$3\mathrm{.}2$ Section $84(1)$ of the Criminal Procedure Act $51$ of $1977,$ and section $35(3)(1)($a$)$ of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, $1996,$ require the indictment or charge sheet to be compiled in sufficient detail for the accused to be able to answer it$.$

In the subsequent trial the accused, Ed$,$ Adam and Petty are arraigned on the charges committed in Zamunda. One of the charges in the charge sheet reads as follows:

"The accused Ed Crooke, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief are charged with the crime of robbery with aggravating circumstances of an amount of $$1$ million, which took place in Pretoria in $1988.$

$3\mathrm{.}2\mathrm{.}1$ Briefly explain whether a South African court has jurisdiction over the accused on the charge set out in the charge sheet since the crime was allegedly committed in Zamunda, and not in the Republic. If so$,$ why$/$ and if not, why not?

$3\mathrm{.}2\mathrm{.}2$ Evaluate whether the charge as set out in the charge sheet complies with the requirements of section $84(1)$ of the Criminal Procedure Act $51$ of $1977.$

$3\mathrm{.}3$ At the conclusion of the State's case, the court calls upon the accused, Ed Crooke, Adam Swindler and Petty Thief to present their own case. The accused have, however, already concluded, on the basis of the evidence already presented by the prosecution that "the State has a weak case" against them. They decide not to answer the State's case, but to close their case without testifying, or leading any defence witnesses.

Critically evaluate the efficacy $($workability$)$ or otherwise of the accused's strategy in the context of prevailing South African law.

$[28]$

$[$TURN OVER$]$