StudyNotesWiki

I have q1 - q3
q4 and q5 is still incomplete, because i have not bought the prescribed material
If you want to discuss this assy, or compare answ
let me know
this is a pretty straight forward assy

I would like to compare answers...give me a few days thou...just got my study material...

hey do y knw of anygys doin d same module in dbn if so pls hala bek

With you guys on this went to the first tutorial class on saturday and was so dissappionted TOO MUCH LAWYERS IN ONE ROOM CREATES A HUGE PROBLEM!and to top it off it would actually helped it they really understood the context and work within the scope of the first chapter!idiots!

Do we just put up our answers

(sorry for the vent)

I am glad to see some replies to this thread,, just excuse my spelling, my nerve endings in my left hemisphere is going to the wrong
places (PYC students knows exactly what ime talking about )

anyway the idea is that you compare answers with mine and if you see any discrepancies then we discuss those

1- 2
2- 3
3- 3
4- 3
5- 5







COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENT 01/2012 SEMESTER 1
Closing date: 12 MARCH 2012 UNIQUE NUMBER: 717391


Question 1
(a) The application of the theory of general deterrence to punishment requires that there
must be a proportional relationship between the harm inflicted and the punishment
imposed.
(b) The preventive theory can overlap with both the deterrent and the reformative
theories, since both deterrence and reformation may be seen merely as methods of
preventing the commission of crimes.
(c) When imposing punishment in practice, our courts do not apply any single theory as
the only correct one to the exclusion of others.

(1) All of the statements are correct. XXXXXXXXXXX
(2) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct. c
(3) Only statement (b) is correct. xxxxxxxxxx
(4) Only statement (a) is correct. XXXXXXXXXX
(5) Only statement (c) is correct. xxxxxxxxxx

a False
b True
c True


Question 2
(a) The principle of legality exists to ensure that an accused may not be convicted and
punished merely because a court is of the opinion that his or her conduct is immoral or
dangerous or because, in general terms, the person “deserves” to be punished.
(b) According to the ius strictum rule, crimes ought not to be formulated vaguely.
(c) In Francis 1994 (1) SACR 350 (C) the court held that the regulation in question did
create a criminal norm.
(1) None of the statements is correct. xxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. xxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) Only statement (a) is correct. C
(4) Only statement (c) is correct. xxxxxxxxxxxx
(5) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct. xxxxxxxxxxxx

a true
b fALSE
c false


Question 3
(a) A human being can be convicted and punished if he commits a crime through the
agency of an animal, for example where X urges his dog to bite Y.
(b) To determine whether X committed an “act” in the criminal-law sense of the word, the
question is merely whether the act was willed.
(c) The state, acting through the police, has a legal duty to protect its citizens against
violent crime.
(1) All of the statements are correct. xxxxxxxxx
(2) Only statement (c) is correct. xxxxxxxxx
(3) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. c
(4) Only statement (b) is correct. xxxxxxxxx
(5) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct. xxxxxxxxx

a true
b false
c true


Question 4
(a) An act is a conditio sine qua non for a situation if the act cannot be thought away
without the situation disappearing at the same time.
(b) In Daniëls 1983 (3) SA 275 (A), the majority of the Appeal judges who considered the
question of causation refused to accept that an act can be the legal cause of a
situation only if it can be described as the “proximate cause”.
(c) In Tembani 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA), the court held that in South Africa improper
medical treatment was neither abnormal nor extraordinary, and could not constitute a
novus actus interveniens that exonerated an assailant from liability while the wound
was still intrinsically fatal.
(1) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct. xxxxxxxxxx
(2) Only statement (c) is correct.
(3) All of the statements are correct. xxxxxxxxxx
(4) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
(5) Only statement (b) is correct. xxxxxxxxxx

a true
b
c true


Question 5
(a) Unlawfulness can simply be defined as “the absence of a recognised ground of
justification”.
(b) X can successfully rely on private defence even if his defensive act is directed at the
conduct of a mentally ill person or a young child.
(c) In Ex parte die Minister van Justisie: in re S v Van Wyk 1967 (1) SA 488 (A), the
majority of the judges found on the specific facts of the case that the accused had
exceeded the bounds of private defence in the manner in which he had defended his
property.
(1) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
(2) Only statement (b) is correct.
(3) None of the statements are correct.
(4) Only statement (c) is correct.
(5) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.

I I always have the same problem, thats why I download the material from “myunisa”

Hey guys (and gilrs ) ,

Has anyone finished with the second assignment...I have and my answer is so long!
Its based on the Daniels decision...

Hey Rishern i would like to compare post your email addie and i will send you mine

Hi there Bluepepper,

My email addy is Rishern.d@gmail.com

Hi... I agree with all your answers except 5.... on page 67 it states that a purely negative definition of unlawfulness is not acceptable and lists 2 reasons... so i think the correct answer is that only b is correct... therefore 2... what do you think?

the correct answer for question 5 is (1)

(b) X can successfully rely on private defense even if his defensive act is directed at the
conduct of a mentally ill person or a young child.
(c) In Ex parte die Minister van Justisie: in re S v Van Wyk 1967 (1) SA 488 (A), the
majority of the judges found on the specific facts of the case that the accused had
exceeded the bounds of private defence in the manner in which he had defended his

S Van wyk on appeal it was decided inorder to protect the life of his brother he shot the deceased (majority judges) ruled that the accused could rely on private defenses (saving the third party)
and b you may rely on private defence even the act is directed against a minor or a insane person remember that one so clearly because none of the two has criminal liability but if you are to rely on private defense it must be an act that leaves you no option out of the situation

hi bluepepper...
i might be misunderstanding, but in my mind c is wrong, exactly for the reason you said, because it states that the accused "exceeded the bounds" but the finding was, as you said, that he was not guilty... c seems to say to me (unlike the finding) that he couldnt use private defence

Hi
I compared our assignment 01 answers with the answers in TL201 and our answers are 100% correct.