Premium
PDF
PDF
Download Download
EXAMS
Level Law Paper 1: May 2025 Exam Question Paper with Full Mark
Scheme | Updated for 2025/2026 | Ace Your Exams | Questions & Answers
(Verified Answers) With Rationales ( Update)
This Document Contains:
150 Questions with Correct, Detailed and Verified Answers
2026/2027 Actual Exam Testbank
Questions & Answers (Verified Answers) With Rationales
100% Guaranteed Pass
Complete A+ Guide
Page 1
,Question 1
In the context of judicial precedent, which of the following best describes the doctrine of stare
decisis as applied by the House of Lords prior to the Practice Statement 1966?
A) The House of Lords was absolutely bound by its own previous decisions, with no exceptions.
B) The House of Lords could depart from its own decisions if they were per incuriam.
C) The House of Lords was bound by its own decisions but could overrule them if they caused
injustice.
D) The House of Lords was bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal.
Answer: A) The House of Lords was absolutely bound by its own previous decisions, with no
exceptions.
Explanation: Before 1966, the House of Lords regarded itself as strictly bound by its own prior
decisions (London Street Tramways v LCC). The Practice Statement introduced a
limited power to depart. Option B is incorrect because per incuriam applies to lower
courts. Option C misstates the pre-1966 position. Option D is wrong because the House
of Lords is not bound by the Court of Appeal.
Question 2
A defendant is charged with criminal damage after smashing a window during a fire in an adjacent
building to gain access to a fire extinguisher. Which defence is most likely to succeed?
A) Duress of circumstances
B) Necessity
C) Self-defence
D) Mistake of fact
Answer: B) Necessity
Explanation: Necessity may apply where the defendant acts to prevent a greater evil, as in R v Martin
(2001) (fire in a flat). Duress of circumstances involves threats from a person, not a
situation. Self-defence requires a threat of force against the person. Mistake of fact
would not negate the actus reus of criminal damage.
Page 2
,Question 3
Which of the following statements accurately reflects the current law on the presumption of doli
incapax for children aged 10-13 in England and Wales?
A) The presumption was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so children aged 10 and over
are fully criminally responsible.
B) The presumption still applies but can be rebutted by strong evidence that the child knew their act
was seriously wrong.
C) The presumption applies only to children under 14, but the prosecution must prove the child knew
the act was legally wrong.
D) The presumption was abolished by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and children aged
10-13 are now treated as adults.
Answer: A) The presumption was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so children aged
10 and over are fully criminally responsible.
Explanation: Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the rebuttable presumption of
doli incapax for children aged 10-13. Thus, children aged 10 and over are now
presumed to have criminal capacity. Options B and C are incorrect because the
presumption no longer exists. Option D is incorrect as the 1969 Act did not abolish it.
Question 4
In a trial for murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the victim's death.
Which of the following tests is used to establish factual causation?
A) The substantial cause test
B) The but for test
C) The reasonable foreseeability test
D) The thin skull rule
Answer: B) The but for test
Explanation: Factual causation is established by the 'but for' test (R v White). The substantial cause
test (A) is used for legal causation. Reasonable foreseeability (C) relates to remoteness.
The thin skull rule (D) is a principle that the defendant takes the victim as they find
them, not a test of causation.
Page 3
, Question 5
Which of the following is a key difference between the literal rule and the mischief rule of statutory
interpretation?
A) The literal rule requires the court to look at the purpose of the Act, while the mischief rule focuses
on the ordinary meaning of words.
B) The mischief rule allows the court to consider the defect in the law that the Act was designed to
remedy, while the literal rule does not.
C) The literal rule is used only in criminal cases, while the mischief rule is used only in civil cases.
D) The mischief rule was developed in the 20th century, while the literal rule dates back to the 18th
century.
Answer: B) The mischief rule allows the court to consider the defect in the law that the Act was
designed to remedy, while the literal rule does not.
Explanation: The mischief rule (Heydon's Case) permits the court to consider the mischief the statute
was intended to cure, whereas the literal rule applies the plain meaning of words without
reference to purpose. Option A reverses the definitions. Option C is false; both rules
apply across cases. Option D is historically inaccurate; the mischief rule is older.
Question 6
A defendant is charged with theft under s.1 Theft Act 1968. The prosecution must prove an
'appropriation' of property belonging to another. Which of the following scenarios does NOT
amount to an appropriation?
A) The defendant picks up a wallet dropped by the owner, intending to return it, but later decides to
keep it.
B) The defendant, with the owner's consent, takes a book from a shelf and walks out of the shop
without paying.
C) The defendant, as a director of a company, transfers company funds to his personal account with the
consent of the board.
D) The defendant finds a lost mobile phone and immediately hands it to the police, but later changes
his mind and claims it from the police station.
Answer: C) The defendant, as a director of a company, transfers company funds to his personal
account with the consent of the board.
Explanation: Appropriation is any assumption of the rights of an owner (R v Morris). Consent is
irrelevant (R v Gomez). Option C is not an appropriation because the transfer was with
the board's consent, but note that consent can be vitiated by deception. However, the
question asks for what does NOT amount to appropriation; if the board genuinely
consented, there is no appropriation. Options A, B, and D all involve an assumption of
rights.
Page 4
Download Download
EXAMS
Level Law Paper 1: May 2025 Exam Question Paper with Full Mark
Scheme | Updated for 2025/2026 | Ace Your Exams | Questions & Answers
(Verified Answers) With Rationales ( Update)
This Document Contains:
150 Questions with Correct, Detailed and Verified Answers
2026/2027 Actual Exam Testbank
Questions & Answers (Verified Answers) With Rationales
100% Guaranteed Pass
Complete A+ Guide
Page 1
,Question 1
In the context of judicial precedent, which of the following best describes the doctrine of stare
decisis as applied by the House of Lords prior to the Practice Statement 1966?
A) The House of Lords was absolutely bound by its own previous decisions, with no exceptions.
B) The House of Lords could depart from its own decisions if they were per incuriam.
C) The House of Lords was bound by its own decisions but could overrule them if they caused
injustice.
D) The House of Lords was bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal.
Answer: A) The House of Lords was absolutely bound by its own previous decisions, with no
exceptions.
Explanation: Before 1966, the House of Lords regarded itself as strictly bound by its own prior
decisions (London Street Tramways v LCC). The Practice Statement introduced a
limited power to depart. Option B is incorrect because per incuriam applies to lower
courts. Option C misstates the pre-1966 position. Option D is wrong because the House
of Lords is not bound by the Court of Appeal.
Question 2
A defendant is charged with criminal damage after smashing a window during a fire in an adjacent
building to gain access to a fire extinguisher. Which defence is most likely to succeed?
A) Duress of circumstances
B) Necessity
C) Self-defence
D) Mistake of fact
Answer: B) Necessity
Explanation: Necessity may apply where the defendant acts to prevent a greater evil, as in R v Martin
(2001) (fire in a flat). Duress of circumstances involves threats from a person, not a
situation. Self-defence requires a threat of force against the person. Mistake of fact
would not negate the actus reus of criminal damage.
Page 2
,Question 3
Which of the following statements accurately reflects the current law on the presumption of doli
incapax for children aged 10-13 in England and Wales?
A) The presumption was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so children aged 10 and over
are fully criminally responsible.
B) The presumption still applies but can be rebutted by strong evidence that the child knew their act
was seriously wrong.
C) The presumption applies only to children under 14, but the prosecution must prove the child knew
the act was legally wrong.
D) The presumption was abolished by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and children aged
10-13 are now treated as adults.
Answer: A) The presumption was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so children aged
10 and over are fully criminally responsible.
Explanation: Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the rebuttable presumption of
doli incapax for children aged 10-13. Thus, children aged 10 and over are now
presumed to have criminal capacity. Options B and C are incorrect because the
presumption no longer exists. Option D is incorrect as the 1969 Act did not abolish it.
Question 4
In a trial for murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the victim's death.
Which of the following tests is used to establish factual causation?
A) The substantial cause test
B) The but for test
C) The reasonable foreseeability test
D) The thin skull rule
Answer: B) The but for test
Explanation: Factual causation is established by the 'but for' test (R v White). The substantial cause
test (A) is used for legal causation. Reasonable foreseeability (C) relates to remoteness.
The thin skull rule (D) is a principle that the defendant takes the victim as they find
them, not a test of causation.
Page 3
, Question 5
Which of the following is a key difference between the literal rule and the mischief rule of statutory
interpretation?
A) The literal rule requires the court to look at the purpose of the Act, while the mischief rule focuses
on the ordinary meaning of words.
B) The mischief rule allows the court to consider the defect in the law that the Act was designed to
remedy, while the literal rule does not.
C) The literal rule is used only in criminal cases, while the mischief rule is used only in civil cases.
D) The mischief rule was developed in the 20th century, while the literal rule dates back to the 18th
century.
Answer: B) The mischief rule allows the court to consider the defect in the law that the Act was
designed to remedy, while the literal rule does not.
Explanation: The mischief rule (Heydon's Case) permits the court to consider the mischief the statute
was intended to cure, whereas the literal rule applies the plain meaning of words without
reference to purpose. Option A reverses the definitions. Option C is false; both rules
apply across cases. Option D is historically inaccurate; the mischief rule is older.
Question 6
A defendant is charged with theft under s.1 Theft Act 1968. The prosecution must prove an
'appropriation' of property belonging to another. Which of the following scenarios does NOT
amount to an appropriation?
A) The defendant picks up a wallet dropped by the owner, intending to return it, but later decides to
keep it.
B) The defendant, with the owner's consent, takes a book from a shelf and walks out of the shop
without paying.
C) The defendant, as a director of a company, transfers company funds to his personal account with the
consent of the board.
D) The defendant finds a lost mobile phone and immediately hands it to the police, but later changes
his mind and claims it from the police station.
Answer: C) The defendant, as a director of a company, transfers company funds to his personal
account with the consent of the board.
Explanation: Appropriation is any assumption of the rights of an owner (R v Morris). Consent is
irrelevant (R v Gomez). Option C is not an appropriation because the transfer was with
the board's consent, but note that consent can be vitiated by deception. However, the
question asks for what does NOT amount to appropriation; if the board genuinely
consented, there is no appropriation. Options A, B, and D all involve an assumption of
rights.
Page 4
