OCR A Level Law Advanced Prep: Master
H418/01 The Legal System and Criminal
Law Practice Questions & Detailed
Explanations
Subject: The English Legal System and Criminal Law (H418/01)
Question 1: In the context of judicial precedent, which of the following scenarios best illustrates
the operation of the per incuriam exception to the rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd
[1944]?
A) The Court of Appeal refuses to follow its own previous decision because it believes the
earlier decision was morally wrong and socially outdated.
B) The Court of Appeal discovers that its previous decision was reached in ignorance of a
relevant statutory provision or a binding House of Lords (Supreme Court) precedent.
C) The House of Lords (Supreme Court) exercises its power under the 1966 Practice Statement
to depart from its own previous decision.
D) A High Court judge decides not to follow a Court of Appeal decision because the facts of the
instant case are materially distinguishable.
Correct Answer: B) The Court of Appeal discovers that its previous decision was reached in
ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or a binding House of Lords (Supreme Court)
precedent.
Explanation: The rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane sets out the limited circumstances in which
the Court of Appeal may depart from its own previous decisions. One such exception is where
the previous decision was made 'per incuriam'—literally 'through lack of care'—meaning the
court failed to consider a relevant statute or a binding precedent that would have dictated the
outcome. Option A is incorrect because the Court of Appeal cannot depart from its own
precedent simply because it disagrees with the morality of a decision. Option C refers to the
Practice Statement, which applies to the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal. Option D
refers to the technique of 'distinguishing', which is a method of avoiding precedent, not the 'per
incuriam' rule.
Question 2: Regarding the sentencing of offenders, which factor is not a primary consideration
for the court under the Sentencing Act 2020?
A) The punishment of the offender.
,B) The reduction of crime (including deterrence).
C) The reform and rehabilitation of the offender.
D) The financial status of the victim's family to ensure maximum compensation.
Correct Answer: D) The financial status of the victim's family to ensure maximum
compensation.
Explanation: The purposes of sentencing for adult offenders, as outlined in the Sentencing Act
2020, include punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public,
and the making of reparation to victims. The financial status of the victim’s family is not a
statutory aim of sentencing. While compensation orders are a sentencing power, they are
determined based on the harm caused and the offender’s ability to pay, not the victim's financial
needs.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes the principle of 'correspondence' in criminal
law?
A) The requirement that the defendant must have intended the specific result that occurred.
B) The principle that the mens rea must correspond in degree and nature to the actus reus of the
specific offence charged.
C) The rule that a defendant cannot be charged with an offence unless they have physically
performed the prohibited act.
D) The doctrine that strict liability offences do not require mens rea for any element of the
offence.
Correct Answer: B) The principle that the mens rea must correspond in degree and nature
to the actus reus of the specific offence charged.
Explanation: Correspondence requires that the mental state of the defendant matches the
prohibited act. For example, in murder, there must be an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm. If a defendant intends only a minor battery but kills the victim, the lack of correspondence
between the intent (battery) and the result (death) is why it is classified as manslaughter, not
murder. Option A is too narrow, as recklessness can sometimes suffice. Options C and D are
independent concepts not defining the core principle of correspondence.
Question 4: Under the Theft Act 1968, section 1, which of the following is most accurate
regarding the "dishonesty" element as established by Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]?
A) The jury must apply the subjective test from R v Ghosh [1982] to determine if the defendant
thought they were acting honestly.
,B) The jury must determine the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief, then decide if
the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
C) The test for dishonesty is purely objective, focusing entirely on what a reasonable person
would have done in the circumstances.
D) The defendant’s belief that they have a legal right to the property is irrelevant if the conduct is
objectively dishonest.
Correct Answer: B) The jury must determine the actual state of the defendant's knowledge
or belief, then decide if the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent
people.
Explanation: Ivey v Genting Casinos clarified that the second limb of the Ghosh test—whether
the defendant realised the act was dishonest by ordinary standards—was confusing and
unnecessary. The current test is: 1) What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief
as to the facts? 2) Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? If the
answer to the second is yes, the defendant is dishonest, regardless of their own opinion of the
morality of the act.
Question 5: In the context of non-fatal offences against the person, what is the ratio decidendi of
R v Ireland [1997] regarding the actus reus of assault?
A) That silence can never constitute an assault.
B) That psychiatric injury (e.g., severe clinical depression) can constitute 'actual bodily harm'
under section 47.
C) That words alone, or even silence, can constitute an assault if they cause the victim to
apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
D) That the victim's fear must be of physical battery, not psychological harm.
Correct Answer: C) That words alone, or even silence, can constitute an assault if they cause
the victim to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
Explanation: In Ireland, the House of Lords confirmed that psychological harm can constitute
ABH under s.47, and importantly, that silence (silent phone calls) can amount to an assault if it
leads the victim to fear the immediate infliction of force. Option A is incorrect as it contradicts
the ruling. Option B is partially true regarding ABH, but the question specifically asks about the
ruling on assault.
Question 6: Which of the following scenarios best demonstrates the concept of an "intervening
act" (novus actus interveniens) breaking the chain of causation?
, A) The defendant stabs the victim, who is then given negligent medical treatment that is a
'palpably wrong' contributor to death.
B) The defendant hits the victim, who suffers a minor injury that becomes infected because they
have a pre-existing medical condition.
C) The defendant kicks the victim, who falls and sustains an injury, but would not have fallen if
they had been wearing different shoes.
D) The defendant threatens the victim, who jumps out of a window to escape, resulting in a
minor sprain.
Correct Answer: A) The defendant stabs the victim, who is then given negligent medical
treatment that is a 'palpably wrong' contributor to death.
Explanation: Generally, medical treatment does not break the chain of causation unless it is 'so
potent' and 'independent' that the original injury becomes merely the setting in which the new
injury occurred. 'Palpably wrong' or egregiously negligent treatment (as opposed to mere
errors) can break the chain. Option B is an application of the 'thin skull' rule. Option C is
insufficient to break causation, and option D is governed by the 'reasonable man' test for escape,
which rarely breaks causation.
Question 7: Which of the following is true regarding the role of the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) in the criminal justice system?
A) The CPS is responsible for the final sentencing decision in all indictable offences.
B) The CPS must apply the Full Code Test, consisting of the Evidential Stage and the Public
Interest Stage, before charging a suspect.
C) The CPS acts as the legal advisor to the magistrate in every summary-only trial.
D) The CPS is a department within the Home Office, ensuring executive control over criminal
prosecutions.
Correct Answer: B) The CPS must apply the Full Code Test, consisting of the Evidential
Stage and the Public Interest Stage, before charging a suspect.
Explanation: The CPS operates independently of the government (not the Home Office) and is
responsible for prosecuting cases investigated by the police. They apply the Full Code Test (as
set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors). Sentencing is the role of the judiciary
(judges/magistrates), not the prosecution. Legal advisors to the magistrates are court staff, not
CPS lawyers.
Question 8: Regarding the defence of intoxication, which of the following statements is
accurate?
H418/01 The Legal System and Criminal
Law Practice Questions & Detailed
Explanations
Subject: The English Legal System and Criminal Law (H418/01)
Question 1: In the context of judicial precedent, which of the following scenarios best illustrates
the operation of the per incuriam exception to the rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd
[1944]?
A) The Court of Appeal refuses to follow its own previous decision because it believes the
earlier decision was morally wrong and socially outdated.
B) The Court of Appeal discovers that its previous decision was reached in ignorance of a
relevant statutory provision or a binding House of Lords (Supreme Court) precedent.
C) The House of Lords (Supreme Court) exercises its power under the 1966 Practice Statement
to depart from its own previous decision.
D) A High Court judge decides not to follow a Court of Appeal decision because the facts of the
instant case are materially distinguishable.
Correct Answer: B) The Court of Appeal discovers that its previous decision was reached in
ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or a binding House of Lords (Supreme Court)
precedent.
Explanation: The rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane sets out the limited circumstances in which
the Court of Appeal may depart from its own previous decisions. One such exception is where
the previous decision was made 'per incuriam'—literally 'through lack of care'—meaning the
court failed to consider a relevant statute or a binding precedent that would have dictated the
outcome. Option A is incorrect because the Court of Appeal cannot depart from its own
precedent simply because it disagrees with the morality of a decision. Option C refers to the
Practice Statement, which applies to the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal. Option D
refers to the technique of 'distinguishing', which is a method of avoiding precedent, not the 'per
incuriam' rule.
Question 2: Regarding the sentencing of offenders, which factor is not a primary consideration
for the court under the Sentencing Act 2020?
A) The punishment of the offender.
,B) The reduction of crime (including deterrence).
C) The reform and rehabilitation of the offender.
D) The financial status of the victim's family to ensure maximum compensation.
Correct Answer: D) The financial status of the victim's family to ensure maximum
compensation.
Explanation: The purposes of sentencing for adult offenders, as outlined in the Sentencing Act
2020, include punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public,
and the making of reparation to victims. The financial status of the victim’s family is not a
statutory aim of sentencing. While compensation orders are a sentencing power, they are
determined based on the harm caused and the offender’s ability to pay, not the victim's financial
needs.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes the principle of 'correspondence' in criminal
law?
A) The requirement that the defendant must have intended the specific result that occurred.
B) The principle that the mens rea must correspond in degree and nature to the actus reus of the
specific offence charged.
C) The rule that a defendant cannot be charged with an offence unless they have physically
performed the prohibited act.
D) The doctrine that strict liability offences do not require mens rea for any element of the
offence.
Correct Answer: B) The principle that the mens rea must correspond in degree and nature
to the actus reus of the specific offence charged.
Explanation: Correspondence requires that the mental state of the defendant matches the
prohibited act. For example, in murder, there must be an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm. If a defendant intends only a minor battery but kills the victim, the lack of correspondence
between the intent (battery) and the result (death) is why it is classified as manslaughter, not
murder. Option A is too narrow, as recklessness can sometimes suffice. Options C and D are
independent concepts not defining the core principle of correspondence.
Question 4: Under the Theft Act 1968, section 1, which of the following is most accurate
regarding the "dishonesty" element as established by Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]?
A) The jury must apply the subjective test from R v Ghosh [1982] to determine if the defendant
thought they were acting honestly.
,B) The jury must determine the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief, then decide if
the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
C) The test for dishonesty is purely objective, focusing entirely on what a reasonable person
would have done in the circumstances.
D) The defendant’s belief that they have a legal right to the property is irrelevant if the conduct is
objectively dishonest.
Correct Answer: B) The jury must determine the actual state of the defendant's knowledge
or belief, then decide if the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent
people.
Explanation: Ivey v Genting Casinos clarified that the second limb of the Ghosh test—whether
the defendant realised the act was dishonest by ordinary standards—was confusing and
unnecessary. The current test is: 1) What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief
as to the facts? 2) Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? If the
answer to the second is yes, the defendant is dishonest, regardless of their own opinion of the
morality of the act.
Question 5: In the context of non-fatal offences against the person, what is the ratio decidendi of
R v Ireland [1997] regarding the actus reus of assault?
A) That silence can never constitute an assault.
B) That psychiatric injury (e.g., severe clinical depression) can constitute 'actual bodily harm'
under section 47.
C) That words alone, or even silence, can constitute an assault if they cause the victim to
apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
D) That the victim's fear must be of physical battery, not psychological harm.
Correct Answer: C) That words alone, or even silence, can constitute an assault if they cause
the victim to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
Explanation: In Ireland, the House of Lords confirmed that psychological harm can constitute
ABH under s.47, and importantly, that silence (silent phone calls) can amount to an assault if it
leads the victim to fear the immediate infliction of force. Option A is incorrect as it contradicts
the ruling. Option B is partially true regarding ABH, but the question specifically asks about the
ruling on assault.
Question 6: Which of the following scenarios best demonstrates the concept of an "intervening
act" (novus actus interveniens) breaking the chain of causation?
, A) The defendant stabs the victim, who is then given negligent medical treatment that is a
'palpably wrong' contributor to death.
B) The defendant hits the victim, who suffers a minor injury that becomes infected because they
have a pre-existing medical condition.
C) The defendant kicks the victim, who falls and sustains an injury, but would not have fallen if
they had been wearing different shoes.
D) The defendant threatens the victim, who jumps out of a window to escape, resulting in a
minor sprain.
Correct Answer: A) The defendant stabs the victim, who is then given negligent medical
treatment that is a 'palpably wrong' contributor to death.
Explanation: Generally, medical treatment does not break the chain of causation unless it is 'so
potent' and 'independent' that the original injury becomes merely the setting in which the new
injury occurred. 'Palpably wrong' or egregiously negligent treatment (as opposed to mere
errors) can break the chain. Option B is an application of the 'thin skull' rule. Option C is
insufficient to break causation, and option D is governed by the 'reasonable man' test for escape,
which rarely breaks causation.
Question 7: Which of the following is true regarding the role of the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) in the criminal justice system?
A) The CPS is responsible for the final sentencing decision in all indictable offences.
B) The CPS must apply the Full Code Test, consisting of the Evidential Stage and the Public
Interest Stage, before charging a suspect.
C) The CPS acts as the legal advisor to the magistrate in every summary-only trial.
D) The CPS is a department within the Home Office, ensuring executive control over criminal
prosecutions.
Correct Answer: B) The CPS must apply the Full Code Test, consisting of the Evidential
Stage and the Public Interest Stage, before charging a suspect.
Explanation: The CPS operates independently of the government (not the Home Office) and is
responsible for prosecuting cases investigated by the police. They apply the Full Code Test (as
set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors). Sentencing is the role of the judiciary
(judges/magistrates), not the prosecution. Legal advisors to the magistrates are court staff, not
CPS lawyers.
Question 8: Regarding the defence of intoxication, which of the following statements is
accurate?
