number: ..………………………………………..
declare that I am the author of this examination in CRW2601. I further declare that the entire
examination is my own, original work and that where I used other information and resources,
I did so in a responsible manner. I did not plagiarise in any way in order to complete this
examination. By signing this declaration, I acknowledge that I am aware of what plagiarism
is, and the consequences thereof. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I am aware of UNISA’s
policy on plagiarism and understand that if there is evidence of plagiarism within this
document, UNISA may take the necessary action.
Date: ……………………………..………………………..
Place:………………………………………………………
Signature:………………………..……………………….
(provide an electronic signature or type or write your name or surname again)
[TURN OVER]

CRW Multple Qs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRW Multple Qs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFIDENTIAL

THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF 18 PAGES.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR A FULL MCQ EXAM WITH ASSESSMENT INFO TOOL ON

1. The examination is consists of Multiple-Choice Question types only.

5.2 Click on the “myAdmin” tab in the top navigation

Step 2: Fill out multiple-choice question answers

Step 3: Verify the answers to your multiple-choice assignment

Step 4: Assessment submission report

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(a) Causation is a requirement in all materially defined crimes.

(b) The possession of drugs is a materially-defined crime.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(a) Private defence always stems from an unlawful human attack.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(b) X can rely on necessity if he defends himself against an attack by an animal.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(b) Teachers may not impose corporal punishment on children.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(a) Provocation is a ground of justification which excludes the unlawfulness of conduct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(a) Mistake must be reasonable in order to exclude intention.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(b) If X hires Z to murder Y, and Z murders Y, Z is the indirect perpetrator.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(a) An accessory after the fact is regarded as a participant in a crime.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

I,………………………………………………………………(Full name/s and surname)

Student number: ..………………………………………..

You might also like