LEGAL OPINIONS (FIRAC METHOD) REGARDING STATUTORY OFFENCES:

DRUGS AND DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES:

FACTS:
Johnny was caught in a police trap selling cannabis.

ISSUE:
Can Johnny be convicted of DEALING IN AN UNDESIRABLE DEPENDENCE PRODUCING SUBSTANCE?

RULE OF LAW:
According to section 5 of THE DRUGS AND DRUG TRAFFICKING ACT 140 OF 1992, READ WITH THE CRIMINALISATION CLAUSE (SECTION 13) AND THE PENALTY CLAUSE (SECTION 17), IT IS AN OFFENCE FOR ANY PERSON THAT DEALS IN (b) ANY DANGEROUS DEPENDENCE PRODUCING SUBSTANCE OR ANY UNDESIRABLE DEPENDENCE PRODUCING SUBSTANCE.
S V ARIAS
S V NAIDOO.

APPLICATION:
LEGALITY:
Can be proven because- (a) There is a criminalisation clause (section 13); and (b) There is a penalty clause (section 17).
Thus Johnny’s conduct constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.

CONDUCT: Can be proven because- Johnny’s conduct by dealing in drugs is a contravention of section 5.

UNLAWFULNESS: Can be proven because- (a) Johnny’s conduct of selling drugs is against the law, as it is an offence in terms of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act, (b) Johnny cannot raise any common law or statutory ground of justification.
FAULT:
Can be proven because- (a) Johnny had the will to deal in drug; (b) While knowing or foreseeing that such dealing is prohibited by law.
CONCLUSION:
Johnny can be convicted of the DEALING IN AN UNDESIRABLE DEPENDENCE PRODUCING SUBSTANCE in terms of section 5(b) of the DRUGS AND DRUG TRAFFICKING ACT 140 OF 1992, because the state can prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES:

FACTS:
Johnny was PULLED OVER BY THE POLICE FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING, AND BLOOD SAMPLES WERE CORRECTLY TAKEN FROM HIM. TESTS REVEALED AN ALOCOHOL LEVEL OF 0,06 PER 1000ML OF BLOOD.

ISSUE:
Can Johnny be convicted of DRIVING WITH EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL IN HIS BLOOD?

RULE OF LAW:
According to section 65(2)(a) of THE NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 93 OF 1996, READ WITH THE CRIMINALISATION CLAUSE (SECTION 89(1)) AND THE PENALTY CLAUSE (SECTION 89(5)), IT IS AN OFFENCE FOR ANY PERSON TO ON A PUBLIC ROAD (a) DRIVE A VEHICLE WHILE THE CONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL IN ANY SPECIMEN OF BLOOD TAKEN FROM ANY PART OF HIS/HER BODY EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OF 0,05GRAM PER 1000MILLILITRES.
S V MHLANGO
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, EASTERN CAPE V KLUE
S V MASUMPA (FOR DEFENCE).

APPLICATION:
LEGALITY:
Can be proven because- (c) There is a criminalisation clause (section 89(1)); and (d) There is a penalty clause (section 89(5)).
Thus Johnny’s conduct constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.

CONDUCT: Can be proven because-
Johnny’s conduct by DRIVING A VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC ROAD WITH AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN HIS BLOOD is in contravention with s65(2)(a).

UNLAWFULNESS: Can be proven because- (c) Johnny’s conduct of driving with excessive alcohol in his blood is against the law, as it is an offence in terms of the NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, (d) Johnny cannot raise any common law or statutory ground of justification.
FAULT:
Can be proven because- (c) Johnny had the will to consume alcohol and driving a vehicle on a public road; (d) While knowing or foreseeing that such driving is prohibited by law.
If johnny raises defence that he was too intoxicated to act with any form of culpability – according to s1 of the CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT it is an offence to commit any other offence while intoxicated in such a manner as to be unable to act with culpability.

CONCLUSION:
Johnny can be convicted of DRIVING WITH EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL IN HIS BLOOD in terms of section 65(2)(a) of the NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 93 OF 1996, because the state can prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.