®

NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY

•
YUNIBESITI YA BOKONE-BOPHIRIMA
NOORDVVES-UNIVERSITEIT

Requirements for this paper/Benodigdhede vir hierdie vraestel :
Answer scripts/
Antwoordskrifte:
Attendance slips (Fill-in paper)/
Presensiestrokies (lnvulvraestel):
1:1 Multi-choice cards (AS)/
LJ Multikeusekaarte (AS):
D Multi-choice cards (A4)/
Multikeusekaarte (A4):
Calculators/Sakrekenaars: I No/Nee I
Other resources/Ander hulpmiddels:
l;l • Only hard-copy documents are
LJ
D •
allowed in the examination hall.
Slegs hardekopie-dokumentasie word
in die eksamenlokaal toegelaat.

Scrap paper/
Rofwerkpapier: D Graph paper/
Grafiekpapier: D
Exam 1st opportunity
Type of Assessment/ Qualification/
Eksamen 1e geleentheid BA & LLB
Tipe Assessering: Kwalifikasie:
PaperNraestel 1
Module code/ Duration{ 3 hours
IURI 271
Modulekode: Tydsduur: 3 ure
Module description/ Law of Criminal Procedure I Max/
Module beskrywing: Strafprosesreg 100
Maks:
Prof PG du Toit
Exam iner(s)/ Date/
Mr I Mnr H Pretorius 31/10/2017
Eksam inator(e): Datum:
Mr I Mnr BJ Tshehla
Tim el
Moderator(s ): Ms I Me MB Schoeman 14:00
Tyd:

Submission of answer scripts/lnhandiging van antwoordskrifte: Ordinary/Gewoon

SECTION A I AFDELING A: [20 x 2 = 40]

IURI 271 1/18

SECTION B I AFDELING B: [60]

Use your answer script for answering Section B. I

Gebruik u antwoordskrif om Afdeling B te beantwoord.

QUESTION 1: [5]

What are the limitations of police bail?

VRAAG 1: [5]

Wat is die beperkinge op polisieborg?

QUESTION 2: [6]

Axe Killer killed his fiance, Beautiful, with an axe on 12 February 2016 at his house at Silverlakes, Pretoria. X
is arraigned in the regional court.

Draft the annexure to the charge sheet.

IURI 271 14/18

VRAAG 2: [6]

Byl Moordenaar het sy verloofde , Beeldskoon , vermoor met 'n byl op 12 Februarie 2016 by sy huis te
Silverlakes, Pretoria. X word in die streekhof verhoor.

Stel die aanhangsel tot die klagstaat op.

QUESTION 3: [9]

You represent X in th is criminal trial on a charge of theft. Before the commencement of the trial , X informs you
that he feels uncomfortable about being tried by the presiding magistrate, as he and the magistrate had earlier
been involved in a veh icle collision with each other. Advise X on the possible steps you could take at that
stage?

VRAAG 3: [9]

U verteenwoordig X tydens sy strafverhoor op 'n aanklag van diefstal. Voor die aanvang van die verhoor deel
X u mee dat hy baie ongemaklik voel daarmee om deur die voorsittende landdros verhoor te word , aangesien
hy en die landdros vantevore in 'n motorbotsing met mekaar betrokke was. Adviseer X oor die moontlike
stappe wat u op hierdie stadium kan neem .

QUESTION 4: (15]

You are an attorney. Your client, James Gowe, seeks legal advice and legal representation in a crimina l trial.
He faces a charge of murder. This charge emanated from a motor vehicle accident where a car he was driving
at the time caused the death of two pedestrians. He also informs you that he accepts that he was negligent in
his driving in that he did not keep a proper look out and his car swerved off the road and killed the pedestrians
on the side of the road . He, however, disputes that he committed murder.

4.1 You inform him (James Gowe) that, in law, it is permissible for you to negotiate with the prosecution
(state) so that he can plead gu ilty to the charge of culpable homicide instead of murder. You also inform
him that you would prefer the statutory plea bargaining instead of traditional plea bargaining. Explain to
him the key difference between traditional plea bargaining and statutory plea bargaining. (2)

4.2 After engaging with the prosecutor, you and the said prosecutor approach the magistrate presiding over
the matter in his office where the two of you explain to him that the accused intends to plead guilty to
cu lpable homicide and therefore you would like to hear whether that would be acceptable to him as the
presiding officer. The magistrate informs you that he has no problem with the agreement and that you
can all go to court and have it formalised . He also states that there is no need to have the agreement
in writing as everything can be captured in court when you address the court. In court, after the charge
has been put and the accused has pleaded , you stand up and inform the court that, as indicated in the
magistrate's office earlier, the accused pleads guilty to culpable homicide and that the state and the
defence have agreed on this conviction and it has also been endorsed by the court. The accused , you
tell the court, has prepared a statement in terms of the provisions of section 112(2) of the Criminal
IURI 271 15/18
 Procedure Act (51 of 1977) which , with the permission of the court, you proceed to read into record .
The accused is then found guilty of culpable homicide.

Is the procedure followed in this case consistent with the provisions of section 105A regard ing plea
bargaining? Give reasons for you answer. (5)

4.3 Using additional fictitious facts where necessary, please draft a statement in terms of section 112 (2)
where you plead guilty to the charge of culpable homicide. (8)

VRAAG 4: [15]

U is 'n prokureur. 'n Klient, James Gowe, nader u om regsadvies en regsverteenwoordiging in 'n strafverhoor.
Hy staar 'n aanklag van moord in die gesig . Hierdie aanklag spruit voort uit 'n motorongeluk waar die motor
wat hy bestuur het die dood van twee voetgangers veroorsaak het. Hy lig u in dat hy aanvaar dat hy nalatig
bestuur het deurdat hy nie behoorlik uitkyk gehou het nie en dat hy sy motor van die pad gery en die
voetgangers aan die kant van die pad doodgery het. Hy ontken egter dat hy moord gepleeg het.

4.1 U stel horn (James Gowe) in kennis dat dit toelaatbaar is vir u om met die vervolging (Staat) te
onderhandel sodat hy eerder skuldig bevind word aan strafbare manslag as moord . U deel horn ook
mee dat u die statutere pleitooreenkomsprosedure verkies in plaas van tradisionele pleitooreenkomste.
Verd uidelik aan horn die sleutelverskil tussen tradisionele pleitooreenkomste en statutere
pleitooreenkomste. (2)

4.2 Nadat u met die aanklaer in gesprek getree het, het u en die genoemde aanklaer die landdros oor die
saak in sy kantoor gespreek, waar die twee van u aan horn verduidelik het dat die beskuldigde van plan
is om aan strafbare manslag skuldig te pleit en dat u daarom wil vasstel of die voorstel vir horn as
voorsittende beampte aanvaarbaar is. Die landdros deel u mee u dat hy geen probleem met die
ooreenkoms het nie en dat almal hof toe kan gaan om dit te formaliseer. Hy se ook dat dit nie nodig is
om dit op skrif te stel nie, aangesien alles in die hof op rekord geplaas sal word wanneer u die hof
toespreek. Nadat die aanklag gestel is en die beskuldigde daarop gepleit het, staan u op en stel u die
hof in kennis dat, soos vroeer in die landdros se kantoor aangedui is, die beskuldigde aan strafbare
manslag skuldig pleit, soos ooreengekom deur die Staat en die verdediging en deur die hof goedgekeur.
U deel die hof mee dat u 'n verklaring ingevolge die bepalings van artikel 112 (2) van die Strafproseswet
(51 van 1977) opgestel het, wat u met toestemming van die hof in rekord te lees. Die beskuldigde is
daarna skuldig bevind aan strafbare manslag.

Is die prosedure wat in hierdie geval gevolg is in ooreenstemming met die bepalings van artikel 105A
ten opsigte van pleitooreenkomste? Gee redes vir jou antwoord. (5)

4.3 Gebruik bykomende fiktiewe feite waar nodig , en berei namens u klient 'n verklari ng ingevolge artikel
112(2) voor waarin hy skuldig pleit aan strafbare manslag . (8)

IURI 271 16/18

QUESTION 5: [5]

Jane Ravele is a presiding officer the Molopo Magistrate's Court, Mafikeng . After the state and the defence
have closed their respective cases , she informs them that she is tired as it has been a long day and , as a
result, she will prepare her judgment and post it to the parties.

5.1 Is this approach by the presiding officer permissible by law? Give reasons for you answer. (3)

5.2 When the judgment is received , the only sentence contained in it is that "the accused is found guilty as
charged''. Give your opinion is to the appropriateness or otherwise of th is judgment. (2)

VRAAG 5: [5]

Jane Ravele is 'n voorsittende beampte van die Molopo Landdroshof, Mafikeng . Nadat die staat en die
verded iging hulle onderskeie sake gesluit het, deel sy die partye mee dat sy moeg is omdat dit 'n lang dag was
en dat sy haar uitspraak sal voorberei en aan die partye sal pas.

5.1 Is hierdie benadering deur die voorsittende beampte wettig toelaatbaar? Gee redes vir jou
antwoord . (3)

5.2 Die uitspraak wat deur die partye ontvang is bepaal slegs "dat die beskuldigde skuld ig bevind word soos
aangekla". Gee u mening oar die gepastheid van hierdie uitspraak. (2)

QUESTION 6: [20]

X (23 years of age) followed Miss Y (40 years of age) when she left a tavern on her way home. Miss Y was
strong ly under the influence of beer. X easily overpowered Miss Y and raped her once . In the regional court
X pleads not guilty to the charge [contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related
Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 read with the applicable provisions of Act 105 of 1997] and alleges that
during the time of the incident he was at home watching TV. He is, however, linked to the comm ission of the
crime with DNA evidence . Although Miss Y did not sustain serious bodily injuries, she states in her victim
impact statement that she experiences nightmares, has developed a fear for men and that she is afraid to
leave her home. X was previously convicted of assault and was sentenced to a fine of R300 or 60 days'
imprisonment. X does not have fixed employment and he earns an unstable income by washing cars. He
assists with the care his two younger sisters. X enjoys legal representation throughout the trial. On 16 July
2017 , X is convicted of the crime as charged and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. His application for
leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence is dismissed on the same day. Answer the following
questions. Refer to the applicable statutory provisions or applicable case law.

6.1 Wat is the prescribed minimum sentence X faced? (2)

6.2 What is the maximum sentence the regional court could have imposed in this case? (2)
6.3 Explain whethe r the regional court could have deviated from the prescribed sentence by imposing a less
severe sentence. (2)

IURI 271 17/18

6.4 What circumstances may not be considered by the court as justification for a lesser sentence in cases
of rape? (5)
6.5 Is there still a chance that X may appeal against his conviction and sentence? Describe the initial
steps. (4)
6.6 May the court of appeal increase X's sentence of own accord when his appeal is heard? (2)
6.7 What is the first procedural step the state must take if it wishes to appeal against the sentence imposed
by the trial court? (2)
6.8 Is X's case subject to automatic review? Simply answer "yes" or "no". (1)

VRAAG 6: [20]

Die 23-jarige X het Me Y (40 jaar oud ) agtervolg toe sy van 'n taverne op pad was huis toe. Me Y was tydens
die voorval sterk onder die invloed van bier. Hy het haar sonder veel moeite oorval en een keer verkrag . X
het in die streekhof onskuldig gepleit op die aanklag van verkragting [oortreding van artikel 3 van die
Wysigingswet op die Strafreg (Seksuele Misdrywe en Verwante Aangeleenthede) 32 van 2007 , gelees met
die toepaslike bepalings van Wet 105 van 1997] en aangevoer dat hy op die stadium van die pleging van die
misdaad by die huis was en televisie gekyk het. DNS-getuienis het X egter met die misdaad verbind . Alhoewel
Me Y nie ernstige fisiese besering opgedoen het nie, het sy in haar slagoffer impakverklaring onder meer
aangedui dat sy nagmerries kry, 'n vrees vir mans ontwikkel het en bang is om haar huis te verlaat. X is drie
jaar vantevore skuldig bevind aan aanranding en is beboet met R300 of 60 dae gevangenisstraf. X het nie 'n
vaste werk nie en verdien 'n onstabiele inkomste deur motors te was . Hydra by tot die versorging van sy twee
jonger susters. X het deur loop van die verhoor regsverteenwoordiging geniet. Xis op 16 Julie 2017 skuldig
bevind aan die misdryf en tot agt jaar gevangenisstraf gevonnis. Sy aansoek om verlof om teen beide die
skuldigbevinding en vonnis te appelleer is op dieselfde dag afgewys. Beantwoord nou die volgende vrae. U
antwoord moet na die toepaslike statutere bepaling of regspraak verwys.
6.1 Wat is die voorgeskrewe minimum vonnis wat X in die gesig gestaar het? (2)
6.2 Wat is die maksimum vonnis wat die streekhof in hierdie saak kon ople? (2)
6.3 Verduidelik of die streekhof wel van die voorgekrewe vonnis kon afwyk deur 'n ligter vonnis op te le. (2)
6.4 Watter omstandighede kan die hof nie in verkragtingsake oorweeg om 'n mindere vonnis te op te le
nie? (5)
6.5 Is daar nog enigsins 'n kans dat X teensy skuldigbevinding en vonnis kan appelleer? Sit die aanvanklike
prosedurele stap(pe) uiteen . (4)
6.6 Kan die hof van appel X se vonnis uit eie beweging verswaar as X se appel aangehoor word? (2)
6.7 Wat is die eerste prosedurele stap wat die staat moet neem indien dit die inisiatief wil neem om teen X
se vonnis te appelleer? (2)
6.8 Is X se saak onderworpe aan outomatiese hersiening? Antwoord slegs "ja" of "nee". ( 1)

TOTAL I TOTAAL: 100

File reference: 8.1.7.2.2

IURI 271 18/18