CRW2601-EXAMPACK Q AND A.

OCT / NOV 2016




PART A (MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS)
Your text here 1

QUESTION 1

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 2.2.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 2.3.2.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The investigation into the presence of the four
general requirements must follow a certain sequence, namely conduct, which
complies with the definitional elements of the crime, unlawfulness and
culpability. See SG 1.5.3.

Therefore, option 3 is correct because only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

QUESTION 2

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 2.6.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 2.7.
(c) This statement is incorrect. The ius acceptum principle applies to both
common law and statutory crimes. See SG 2.4.

Therefore, option 4 is correct because only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

QUESTION 3

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.3.4.2.c.ii.
(b) This statement is incorrect. Unlawfulness is usually determined without
reference to
X’s state of mind. See SG 5.2.4.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 3.4.2.

Therefore, option 3 is correct because only statements (a) and (c) are correct.

,QUESTION 4

(a) This statement is incorrect. The defence of obedience to orders will not
justify an act that was done in obedience to a manifestly unlawful order. See
SG 6.6 and Criminal Law 135.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 6.5.2.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 8.2.4(1).

Therefore, option 4 is correct because only statements (b) and (c) are correct.

QUESTION 5

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 10.2.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 10.3.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 10.4.

Therefore, option 5 is correct because all the statements are correct.

QUESTION 6

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 7.2.5; Reader 97; Casebook 131.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 7.3.3.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 5.2.3(2); Reader 52; Casebook 61.

Therefore, option 4 is correct because all the statements are correct.

QUESTION 7

(a) This statement is incorrect. Putative private defence occurs when X thinks
that she was entitled to act in private defence. It is not a real situation of
private defence. But it is an example of a mistake relating to the element of
unlawfulness (i.e. the existence of a ground of justification). See SG 10.3 to
understand which wrong impression of facts qualifies as a material mistake
that affords X a defence excluding culpability. This form of mistake does
exclude culpability. See 10.6.1.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The attack must be threatening but must not
have been completed. See SG 5.3.2(3).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 6.5.3.

Therefore, option 2 is correct because only statement (c) is correct.

, QUESTION 8

(a) This statement is incorrect. To succeed on the defence of mental illness, it
must be established that the mental illness resulted in the impairment of any
of the mental abilities in the psychological leg of criminal capacity. See SG
8.2.5.
(b) This statement is incorrect. The legal presumption of criminal incapacity in
relation to a 10-year-old child is rebuttable. See SG 8.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. Accessories after the fact are “non-
participants”. See SG
14.2.1.

Therefore, option 4 is correct because none of the statements is correct.

QUESTION 9

(a) This statement is incorrect. See the correct definition of dolus eventualis at
SG 9.4.3.
(b) This statement is incorrect. A “joiner-in” does not act with a common
purpose of others, and his blow is administered at a stage when Y’s lethal
wound had already been inflicted. See SG 14.3.5.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 15.2.5.

Therefore, option 3 is correct because only statement (c) is correct.

QUESTION 10

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 15.3.3.
(b) This statement is incorrect. Actio libera in causa is where X, intending to
commit a crime, voluntarily drinks in order to generate the necessary courage
to perpetrate the crime once he is intoxicated. This form of voluntary
intoxication is no defence. See SG 12.4.1.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 12.6 and Summary in study unit 12.

Therefore, option 3 is correct because only statements (a) and (c) are correct.



PART B

QUESTION 1

(a) See SG 2.4.2.

, • A legal norm in an Act is a provision creating a legal rule that does
not simultaneously create a crime.
• A criminal norm in an Act is a provision that makes it clear that
certain conduct constitutes a crime.
• A criminal sanction is a provision in an Act stipulating what
punishment a court must impose after it has convicted a person of that
crime.
• A criminal norm is essential for the creation of a statutory crime.

(b) See SG 3.3.4.1.

Conduct is voluntary if X is capable of subjecting his bodily movements to his will or
intellect.

(c) SG 3.3.4.2

• Absolute force
• Natural forces
• Automatism

(d) See SG 3.4.1.2.

(i) X is the incumbent of a certain office: Ewels case – a policeman who sees
somebody else being unlawfully assaulted has a legal duty, by virtue of
his office, to come to the assistance of the victim

OR



Gaba case – a policeman who knows the identity of an arrested suspect had
a legal duty to reveal his knowledge, by virtue of his office, to his fellow
teammembers of the investigation team.

(ii) X accepts responsibility for control of a dangerous or potentially
dangerous object: Fernandez case – X kept a baboon and failed to repair
its cage properly, with the result that the animal escaped and bit a child.
Court held that X had a legal duty to have repaired the cage.

(iii) X stands in a protective relationship to somebody else: B case – X,
the mother of a 2 and a half year old child, had a legal duty to care for
and protect her biological child from the assaults of X’s male partner.