Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Q3 - 1st semeser test

1st semeser test
Course

Criminal law (LAWS 2014)

941 Documents
Students shared 941 documents in this course
Academic year: 2024/2025
Uploaded by:
Student
Kamogelo Palesa
Boston City Campus and Business College
0followers
11Uploads
0upvotes

Recommended for you

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

a) The legal issue is whether Gary is liable for the murder of Z. According to De Bruyn even though there are 3 types of Dolus for the conviction of murder Dolus eventualis should suffice. Even though other elements of criminal liability are assumed fault should extent to each definitional element of the crime in question (Churchill). For Dolus eventualis the accused should subjectively foresee (Sigwahla, Mini) the possibility (Shaik, Ngubane) of the unlawful consequence and reconcile to the act (Humphrey, Maarohanye). Subjective foresight The question is whether Gary subjectively foresaw the death of Z. We use objective factors to make an inference (Sigwahla). We only draw one inference that can reasonably be drawn in the circumstances (Sigwahla). The court in Maarohanye found a famous artist JubJub and his friend who where under the influence of drugs, which gave them a sense of euphoria and braveness to drag race on a street which resulted in the death of children who came back from school. The court found that the accused could have not subjectively foreseen the possibility of causing death thus reconciling to their acts because they were under the influence of drugs which affected their subjective foresight. From the facts we take that Gary has 16 years of experience in his line of work. Gary was under the influence of drugs which gave him over confidence, braveness, and courage. The effect of being under the influence of drugs affected Gary’s foreseeability of causing the danger of death of the passengers on his raft, this was exacerbated by the fact that he has never caused an accident in his line of work. Gary could have not subjectively foreseen the possibility of death and thus reconciling to his act because he was intoxicated, this is taken from Maarohanye. b) The issue is whether Jim acted negligently by causing the death of a small boy. Negligence is the falling short of a reasonable man. A reasonable man according to (Mbombela; Burger) is an ordinary citizen who follows life with common sense and abides to the constitution, he does not have to have Solomonic wisdom but should tread life’s pathway with careful consideration. Negligence is tested objectively (Burger) we look at the external or physical factors of the standard of a reasonable man (Southern).

Was this document helpful?

Q3 - 1st semeser test

Course: Criminal law (LAWS 2014)

941 Documents
Students shared 941 documents in this course

University: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Was this document helpful?
a) The legal issue is whether Gary is liable for the murder of Z.
According to De Bruyn even though there are 3 types of Dolus for the conviction of murder
Dolus eventualis should suffice.
Even though other elements of criminal liability are assumed fault should extent to each
definitional element of the crime in question (Churchill).
For Dolus eventualis the accused should subjectively foresee (Sigwahla, Mini) the possibility
(Shaik, Ngubane) of the unlawful consequence and reconcile to the act (Humphrey,
Maarohanye).
Subjective foresight
The question is whether Gary subjectively foresaw the death of Z.
We use objective factors to make an inference (Sigwahla).
We only draw one inference that can reasonably be drawn in the circumstances (Sigwahla).
The court in Maarohanye found a famous artist JubJub and his friend who where under the
influence of drugs, which gave them a sense of euphoria and braveness to drag race on a
street which resulted in the death of children who came back from school. The court found
that the accused could have not subjectively foreseen the possibility of causing death thus
reconciling to their acts because they were under the influence of drugs which affected their
subjective foresight.
From the facts we take that Gary has 16 years of experience in his line of work. Gary was
under the influence of drugs which gave him over confidence, braveness, and courage. The
effect of being under the influence of drugs affected Gary’s foreseeability of causing the
danger of death of the passengers on his raft, this was exacerbated by the fact that he has
never caused an accident in his line of work.
Gary could have not subjectively foreseen the possibility of death and thus reconciling to his
act because he was intoxicated, this is taken from Maarohanye.
b) The issue is whether Jim acted negligently by causing the death of a small boy.
Negligence is the falling short of a reasonable man.
A reasonable man according to (Mbombela; Burger) is an ordinary citizen who follows life
with common sense and abides to the constitution, he does not have to have Solomonic
wisdom but should tread life’s pathway with careful consideration.
Negligence is tested objectively (Burger) we look at the external or physical factors of the
standard of a reasonable man (Southern).

Students also viewed

Related documents