IURI 371 Assessment 2

Requirements for this paper/Benodighede vir hierdie vraestel: Resources/Hulpmiddels:
Answer Scripts/ Multi-choice cards (A4)/

Antwoordskrifte: Multikeusekaarte (A4):
Attendance Slips (Fill-in Paper)/ Graph Paper/
Presensiestrokies (Invulvraestel): GrafiekPapier:
Scrap Paper/ Calculators/
Rofwerkpapier: Sakrekenaars:
Multi-choice cards (A5)/ Laptop (Power not provided)/
Multikeusekaarte (A5): Skootrekenaar (Krag word nie voorsien nie):
Type of Assessment: Assessment 2 Open date: 03 March 2021

Module Code: IURI 371 Maximum Marks: 35
Module Description: Law of Evidence Submission date: 14 June 2021
Mr MC Stoffels
Examiner(s): Qualification: B.COM, LLB
Mrs F Steenekamp
Please read the instructions
 Please take note that for the purposes of anonymity you need not put your name on your answer sheet. It will be
sufficient to use only your student number. However, you are welcome to use your name as well as your student
number on the answer sheet and you will not be prejudiced should you do so.
 Your student number should appear on the answer sheet at all times.
 Bear in mind that correct language usage, full sentences and neat, accurate, but concise formulation play an
important role in the assessment of your answers.
 Refer to relevant case law and legislation.
Question 1 [10]
Little Michelle, a 6-year-old girl’s parents were going through a divorce when she and her mother moved in with her aunt
and uncle. Her mother was going through a tough time and was suffering from severe depression. On 15 October 2007
her uncle, Red Butler offered to look after her that afternoon. He however sexually/indecently assaulted her by touching
her private parts. Michelle was too afraid to tell her mother about the incident as they had no other place to stay and she
was afraid of Red Butler. On 15 April 2010 while visiting her father for the holidays she was riding her bike outside the
security complex after dark. Her father, Daddy O scolded her and told her that bad things could happen to her. She then
broke down and told him about the incident with Red Butler. During the trial the prosecution called Daddy O to testify about
what Michelle told him. During the address to court, the defence argues that the Court should draw a negative inference
from the length of the delay between the alleged commission of the offence and the reporting thereof. Discuss the possibility
of success of such an application. In your answer refer to relevant case law and legislation.
Question 2 [7]
Read section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA). Indicate the legal position of any answer given by the
accused to questions posed by the presiding officer in response to his plea of not guilty and subsequent plea explanation
or lack thereof where the accused do not consent to the admission thereof in terms of section 220 of the CPA.
Question 3 [10]
Lucky Luke is arrested for the murder of an 80-year-old man. He is placed in a police holding cell with 8 other inmates
before his first appearance in court. Shortly after joining the other inmates in the cell, he tells them the following: On
Christmas Day 2020 I visited friends in Klerksdorp. I needed money. I then murdered the old man next door by hitting him
with a spade over the head while he was sleeping and then took the money next to his bed. The Police managed to obtain
a statement from Johny Bravo, one of the other cell mates who was present at the time. The other 7 inmates were too
IURI 371: Assessment 2| Full-time 1/2

afraid to make statements. There is no other evidence to link Lucky Luke to the crime. Suppose you are the prosecutor in
this matter. Would you instate criminal prosecution against Lucky Luke? Critically discuss.
Question 4 [8]
On 21 April 2015, Jayde Panayiotou was kidnapped, robbed and murdered by two gunmen. It was alleged that these
gunmen were recruited by Luthando Siyoni on the instruction of her husband, Christopher Panayiotou to kill her by making
it look like a butchered robbery. Siyoni was arrested for the murder of Jayde. Soon thereafter, Christopher was also arrested
and charged with murder amongst others. Siyoni turned state witness in terms of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 (CPA). During an undercover operation with the investigating officers, Siyoni met with Christopher on 29
April 2015 without the last mentioned having knowledge of Siyoni’s cooperation with the Police. The meeting between
Siyoni and Christopher was captured by hidden audio and video recordings. During the meeting, Christopher admitted to
instructing Siyoni to find two gunmen to kill his wife, Jayde. The state intended to adduce evidence of this secret meeting
between Siyoni and Christopher. In response thereto, the defence objected and wished to question the investigating officer
on the manner by which the audio and video recordings was obtained. The court denied the application to question the
investigating officer regarding the process of obtaining the recordings. Justify the court’s decision by arguing whether the
method by which the recordings was obtained is privileged or not.
TOTAL: 35
File reference: 8.1.7.2.
IURI 371: Assessment 2| Full-time 2/2

IURI 371 Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IURI 371 Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IURI 371 Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Requirements for this paper/Benodighede vir hierdie vraestel: Resources/Hulpmiddels:

Answer Scripts/ Multi-choice cards (A4)/

Type of Assessment: Assessment 2 Open date: 03 March 2021

Please read the instructions

IURI 371: Assessment 2| Full-time 1/2

File reference: 8.1.7.2.

IURI 371: Assessment 2| Full-time 2/2

You might also like