ASSINGMENT 1
16016238
User
FSAL5111
4/20/2016 I, Siphamandla Maki hereby declare that I did not plagiarise any content of this assignment and that this is my own work. Signed: ____________________________________
Mark Rossuow
Table of Contents
1 Question 1 1
2 Question 2 1
2.1 Question 2.1 1
2.2 Question 2.2 1
2.3 Question 2.3 1
2.4 Question 2.4 1 2.5 Question 2.5 ………..……………………………………………………………..1 2.6 Question 2.6……….………………………………………………………………1 2.7 Question2.7……………………..…………………………………………………1
2.8 Question 2.8 1
Question 1
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PORSECUTIONS, GAUTENG: APPLELLANT
AND
OSCAR …show more content…
Intention
5. Evidence proving that it is a murder.
Therefore must be proved that the accused’s killing was unlawful , that the must be a weapon but before all that a person has to have motive and intention of killing which the court must prove with the evidence brought before the court.
Application:
A person must not kill unlawful ;
1. Clearly Oscar is a person and shot and killed his girlfriend.
2. Reeva was his girlfriend, which raises the question: “whether he committed the crime of murder with a motive, intention or not”.
3. However, Oscar claims he thought his girlfriend was asleep in the bedroom, he took out his firearm to protect his girlfriend and himself.
4. Thus he claims this he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his story is true.
Should he fail to prove this then the law will take its course and he will be charged and found guilty for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
Conclusion:
Due to the way this crime was committed and the evidence Oscar does not stand a chance of winning this case.
Based on the proceedings analysis, the court will likely find Oscar guilty of the offence under S 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. On this basis I would advise Oscar to plead guilty and accept his …show more content…
The headings are not the same the 2013 is not the same as the 2015 S v Pistorius and Director of v Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius. Meaning the case was passed on from a lower court to a higher court in the hierarchy of courts.
2.7
An appeal is logged against the conviction, against a sentence or both, is considered by a court higher up on the hierarchy of courts , if there is an activity or practice which is not according to the usual rules, a review will be made by a higher court.
2.8
Doctrine of stare docisis is a system followed cy common law bounding most courts by their own previous decisions in cases that are similar. All lower courts are forced to make present decisions consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts.
Doctrine of stare might cause injustice, by overruling of an earlier case. It can also limit the development of the law, by limiting factor in the development of judge-made