CRW2601 Assessment 02 2023 Semester 2

Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X is a minibus taxi-driver and transports
children to school. X always crosses a railway crossing with his taxi just before the train passes, while
ignoring the warning lights and bypassing the boom. X knows that his conduct is dangerous. One
morning, X again approaches the crossing with his minibus taxi. X thinks he will manage to cross in time,
as he has always done so. However, the taxi is hit by the train, resulting in the death of the children in
the minibus. X will:
A. not be guilty of murder as he had no direct intention in causing the children’s death.
B. be guilty of murder as he had indirect intention in causing the children’s death.
C. be guilty of murder as he had dolus eventualis in causing the children’s death.
D. not be guilty of murder as he did not reconcile himself to the possibility of the train hitting the taxi.
ANSWER: D

Explanation:
The facts in this question are based on the Humphreys case which is discussed in your SG on p. 123.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the accused – although he had foreseen the
possibility of harm – he did not reconcile himself to the possible consequences of his actions. As
such, he did not comply with the second requirement of the test for dolus eventualis. Humphreys'
convictions of murder and attempted murder were set aside, and he was found guilty only of culpable
homicide in respect of the children killed. Please read especially the last paragraph in SG 123. As X will
not be guilty of murder, options B and D are immediately eliminated. Option A is also incorrect as direct
intention is not the only form of intention that will qualify in order to be held guilty of the crime of murder.
The correct answer is then Option D, as explained above.

Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X wants to shoot and kill Z. X fires a shot
at Z but misses him. The bullet strikes a pole, ricochets, and kills Y, who is sitting in a stationary car
across the street. Y dies immediately as a result of the bullet wound. X had become aware of Y's presence
before he fired the shot but decided that there was no possibility of Y being struck by the bullet. In view
of the decision of the Appeal Court in Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A), X may be convicted of:
A. attempted murder in respect of Z, and culpable homicide in respect of Y if the state can prove that X
was negligent in causing the death of Y.
B. attempted murder in respect of Z, and murder in respect of Y because of the transferred intent
approach.
C. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and murder in respect of Y because of the
transferred intent approach.
D. no crime in respect of Z as Z was not harmed in any way, and culpable homicide in respect of Y if the
state can prove that X was negligent in causing the death of Y.
ANSWER: A

Explanation:
The case of Mtshiza was the hint provided to you here in order to answer the question correctly. See
your SG 138-139 where certain points from the case are presented as to how aberratio ictus situations
should be judged. You already know that if X wishes to kill Z, X has direct intention towards Z. If X
does kill Z, X is guilty of murder. But if X does not manage to kill Z (as in the scenario), X is guilty of
attempted murder in respect of Z. As X will be guilty of attempted murder as regards Z, options C and
D are immediately eliminated. The second part of the answer concerns X's liability towards Y (the
person actually struck by X's blow). The SG provides three options here, of which the answer in A is
the correct one. The answer in B is wrong as the transferred intent approach amounts to an application
of the doctrine of versari in re illicita which has been rejected by our courts. This approach is thus
not applicable in aberratio ictus situations.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
A. In order to kill a bothersome baboon that has been ransacking his mealie fields, X leaves a poisoned
banana outside his farmhouse. However, one of the farm workers' children eats the banana and dies.
This situation is known in our law as an error in objecto.
B. Knowledge of unlawfulness is a component of criminal capacity and means that X has the ability to
distinguish between right and wrong.
C. De Blom 1977 (3) SA 513 (A) is authority for the statement that ignorance of the law always excludes
culpability in the form of negligence.
D. Goosen 1989 (4) SA 1013 (A) is authority for the statement that mistake relating to the chain of
causation may under certain circumstances be a valid defence.
ANSWER: D

Explanation:
Option A is incorrect as the facts describe an aberratio ictus situation. See SG 139-141. X wishes to
kill a baboon (X's target) with a poisoned banana, but a child is killed after eating the banana (person
actually struck by X's blow). X did not confuse the person struck by the blow (the deceased child) with
the target he was aiming at (the baboon) as found in an error in objecto situation. The facts do not
constitute an error in objecto where X believes the object against which he is directing his action is
something or somebody different from what it, in fact, is. Option B is incorrect as knowledge of
unlawfulness is a component of intention and not criminal capacity, and it means that X must know
that he is directing his will towards conduct that is unlawful and which is not covered by any ground of
justification. See SG 141-142. Option C is incorrect as the De Blom case is authority for the statement
that ignorance of the law always excludes culpability in the form of intention. See SG 144-145. Option
D is correct. See SG 134-135, 141.

Read the following facts then choose the correct option: A bridge collapses over a very busy highway,
injuring several people driving in their cars underneath the bridge. X, a paramedic, drives his ambulance
as fast as he can through a busy street to reach the collapsed bridge in time to save the injured people's
lives. In the course of doing so, he drives through an intersection while the robot is red, colliding with
another vehicle. X’s conduct is:
A. negligent because he drove through an intersection while the robot is red.
B. negligent because he should have foreseen that crossing a red robot might result in him colliding with
other vehicles and he reconciled himself with that possibility.
C. not negligent because although he did foresee that the conduct may result in injury to other people on
the street, a reasonable person in these circumstances would decide it is not necessary take steps to
guard against causing injury.
D. negligent because a reasonable person would have foreseen that the conduct may result in injury and
taken steps to guard against causing injury.
ANSWER: C

Explanation:
The facts in this question on negligence are based on Activity 11.1 in your SG 154. In the feedback to
the Activity, it is stated that this is an example of a situation in which the reasonable person would not
have taken steps to guard against the result ensuing (i.e., where the law does not reasonably expect
X to take steps to guard against the possibility). Please read the reasons provided in the feedback. In
SG paragraph 11.5.4, it is explained that there are cases in which the reasonable person who has
foreseen the possibility will not take steps to guard against the result ensuing. One such case is where
the cost or effort necessary to undertake the steps do not outweigh the more important and urgent
purpose of X's act. If X had to drive slowly through the streets, stopping at every red robot, the result
could be that the people trapped underneath the bridge would lose their lives, and this would, in all
probability, result in the loss of more lives than would be the situation had the ambulance raced through
 the streets causing the collision. X's conduct is therefore not negligent, which eliminates options A, B
and D, leaving only option C which is the correct answer.

Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X commits culpable homicide. Evidence
reveals that X was intoxicated when he committed the act. What is the legal position in this situation? X
will:
A. be guilty of culpable homicide as his intoxication does not exclude his negligence.
B. not be guilty of culpable homicide as he was so intoxicated that he did not know what he was doing.
C. be in contravention of section 1 of Act 1 of 1998.
D. not be guilty of culpable homicide, nor will he be convicted of being in contravention of section 1 of
Act 1 of 1998.
ANSWER: A

Explanation:
In order to answer this question, you had to look at SG paragraph 12.6 'Intoxication and culpable
homicide' and SG 'Summary' 174. In both sections, it is stated that intoxication does not exclude X's
negligence in a crime requiring negligence, such as culpable homicide. X will consequently be guilty of
culpable homicide even if he was intoxicated whilst committing the unlawful, negligent act. This answer
eliminates options B and D. Option C is incorrect for X must lack criminal capacity to be found to be
in contravention of section 1 of Act 1 of 1998. If X lacked criminal capacity, the investigation into his
liability will stop there, and his intention/negligence will not be considered.

Read the following facts then choose the correct option below: X attends a soccer match between
Orlando Pirates and Mamelodi Sundowns as a guest in a hospitality box. He drinks steadily throughout
the match and becomes heavily intoxicated. During half-time, Pirates is leading Sundowns with four goals
and Y, a Pirates supporter, taunts X about this. X gets involved in an exchange of blows with Y, and not
aware of what he is doing, X stabs Y with a knife, killing him. In terms of the Chretien case, X may:
A. be convicted of murder as he acted with criminal capacity.
B. not be convicted of murder as he did not act voluntarily.
C. be convicted of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 as he acted negligently.
D. not be convicted of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988 as he lacked criminal capacity.
ANSWER: B

Explanation:
The Chretien case was the hint provided to you here in order to answer the question correctly. See
your SG paragraph 12.5.2 and read especially SG 'Summary' on pp. 174-175. In the scenario, X is
heavily intoxicated so much so that he is not aware of what he is doing. These words already hint
at the possibility that X acted like an automaton. Let's look at the options provided. Option A is
incorrect. X cannot be guilty of murder as he was intoxicated. In terms of Chretien, if X causes the
death of another person whilst intoxicated, and he is charged with murder and the court finds that
he had criminal capacity, he may, on the ground of negligence, be found guilty of culpable homicide.
Option C is also incorrect because X must lack criminal capacity to be found to be in contravention
of section 1 of Act 1 of 1998. Option D is totally wrong because if X lacked criminal capacity, he
must be convicted of section 1 of Act 1 of 1998. This only leaves option B, which is the correct
answer. X is so intoxicated that he is incapable of committing a voluntary act – in other words, his
conduct takes place while he is in a state of automatism resulting from intoxication. In terms of
Chretien, X is not guilty of the crime with which he is charged, i.e., murder. He must, however, be
convicted of contravening section 1 of Act 1 of 1988.
In Lungile 1999 (2) SACR 597 (A), the three accused robbed a shop. A policeman (X) entered upon the
scene, and in a wild shoot-out, X shot and killed A, the shopkeeper. On a charge of the murder of A, the
court decided that Lungile was:
A. not guilty as there was no causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
B. not guilty as the shot fired by X, killing A, constituted a novus actus interveniens.
C. guilty even though he was mistaken as to the foreseen and the actual course of events.
D. guilty as there was a causal link between his conduct and A’s death.
ANSWER: D

Explanation:
Again, the case of Lungile is provided to give you the background facts and to show you what
information in the SG you need to concentrate on. The Lungile case is discussed in SG 135, 191, 194.
The answer to this question is in the feedback to Activity 10.1 where it is stated that the court convicted
Lungile of murder. This eliminates options A and B which both state that Lungile was found not guilty
by the court – this is obviously not correct. You now have to decide whether option C or option D is
correct. The feedback in the SG clearly states at the end of the second paragraph: "...if X had alleged
that he was mistaken as to the chain of causation, such a defence should not have succeeded because
there was not a substantial difference between the foreseen and the actual course of events". This
means option C is wrong. Option D is thus correct, and this is confirmed in the feedback where it is
declared that the court rejected Lungile's argument that there was no causal link between his conduct
and the shopkeeper's death. According to the court, there was a causal link between Lungile's conduct
and the shopkeeper's death.

Read the following facts then choose the correct option: X1 and X2 belong to a criminal syndicate which
hijacks cars. X1 and X2 decide to hijack Z’s car as he is about to enter his home complex gate. X1 and
X2 inflict a lethal wound upon Z, take his car and drive off. While Z is still alive, X3 who does not know
X1 and X2 appears on the scene. X3 has a grudge against Z and stabs Z in his chest. This wound does
not however hasten Z’s death. Z dies shortly thereafter. X3 may:
A. be convicted of murder because there is a causal connection between X3’s act and Z’s death.
B. be convicted of murder because he is a co-perpetrator.
C. be guilty of murder by virtue of the doctrine of common purpose.
D. not be convicted of murder, only of attempted murder.
ANSWER: D

Explanation:
Whenever you encounter a question which clearly describes gang- or organised criminal activities, the
first thing you must think about is common purpose. The scenario clearly describes the conduct of a
criminal syndicate, of which two members, X1 and X2, try to hijack Z's car, and in the process fatally
injures Z. Remember, the word "fatally" means that Z is so critically injured that death will result.
However, the question requires you to decide the criminal liability of X3, a person who is not associated
with the gang, thus there cannot be a common purpose between X1, X2 and X3. X3 only appears on
the scene after X1 and X2 have gone, and he does not even know X1 and X2. X3 inflicts a wound on
Z, but this wound does not hasten Z's death. Z eventually dies from the lethal wound inflicted on him
by X1 and X2. These facts all represent clues that X3 must be a joiner-in. See SG paragraph 14.3.5
where the above-mentioned characteristics of a joiner-in are set out. It is also clearly stated that a
joiner in can only be guilty of attempted murder, as his injury inflicted on the decreased did not kill him
(as stated above). As a joiner-in can only be convicted of attempted murder, options A, B and C are
excluded. This leaves only option D, which is the correct one as explained above.
Which one of the following scenarios constitutes an interrupted attempt?
A. X fires at Y and strikes Y, but Y’s life is fortunately saved by prompt medical intervention.
B. X, intending to publicly humiliate Y, writes a letter to a newspaper that contains abusive allegations
about Y and posts it, but the letter is intercepted by the authorities.
C. X, intending to poison her husband, puts poison into his food but notices that the poison did not
completely dissolve into the food, and throws the food away.
D. X, trying to steal from a woman’s handbag, has opened the handbag hoping that its contents will fall
out, when he is apprehended by a policeman.
ANSWER: D

Explanation:
The answer to this question comes straight from SG 212 where Option D's example is provided.
Remember, in an interrupted attempt, X's actions are interrupted so that the crime cannot be
completed. In these cases, X is guilty, provided that his actions are no longer mere acts of preparation,
but, in fact, constitute acts of consummation. The facts in Option D are similar to that of Schoombie
which is also provided to you on the same page. Option A details a completed attempt and is one of
the examples provided in SG 209-210. Option B is also a completed attempt and one of the examples
provided in SG 210. The example provided in Option C outlines a voluntary withdrawal which is still
a punishable attempt if X's conduct is not merely preparatory but has reached the commencement of
the consummation stage. This example is provided to you in SG 216.

Which one of the following scenarios does NOT constitute a punishable impossible attempt?
A. X thinks that he is snorting heroin, which is an illegal substance, but it is actually talcum powder.
B. X wants to kill Y and fires a shot at Y, but the gun is not loaded.
C. X thinks that adultery is a crime and has an affair with his neighbour’s wife.
D. X wants to kill Y and pours poison into Y’s wine glass. Y drinks the wine but suffers no ill effects since
Y’s wife had knocked the poisoned wine glass over and refilled it with new wine.
ANSWER: C

Explanation:
Whenever you see a question on a punishable impossible attempt, you must first of all know that all
impossible attempts are punishable except for a so-called putative crime, i.e., an impossible
attempt originating in X's mistake of law. A putative crime is, therefore, a crime that does not actually
exist (because there is no rule of law stating that that particular type of conduct constitutes a crime),
but which X thinks does exist. In the options provided above, you merely had to look for a situation
described where X thinks something is a crime/against the law, but in reality, it is not. This will be a
putative crime and thus not a punishable attempt. It is clear that Option C is the correct answer as it is
the only option which states: "X thinks that adultery is a crime...". The other three options represent
impossible attempts that are punishable.