UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG CAMPUS

SCHOOL OF LAW: JUNE 2017 MAIN EXAMINATION

MODULE AND CODE: CRIMINAL LAW (LAWP2CR/LAWS2CR/LAWS3CR)
PART-TIME & FULL-TIME

Page 1 of 4

DURATION: 3 HOURS TOTAL MARKS: 100

INTERNAL EXAMINER : DR S. GOOSEN

PROF. S HOCTOR

INTERNAL MODERATOR : MS S. BHAMJEE

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Students are requested in their own interests, to write legibly. Where possible, use

bullet points.

2. This paper consists of FOUR (4) pages. Please ensure that you have all of the pages.

3. Answer ALL QUESTIONS.

4. There are two sections. You must complete both sections.

5. Please answer each section in a separate answer booklet.

6. Please indicate on the outside of your answer booklet which section you have

completed in the answer booklet.

7. In your answers, please refer to relevant case law and legislation where applicable.

Continued/…
 UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG CAMPUS
SCHOOL OF LAW: JUNE 2017 MAIN EXAMINATION
MODULE AND CODE: CRIMINAL LAW (LAWP2CR/LAWS2CR/LAWS3CR)
PART-TIME & FULL-TIME

Page 2 of 4

SECTION A

QUESTION 1

To remain competitive with the rising popularity of imported Japanese and German
vehicles which are being imported into the South African auto mobile market, Dorf
Motor Corporation has decided to introduce a smaller, and more fuel efficient
subcompact car which can be produced locally in South Africa. This car would be
known as the Dorf Tinop. However, to keep production costs low, Dorf designed the
vehicle in such a way to maximize its bottom line. It did this by placing the fuel tank
behind the rear axle of the car instead of above it to ensure maximum boot space. By
placing the fuel tank in this position, it has a potential to create a fire hazard. The reason
for this is if the vehicle is involved in an accident, it could cause the rear axle to puncture
the fuel tank. Tracy and her husband Vuyo decide to buy a new Dorf Tinop as this car
is all they can afford at this point and Vuyo urgently needs a vehicle he can use for
work. While driving to work one day, Vuyo becomes involved in a low speed rear end
collision. Another vehicle, fails to slow down at the traffic lights and collides with Vuyo’s
Tinop from behind. As a result of this collision, the Dorf Tinop explodes and Vuyo is
killed. Assess the criminal liability of the Dorf Motor Corporation. In your answer, make
reference to relevant case law and legislation where applicable.

[25 marks]

[Total for Section A: 25 Marks]

Continued/…
 UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG CAMPUS
SCHOOL OF LAW: JUNE 2017 MAIN EXAMINATION
MODULE AND CODE: CRIMINAL LAW (LAWP2CR/LAWS2CR/LAWS3CR)
PART-TIME & FULL-TIME

Page 3 of 4

SECTION B

QUESTION TWO

In the High Court case of S v Pistorius 2014 JDR 2127 (GP) the court, in coming to a
decision that the accused was not guilty of murder, and could only be convicted of
culpable homicide, when he fired four shots through a toilet door. The court reasoned
as follows (at 69-70):

“[I]t cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there
was an intruder in the toilet, who posed a threat to him…This court has already
found that the accused cannot be guilty of murder dolus eventualis either, on
the basis that from his belief and his conduct, it could not be said that he foresaw
that either the deceased or anyone else, for that matter, might be killed when he
fired the shots at the toilet door. It also cannot be said that he accepted that
possibility into the bargain.”

Critically comment on this statement by the court, explaining the legal principles to
which the court refers, and assessing whether these principles were correctly applied.
In your answer, make reference to relevant case law and legislation where applicable.

. [25 marks]

QUESTION THREE

Making use of all relevant case law, discuss the doctrine of common purpose, taking
care to explain how the doctrine operates, whether it is constitutional, and whether a
person can withdraw from a common purpose, having previously joined it.

[25 marks]

Continued/…
 UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG CAMPUS
SCHOOL OF LAW: JUNE 2017 MAIN EXAMINATION
MODULE AND CODE: CRIMINAL LAW (LAWP2CR/LAWS2CR/LAWS3CR)
PART-TIME & FULL-TIME

Page 4 of 4

QUESTION FOUR

In the English case of Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057 (CA), the appellant’s conviction for
attempted murder was confirmed on the following facts:

Jones (appellant) was angry with Michael Foreman, who was in a relationship with
Jones’ ex-lover, Lynn. Jones wanted to resume the relationship with Lynn, but she did
not want him back. One day Foreman took his daughter to school by car as usual. After
the child left the car, the appellant appeared, opened the door and jumped into the rear
seat. He was wearing overalls, a crash helmet with the visor down, and was carrying a
bag. He and the victim had never previously met. He introduced himself, said he
wanted to sort things out and asked the victim to drive on. When they stopped on a
grass verge, the appellant handed over a letter he had received from Lynn. Whilst the
victim read it, the appellant took a sawn-off shotgun from his bag. It was loaded. He
pointed it at the victim at a range of about 30 centimetres. He said, “You are not going
to like this” or similar words. The victim grabbed the end of the gun and pushed it
sideways and upwards. There was a struggle during which the victim managed to throw
the gun out of the window. As he tried to get out, he felt a cord over his head pulling
him back. He managed to break free and run away, taking the gun with him. From a
nearby garage he telephoned the police.

Meanwhile, the appellant drove off in the victim's car. He was arrested jogging away
from it carrying a bag. He said that he had done nothing and only wanted to kill himself.
His bag contained a hatchet (a small axe), some cartridges (ammunition) and a length
of cord (rope). He also had a sharp kitchen knife which he threw away. In the
appellant's car parked near the school was £1,500 together with a quantity of French
and Spanish money. The evidence showed that the safety catch of the shotgun had
been in the “on” position. The victim was unclear whether the appellant's finger was
ever on the trigger. When interviewed, the appellant declined to make any comment.

(i) Would the verdict be the same in South African law? Explain
[15 Marks]

(ii) What would the verdict be if Jones changed his mind and jumped out of
Foreman’s car before pulling out the shotgun? Explain
[10 Marks]
[Total for Q4: 25 Marks]

[Total for Section B: 75 Marks]

TOTAL FOR PAPER: 100 MARKS