Exam (elaborations)
Exam (elaborations) Criminal Law 171
- Course
- Institution
This is the memo for the 2016 Criminal law test. Includes questions
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
SmarterStudentStudies
Content preview
MEMO defence. Apply all requirements to the facts. Because there is no inevitable evil (bat isharmless), R cannot succeed with necessity as ground of justification excluding
STRAFREG 171 / CRIMINAL LAW 171 unlawfulness. The question is then whether she has a defence based on lack of fault
(mens rea). If she genuinely, bona fide believed that she was acting in necessity, the
TOETS: 23 SEPTEMBER 2016 / TEST: 23 SEPTEMBER 2016
intention requirement consciousness of wrongfulness will be missing, and she would
not be able to be found guilty of a crime requiring dolus as form of fault. If the form of
fault is negligence (culpa), the three-step reasonable person test would have to be
Vraag 1 / Question 1 applied to the facts to establish whether or not her conduct complied with that of a
Sien Burchell bl 303-315. Ek wil sien dat daar moeite gedoen is om te onderskei tussen reasonable person. Case law: Goliath, Naidoo, Joshua, Pistoriusm Van der Mescht,
die involed wat dronkenskap mag hê op strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid afhangend van die Van As.
graad van dronkenskap (elemente), asook ’n poging om die verskeie geskiedkundige (15)
ontwikkelinge in verband te bring met beleidsoorwegings of regsbeginsel.
See Burchell pp 303-315. I am looking to see whether you went to trouble to distinguish 3) R se verweer is onkunde van die reg (S v De Blom). Verduidelik die verband tussen
between the effect that intoxication may have on criminal liability depending on the degree hierdie verweer en die toets vir opset (die subjektiewe vasstelling van
of intoxication (elements), as well as an effort to link the various historical developments wederregtelikheidsbewussyn) en pas dan die dolus eventualis vereistes toe op die
with policy considerations or legal principle. feite. Onthou, afleidings mag gebruik word om R se subjektiewe gemoedstoestand vas
te stel: Het sy die moontlikheid voorsien dat haar gedrag strafbaar gestel mag word, en
(15)
het sy haarself versoen met hierdie moontlikheid? Vir opset om aanwesig te wees hoef
daar nie bewys te word dat sy bewus was van die bestaan van art 57 van Wet 10 nie –
slegs dat sy die moontlikheid voorsien het dat haar gedrag teen die wet in die breër sin
Vraag 2 / Question 2
mag wees en dat sy nog steeds voortgegaan het. Indien nie, en as culpa die
1) Patologiese ontoerekeningsvatbaarheid agv geestesongesteldheid. Bespreek die skuldvorm is, moet daar verder vasgestel word of ’n redelike person in haar situasie
verweer se slaagvereistes ingevolge art 78(1) SPW en pas hulle op die feite toe ook sou gedwaal het oor of die gedrag teen die wet is (sien vraag 2 bo).
(biologiese en sielkundige been). Sien Burchell 274-287. R’s defence is ignorance of the law (S v De Blom). Explain the link between this
Pathological criminal incapacity due to mental illness. Discuss the requirements to defence and the test for intention (the subjective establishment of consciousness of
succeed with the defence in accordance with sec 78(1) CPA and apply them to the wrongfulness) and then apply the requirements for dolus eventualis to the facts. NB,
facts. See Burchell 274-287. inferential reasoning may be used to establish R’s subjective state of mind: Did she
foresee the possibility that her conduct might be punishable, and did she reconcile
(10)
herself with this possibility? For intent to be absent the state does not have to prove
that she was aware of sec 57 of Act 10 – only that she foresaw the possibility that her
2) Verweer is (putatiewe) noodtoestand. Alhoewel R gedink het dat sy aangeval word, is conduct might be against the law in the wider sense and that she nevertheless
’n vlermuis ’n dier, so dit kan nie ’n wederregtelike aanval loods nie; dus nie noodweer continued with it. If not, and if culpa is the form of fault, there would furthermore need
nie. Pas alle verestes toe op die feite. Omdat daar nie ’n dreigende gevaar is nie to be established whether a reasonable person in her circumstances would have been
(vlermuis is skadeloos), kan R nie slaag met noodtoestand as regverdigingsgrond wat mistaken/ignorant about whether their conduct was against the law (see q 2 above).
wederregtelikheid uitsluit nie. Die vraag is dan of sy die nodige mens rea (skuld) het. (15)
Indien sy werklik bona fide geglo het sy tree in noodtoestand op, ontbreek die
opsetvereiste wederregtelikheidsbewussyn, en sou sy nie skuldig bevind kon word aan
’n misdaad wat dolus as skuldvorm vereis. As die skuldvorm nalatigheid (culpa) is, sal 4) Aberratio ictus (afskramming van die hou). Nie ’n verweer as sulks nie. Volgens die
die drie-stap redelike person toets op die feite toegepas word om vas te stel of haar ou oorgedraagte opset benadering sou haar opset om die vlermuis raak te gooi
gedrag daaraan voldoen of nie. Regspraak: Goliath, Naidoo, Joshua, Pistorius, Van “oorgedra” word op die gooi van die bal teen die ruit (sy wou iets raakgooi, en sy het).
der Mescht, Van As. MAAR volgens die meer onlangse benadering wat fokus op skuld, sal haar skuld mbt
die RUIT spesifiek vasgestel moet word dmv die toepassing van die gewone toets vir
Defence is (putative) necessity. Although R thought she was being attacked, a bat is
opset: het sy die moontlikheid voorsien dat sy die ruit so raakgooi, en het sy haarself
an animal, so it cannot launch an unlawful attack; therefore the defence is not private
met hierdie moontlikheid versoen? Indien wel, is DE teenwoordig.
1 2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SmarterStudentStudies. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now