Criminal Law Exam
8th June 2020
24-hour take home exam online.
The overall word limit for answering 4 out of 8 questions is 4,000 words, which gives you about
1,000 words per question, with no +10% margin.
The limit refers to the total length of your exam, and you may go above 1,000 words on individual
questions.
1. Introduction: The Role and Nature of Criminal Law
2. Human Rights and Punishment
3. Actus Reus: The Conduct Element
4. Causation
5. Mens Rea
6. Interaction between Actus Reus and Mens Rea
7. Homicide 1: Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
8. Homicide 2: Involuntary Manslaughter SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
9. Non-Fatal Offences SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
10. Consent to Harm DEFENCE
11. Defences 1: Automatism, Insanity, and Intoxication DEFENCE
12. Defences 2: Self-Defence, Necessity, and Duress DEFENCE
13. Theft SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
14. Sexual Offences (only offences against adults, ss.1-4) SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
15. Attempts SUBSTANTIVE
16. Complicity SUBSTANTIVE
*Revise ALL PQ Topics.
,Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter
Murder: the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
Before: a man of sound memory and the age of discretion unlawfully kills, within any
country of the realm, any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace, with
malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so that the party
wounded or hurt etc die of the wound or hunt etc within a year and a day after the same.
-Lord Coke
AR of murder:
1. unlawfully causing death [unlawful = not self defence]
2. of another human being
3. under the queen’s peace
4. within any country of the realm
All of these must be present or there cannot be liability for murder
Fifth element: death occurring within a year and a day was abolished in 1996 by the Law
reform (year and a day rule) act
Life support technology?
1. causing death:
Factual; legal; novus actus interveins [breaks of chain- voluntary informed act]
2. another human being:
Malcherek v Steel [life support brain dead not convicted of murder]
Ag ref no 3 of 1994 [1997]: cannot murder a foetus
Out of the womb
R v senior
3. under the queens peace: when country is not at war
4. any country of the realm:
If d is a British citizen and he commits murder whilst abroad he will still be triable in
England
Mens rea of murder:
1. malice aforethought (evil thinking and pre planning)
2. which Moloney head to mean one of two: / R v Cunningham [intending GBH is enough
1982] [not same as recklessness]
i. intention to kill [express malice]
ii. intention to cause grievous bodily harm [implied malice]
Intention in murder: direct intention & oblique intention
Acting with the aim of causing death or GBH – direct intention
Acting in the knowledge that death or GBH is virtually certain although it is not what
the accused is aiming at – indirect intention
Otherwise, it is not murder, it is reckless manslaughter.
GBH defined in DPP v Smith [1961] (stolen goods in car, stopped by police who wanted to
look, drove off. Policemen jumped on car, smith carried on driving, police was thrown off
and killed): as being serious harm.
However, in Saunders [1985]: held that the word ‘really’ adds nothing.
,In 2006, the law commission: murder, manslaughter and infanticide: recommended that the
woolin direct on oblique intent should be codified and that intention should be defined as :
1. a person should be taken to intend the result if he acts in order to bring it about
2. in cases where the judge believes that injustice may take place if the jury lacks
understanding, it should be directed towards the following: ‘an intention to bring about a
result may be found if it is shown that D thought the result was a virtually certain
consequence of his/her action’
Gov response in 2008 gave no indication that it intends to follow the recommendations
through.
Matthews v Alleyne [2003]:
V went out with friends to a nightclub in Milton Keynes, leaving at 2am – became involved
in an unprovoked argument. V assaulted by a youth, as he ran the defendants chased him.
Was beaten, punched and killed till he gave his bank card and pin. – discovered it was empty.
Bundled him into their car and pushed him over 25ft bridge.
D appealed on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected the jury because he had used the
woolin direction as a rule of law rather than as a rule of evidence
Coa: agreed that woolin direction was only a rule of evidence and the tiral judge had gone
further than he should have.
Concluded: in such cases there was little difference between a rule of evidence and a rule of
substantive law where foresight of virtually certain consequence was concerned.
(if woolin was a rule of law: it means the jury has no choice but to convict)
(if it is a rule of evidence, the jury can convict but they don’t have to)
Kildare, a doctor, removes a life support machine from Duckworth who is terminally ill, and
transfers it to Barlow, who is not. She knows that the consequence will be that Duckworth
dies, but does it anyway since Barlow's chances of recovery are far higher. Does Kildare
intend to kill Duckworth?
Would it make any difference if the reason for the transfer was because Kildare was?
a. in love with Barlow?
b. hated Duckworth?
c. Would it make any difference if Kildare was not a doctor in any of the above scenarios?
Question is intention.
- Does Kildare intend to kill Duckworth: indirect intent.
- A) indirect intent
- B) direct intent
- C) It does not make a difference to intention. If question was if she had murdered Duckworth,
the difference would be if medically informed decision to detriment of another – would not be
taken into account.
Difference between murder & manslaughter is the mens rea of D
Two types of manslaughter:
Voluntary [mr for murder is present]
Involuntary [mr for murder is not present]
Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the necessary ar and mr of murder are present but
there are mitigating circumstances which will allow d to plead a special and partial defence,
thus reducing liability to voluntary manslaughter.
, Both ar and mr of murder will be present but in response to the murder charge d will plead a
special defence. Which if successful, will reduce their conviction to one of voluntary
manslaughter.
Special defence as they are only available to those charged with murder and partial because
if successful, d will not be acquitted completely but will be acquitted of murder and convicted
of vol manslaughter.
Still a homicide conviction but it allows the judge complete discretion when sentencing.
If special defence is unsuccessful, he will be convicted of murder.
GENERAL DEFENCES:
- Self defence
- Necessity
- duress [R v Gott] cannot be a defence to murder. It is a defence to manslaughter.
SPECIAL DEFENCES:
Diminished responsibility – conviction is manslaughter
Loss of control – conviction is manslaughter
Were contained in Homicide Act 1957. Now in the coroners and justice act 2009. Came into
force in 2010.
Diminished R:
S2 Homicide act 1957, as amended by s52 CJA act 2009.
D can plead this defence if, at the time of the killing, he was:
1. suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
Bryne [1960] a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a
reasonable man would term it abnormal’
Seers: it is not connected to madness
Gomez [1964]: the abnormality need not to be present from birth or permanent, just present
at the time of the killing.
2. which arose from a recognised medical condition
Depression, adjustment disorders, paranoia, autism, psychopathy, battered woman’s
syndrome [Ahluwalia], physical conditions- epilepsy/sleep disorder, pre-menstrual tension,
post natal depression, schizophrenia [peter Sutcliffe]
Ahluwalia: poured petrol & caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set him on
fire. He died 6 days later from injuries. Couple – arranged marriage. H = violent and
abusive throughout. Also having an affair. On night he threatened to hit her with iron and
told her he would beat her if she didn’t not give him money. At trial she admitted killing her
husband but raised defence of provocation however, jury convicted her of murder appealed
on grounds that judges directions were wrong. She raised defence of DR. southall sister.s
Medical evidence at trial: it is up to the jury to choose whether they believe it or not.
Juries have rejected defence in peter Sutcliffe. Killed 13 woman, and attempted 7 others.
Most woman = prostitutes. Similar pattern- hit them over head & sexually assaulted them.
Then stabbed them numerous times and mutilate the body – redress them and leave them.
Serving 20 life sentences in prison.
3. and substantially impaired d’s ability to do any of the following [in s1a]:
Substantially impaired explained in Lloyd [1967]: substantial does not mean total but it must
be more than minimal.
R v Gold [2016] – ordinary English word. Left to jury.
- to understand the nature of his conduct
- to form a rational judgment
- to exercise self control
8th June 2020
24-hour take home exam online.
The overall word limit for answering 4 out of 8 questions is 4,000 words, which gives you about
1,000 words per question, with no +10% margin.
The limit refers to the total length of your exam, and you may go above 1,000 words on individual
questions.
1. Introduction: The Role and Nature of Criminal Law
2. Human Rights and Punishment
3. Actus Reus: The Conduct Element
4. Causation
5. Mens Rea
6. Interaction between Actus Reus and Mens Rea
7. Homicide 1: Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
8. Homicide 2: Involuntary Manslaughter SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
9. Non-Fatal Offences SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
10. Consent to Harm DEFENCE
11. Defences 1: Automatism, Insanity, and Intoxication DEFENCE
12. Defences 2: Self-Defence, Necessity, and Duress DEFENCE
13. Theft SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
14. Sexual Offences (only offences against adults, ss.1-4) SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC
15. Attempts SUBSTANTIVE
16. Complicity SUBSTANTIVE
*Revise ALL PQ Topics.
,Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter
Murder: the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
Before: a man of sound memory and the age of discretion unlawfully kills, within any
country of the realm, any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace, with
malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so that the party
wounded or hurt etc die of the wound or hunt etc within a year and a day after the same.
-Lord Coke
AR of murder:
1. unlawfully causing death [unlawful = not self defence]
2. of another human being
3. under the queen’s peace
4. within any country of the realm
All of these must be present or there cannot be liability for murder
Fifth element: death occurring within a year and a day was abolished in 1996 by the Law
reform (year and a day rule) act
Life support technology?
1. causing death:
Factual; legal; novus actus interveins [breaks of chain- voluntary informed act]
2. another human being:
Malcherek v Steel [life support brain dead not convicted of murder]
Ag ref no 3 of 1994 [1997]: cannot murder a foetus
Out of the womb
R v senior
3. under the queens peace: when country is not at war
4. any country of the realm:
If d is a British citizen and he commits murder whilst abroad he will still be triable in
England
Mens rea of murder:
1. malice aforethought (evil thinking and pre planning)
2. which Moloney head to mean one of two: / R v Cunningham [intending GBH is enough
1982] [not same as recklessness]
i. intention to kill [express malice]
ii. intention to cause grievous bodily harm [implied malice]
Intention in murder: direct intention & oblique intention
Acting with the aim of causing death or GBH – direct intention
Acting in the knowledge that death or GBH is virtually certain although it is not what
the accused is aiming at – indirect intention
Otherwise, it is not murder, it is reckless manslaughter.
GBH defined in DPP v Smith [1961] (stolen goods in car, stopped by police who wanted to
look, drove off. Policemen jumped on car, smith carried on driving, police was thrown off
and killed): as being serious harm.
However, in Saunders [1985]: held that the word ‘really’ adds nothing.
,In 2006, the law commission: murder, manslaughter and infanticide: recommended that the
woolin direct on oblique intent should be codified and that intention should be defined as :
1. a person should be taken to intend the result if he acts in order to bring it about
2. in cases where the judge believes that injustice may take place if the jury lacks
understanding, it should be directed towards the following: ‘an intention to bring about a
result may be found if it is shown that D thought the result was a virtually certain
consequence of his/her action’
Gov response in 2008 gave no indication that it intends to follow the recommendations
through.
Matthews v Alleyne [2003]:
V went out with friends to a nightclub in Milton Keynes, leaving at 2am – became involved
in an unprovoked argument. V assaulted by a youth, as he ran the defendants chased him.
Was beaten, punched and killed till he gave his bank card and pin. – discovered it was empty.
Bundled him into their car and pushed him over 25ft bridge.
D appealed on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected the jury because he had used the
woolin direction as a rule of law rather than as a rule of evidence
Coa: agreed that woolin direction was only a rule of evidence and the tiral judge had gone
further than he should have.
Concluded: in such cases there was little difference between a rule of evidence and a rule of
substantive law where foresight of virtually certain consequence was concerned.
(if woolin was a rule of law: it means the jury has no choice but to convict)
(if it is a rule of evidence, the jury can convict but they don’t have to)
Kildare, a doctor, removes a life support machine from Duckworth who is terminally ill, and
transfers it to Barlow, who is not. She knows that the consequence will be that Duckworth
dies, but does it anyway since Barlow's chances of recovery are far higher. Does Kildare
intend to kill Duckworth?
Would it make any difference if the reason for the transfer was because Kildare was?
a. in love with Barlow?
b. hated Duckworth?
c. Would it make any difference if Kildare was not a doctor in any of the above scenarios?
Question is intention.
- Does Kildare intend to kill Duckworth: indirect intent.
- A) indirect intent
- B) direct intent
- C) It does not make a difference to intention. If question was if she had murdered Duckworth,
the difference would be if medically informed decision to detriment of another – would not be
taken into account.
Difference between murder & manslaughter is the mens rea of D
Two types of manslaughter:
Voluntary [mr for murder is present]
Involuntary [mr for murder is not present]
Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the necessary ar and mr of murder are present but
there are mitigating circumstances which will allow d to plead a special and partial defence,
thus reducing liability to voluntary manslaughter.
, Both ar and mr of murder will be present but in response to the murder charge d will plead a
special defence. Which if successful, will reduce their conviction to one of voluntary
manslaughter.
Special defence as they are only available to those charged with murder and partial because
if successful, d will not be acquitted completely but will be acquitted of murder and convicted
of vol manslaughter.
Still a homicide conviction but it allows the judge complete discretion when sentencing.
If special defence is unsuccessful, he will be convicted of murder.
GENERAL DEFENCES:
- Self defence
- Necessity
- duress [R v Gott] cannot be a defence to murder. It is a defence to manslaughter.
SPECIAL DEFENCES:
Diminished responsibility – conviction is manslaughter
Loss of control – conviction is manslaughter
Were contained in Homicide Act 1957. Now in the coroners and justice act 2009. Came into
force in 2010.
Diminished R:
S2 Homicide act 1957, as amended by s52 CJA act 2009.
D can plead this defence if, at the time of the killing, he was:
1. suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
Bryne [1960] a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a
reasonable man would term it abnormal’
Seers: it is not connected to madness
Gomez [1964]: the abnormality need not to be present from birth or permanent, just present
at the time of the killing.
2. which arose from a recognised medical condition
Depression, adjustment disorders, paranoia, autism, psychopathy, battered woman’s
syndrome [Ahluwalia], physical conditions- epilepsy/sleep disorder, pre-menstrual tension,
post natal depression, schizophrenia [peter Sutcliffe]
Ahluwalia: poured petrol & caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set him on
fire. He died 6 days later from injuries. Couple – arranged marriage. H = violent and
abusive throughout. Also having an affair. On night he threatened to hit her with iron and
told her he would beat her if she didn’t not give him money. At trial she admitted killing her
husband but raised defence of provocation however, jury convicted her of murder appealed
on grounds that judges directions were wrong. She raised defence of DR. southall sister.s
Medical evidence at trial: it is up to the jury to choose whether they believe it or not.
Juries have rejected defence in peter Sutcliffe. Killed 13 woman, and attempted 7 others.
Most woman = prostitutes. Similar pattern- hit them over head & sexually assaulted them.
Then stabbed them numerous times and mutilate the body – redress them and leave them.
Serving 20 life sentences in prison.
3. and substantially impaired d’s ability to do any of the following [in s1a]:
Substantially impaired explained in Lloyd [1967]: substantial does not mean total but it must
be more than minimal.
R v Gold [2016] – ordinary English word. Left to jury.
- to understand the nature of his conduct
- to form a rational judgment
- to exercise self control
