UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL

SCHOOL OF LAW
POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
LAWS6SC – SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW
ASSIGNMENT NO. 1 – MRS K HAGGLUND

JEREMY JULIUS - 222120313

QUESTION 1

Jane proceeded with the transaction with Mr. X knowing it was illegal to sell ivory sculptors
and knew it was fake.
She told her friend Cst. Ndlovu about Mr. X request and that he wants to meet her. I believe
Cst. Ndlovu have seen an opportunity to get cash and stole the ivory sculptors which he
confiscated. Jane had to know about the confiscation of the sculptors by her friend Cst. Ndlovu
that’s why she approached him. Cst Ndlovu agreed to take her and told her that they will split
the cash.
She would’ve foresee the consequences and knew that it’s an offence to sell ivory sculptors,
but still decided to proceed with the transaction.
However she did not know about the undercover operation as per Sec 252A of the CPA 51 of
1977 which was conducted by an undercover cop, who were Mr. X.
Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the
accused meant to do an act prohibited by law.
Jane knew that the sculptors were fake and still had the intent to sell it to Mr. X, which I can
argue is part of the elements of the Fraud.
According to Sec.103 of the CPA 51 of 1977, provides as follows: “in any charge in which it
is necessary to allege that the accused performed an act with an intent to defraud, it
shall be sufficient to allege and to prove that the accused performed the act with intent
to defraud without alleging and providing that it was the intention of the accused to
defraud any particular person, and such a charge need not mention the owner of any
property involved or set forth the details of any deceit.” – Criminal Law of SA, Chapter 35,
pg 461/462 (G. Kemp)
She had an opportunity to reverse her decision while on her way to meet Mr. X.
The basic principle is that Jane should be able to contemplate the harm that her actions may
cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions.
She had the criminal intent to commit the act, and she is therefore liable for the crime.
As per GCM Legal that states whenever an accused argues that it was not his/her own
fault – (“It is a fundamental rule of South African law that one may not profit from one’s own
wrongdoing. A person may not use his own prior negligence or misconduct to justify his later
actions and escape liability. According to this rule, an accused would not be able to rely on the

1
defence of necessity where he cause the threat or danger himself, through his own culpable
conduct.”)
Legal definition as per African Environmental Law, Chapter 15: Intention
1. Did the accused foresee (any) risk of the prohibited consequence/circumstance - No
2. Did the accused reconcile him/herself to that risk (also referred to as consenting to the risk
or taking the risk into the bargain); - No, and
3. Proceed - Yes
Again according to African Environment Law, Chapter 15: Intention (“In their view, the
requirements for dolus eventualis should be regarded as satisfied if, in the face of the
recognition of this real/substantial risk, a person were to proceed. Noticeably, they omit the
requirement stipulated in the legal definition that the accused must have reconciled to or
accepted the risk.”) and {In conclusion, intention is a subjective enquiry. It is widely conceived
in our law and includes where an accused foresees the risk of a prohibited consequence}.
Dolus directus, was present when Jane made the decision to meet up with Mr.X and to do a
transaction knowing it was illegal to sell ivory sculptures and also knowing that the sculptures
are fake.

QUESTION 2
2.1
Necessity can be used as a defence when a defendant commits a crime during an emergency.
As for James, he acted out of necessity because he had an emergency. He needed the money
to pay off medical expenses for his sick wife who was diagnose with a rare disease. He
could’ve also foreseen that his actions will have consequences, but at the time he was
vulnerable and acted out of emergency.
James believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action,
due to that he knows that his wife has a rare disease and that she was unfit to work again.
Therefore he proceeded with the act.
I believe that James will succeed with his defence, due to that he acted out of necessity.
There was an emergency (medical expenses) and threat for losing his job (remark from
superior).
James had reasonably believe, that there is an imminent and actual threat that requires
immediate action.
Because the defence of necessity is essentially a justification for the criminal act, it is
imperative that James had no other realistic options available to him at the time the criminal
act was committed.
If he did, his criminal actions would not be justified.

2
2.2
James commits a crime (Fraud) out of necessity due to an emergency. He felt threatened by
his superior when it was said that he could lose his job and not provide to his wife’s medical
condition or medical expenses.
He then acted on the order that his superior gave to him and proceeded with the unlawful act.
He should foresee that Fraud is a criminal offence and a crime.
Even though his act have not harm anyone, committing the offense could lead to that he lose
his job, when found guilty of the offence. James was a qualified Financial Clerk and should
have known better.
James thought that he should not be considered guilty of committing actions that were ordered
by his superior.
I believe James could be found guilty of the offence and would not succeed with his defence.
James also had the opportunity to report the corrupt activity, but chose not to do so.
As per S v Canestra 1951 2 SA 317(A), it refers “that the mere danger of losing one’s job does
not give you the right to act out of necessity.” If one cannot exercise one’s profession without
contravening the law, one should find another profession.