Question $1$

$($Marks: $60)$

Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng are watching a soccer match between the Westside Wanderers and the City Giants. They are fans of "the Wanderers" and at halftime, the Wanderers are losing to "the Giants" as they are known by their fans. Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng decide to refill their drinks at halftime. While waiting for their drinks at the club bar, a Giants fan, Mikey, starts taunting Dibuseng about the fact that the Wanderers are losing. This upsets Derrick and Donald intensely. Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng then incite one another to find Mikey after the match is finished and to "teach him a lesson that he will never forget." Once the match is over, the Wanderers have lost to the Giants and all the Giants fans go to a local pub to celebrate while Mikey chooses to go home. When Mikey gets to his car in the parking lot, Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng confront him. Dibuseng pushes Mikey who then falls over, Derrick holds Mikey down and Donald proceeds to punch and kick Mikey in the face, stomach and back. While Mikey is lying on the ground and he is semi$-$conscious, Dibuseng decides to set Mikey's car on fire using matches and a canister of petrol that she took out of her car. Once Dibuseng has set Mikey's car alight, she runs away with Derrick and Donald following her.

While Mikey is recovering in hospital, he explains to the police what Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng did. They are later arrested while attending another soccer match. You are the judge in their matter and you are required to consider several aspects related to the offences that they have committed.

In not more than four pages in length, answer the following questions:

Q$\mathrm{.}1\mathrm{.}1$ Assume for this question only that the legal representative for Dibuseng says the

$(12)$

following in court concerning the doctrine of common purpose: "The common purpose doctrine is completely unnecessary and unconstitutional. Criminal Law can do without it$".$ Her reasoning behind this statement is that Dibuseng only pushed Mikey over and she did not actively engage in physically assaulting him.

$($C$)$ The Independent Institute of Education $($Pty$)$ Ltd $2023$

Page $4$ of $8$

$22$;$23$;$24$

$2023$

Discuss whether you think Dibuseng's legal representative is correct in making such a statement with reference to the constitutionality of the doctrine of common purpose as decided on in the case of Jacobs v S $2019(1)$ SACR $623($CC$).$

NOTE: $7$ marks are to be awarded for your discussion and $5$ marks are to be awarded for the manner in which you structure your answer to this question.

Q$\mathrm{.}1\mathrm{.}2$ One of the charges faced by Derrick, Donald and Dibuseng is that of incitement in

$(18)$

relation to what they did to Mikey.

Discuss the constitutionality of the statutory crime of incitement with reference to the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another $2021(1)$ SACR $387($CC$).$