Podcast
Questions and Answers
The accused were convicted on three counts of murder.
The accused were convicted on three counts of murder.
False (B)
Counsel for the accused argued that the death penalty was consistent with the Republic of South Africa Constitution, 1993.
Counsel for the accused argued that the death penalty was consistent with the Republic of South Africa Constitution, 1993.
False (B)
The Appellate Division overturned the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
The Appellate Division overturned the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
False (B)
The Appellate Division postponed the hearing of the appeals against the death sentence.
The Appellate Division postponed the hearing of the appeals against the death sentence.
Section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977 prescribes that life imprisonment is a competent sentence for murder.
Section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977 prescribes that life imprisonment is a competent sentence for murder.
The Republic of South Africa Constitution, 1993 came into force after the conviction and sentence by the trial court.
The Republic of South Africa Constitution, 1993 came into force after the conviction and sentence by the trial court.
The death sentence's constitutionality issue was raised during the trial.
The death sentence's constitutionality issue was raised during the trial.
Evidence relevant to the death sentence's constitutionality issue was fully presented during the trial.
Evidence relevant to the death sentence's constitutionality issue was fully presented during the trial.
The case was referred back to the trial court for the hearing of further evidence.
The case was referred back to the trial court for the hearing of further evidence.
The Appellate Division made a formal reference of the constitutional issues to the Court.
The Appellate Division made a formal reference of the constitutional issues to the Court.
Counsel were able to point out specific material that had not been presented before on the constitutional issues.
Counsel were able to point out specific material that had not been presented before on the constitutional issues.
The hearing of further evidence was deemed necessary by the Court.
The hearing of further evidence was deemed necessary by the Court.
