AQA.docxcoursehandbook

GCE Criminal Law: Unit (3) Offences against the person

AQA: Unit 3 Criminal Law (Offences against the Person)

Academic year 2010 ~ 2011

A2 Law Course Handbook 2010


Contents Page

Welcome to A2

Why study law at A2?

Unit (3) Specfication

Assessments

Homework for Term 1

Attendance

Error: Reference source not found

Enrichment at A2

Support Materials

Accessing Fern

Accessing FERN



Welcome to A2

Welcome to A2 Law! Congratulations on lasting the year... just one more to go. I

will not kid you, it is hard work – but it is interesting, relevant and full of useless facts. This course guide is intended to clear up a few questions, make clear what is expected of you, point you in the right direction if you need help, and give you a reference guide for the whole year. DON’T LOSE IT!!! So, onwards... remember the five key rules:

Get yourself a folder, pen and paper

Always bring your handout

Never miss a lesson without letting me know [email protected] / 01179092333

Hand in your work on time

Try your best and have an opinion

Equipment

Please don’t spend a lot of money on A-level Law text books. They are out of date as soon as they are published, and you will be given all of the notes that you will need.

If you are asked to look at any text book, there are copies of all of them in the library, and you are more than welcome to use one of the classroom texts (with permission from a member of the law staff).

For each unit you will be given a student handout. This will cover the topic, and you will be expected to bring it with you to every lesson. It will also include the objectives (what you should know), details of homework and of the end of unit test. You will only be given one copy of the handout. If you lose it, it is up to you to replace it.

If you do not bring it [without a really excellent excuse]... First time (per half term) you will be warned. Second time you will be asked to leave the class, and make up the work in your own time. (Yes, this does mean in your ‘free’ time) Further times ... will act as evidence that you are not progressing, and home and your tutor will be contacted.


mailto:[email protected]


Why study law at A2?


The study of law helps develop the learner’s analytical ability and critical thinking. It also develops problem solving skills through the application of legal rules.

Study at AS/A2 level provides a useful background for the further study of law either as the main subject or subsidiary part of a degree, foundation degree or for the any professional qualifications which have a law component.

The new AQA specification refines the format of the previous specification. The AS specification is split into two modules of equal weighting:

The first module develops knowledge and understanding of the Legal System, together with an evaluation of its operation and performance. The module is in two sections that reflect the previous papers 1 and 2, thus retaining choice for candidates.

The second module replaces and expands the options of the previous paper 3. It introduces substantive law and requires simple application of aspects of criminal and civil law. There is now a choice of area of civil law to be studied – tort or contract.

The A2 specification develops the knowledge and skills acquired at AS. The first A2 module retains the format of the previous specification, whilst developing the content to continue to provide a good grounding in knowledge and evaluation of either criminal law or contract law.

The main developments are the inclusion of evaluation of the defences in criminal law and aspects of consumer law being introduced in contract law, as well as the inclusion of discussion of possible reforms of the current law. The second module retains the choice between criminal law and the law of tort, but replaces the evaluation of the substantive law with an investigation into the concepts of the law which was a feature of the previous specification, paper 6.

In addition, the specification provides a worthwhile course for candidates of various ages and from diverse backgrounds, in terms of general education and lifelong learning. Equally, material studied would be useful for candidates intending to pursue business careers.


Unit (3) Specfication



Unit 3 Criminal Law (Offences against the Person) or Contract Law

Section A: Criminal Law (Offences against the Person)

MurderThe general principles of criminal law studied in Paper 2 should be extended here so that students can discuss the actus reus (unlawful killing), including close examination of factual and legal causation, and the mens rea (malice aforethought) of murder. The test for intention has been subject to many changes in recent years: students need to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the principles and rules of law by reference to the most recent appropriate cases. Students also need to be able to evaluate this area of the law, with reference to recent developments and to proposals for reform, particularly those from the Law Commission.

Voluntary manslaughter

Students need to be familiar with the Homicide Act 1957 and the specific defences of diminished responsibility and provocation which result in a reduced verdict of voluntary manslaughter. These two defences should be studied in depth so that students can explain and apply the relevant rules of law, supported and illustrated by appropriate cases. Again, it is stressed that students should be familiar with recent developments in the courts in the interpretation of these two defences. They should also be able to evaluate this area of the law, with reference to recent developments and to proposals for reform, particularly those from the Law Commission.

Involuntary manslaughter

Three types of involuntary manslaughter are identified in the specification.


A brief Overview

Unit 3 has two questions on Criminal Law and two on Contract Law. Candidates are required to answer one question. Each question comprises three parts: parts (a) and (b) test their ability to explain and apply the law to a problem scenario; part (c) asks them to evaluate one area of the substantive law. Part (c) is common to both questions on the same topic. Each question carries 25 marks. There are a further 5 marks available for QWC assessed over the whole paper.

Unit 4 has three sections. Sections A and B focus upon Criminal Law (Offences against Property) and Tort respectively. Candidates must answer one question from a choice of two on their chosen area of law. Each question contains two parts, each of which tests their ability to explain and apply the law to a problem scenario. Part (a) and part (b) in Sections A and B carry 25 marks each. In Section C, Concepts of Law, students must answer one essay question from a choice of three. Questions in Section C carry 30 marks. A further 5 marks are available for QWC assessed over the whole paper.


Students need to be able to explain the elements of each and to evaluate this fluid area of the law. For the mens rea of gross negligence manslaughter, students are required to understand the need for a breach in the duty of care, and for this to be gross, as well as the need for the presence of a risk of death. For unlawful act manslaughter, they must understand the need for an unlawful criminal act, which is dangerous or likely to cause harm, and which in fact is the cause of death, accompanied by mens rea for the unlawful criminal act. For subjective reckless manslaughter, they need to understand that there is no need for the act to be unlawful, merely that the defendant sees the risk that his conduct can lead to death or serious bodily harm. Students are not required to evaluate this topic.

Non-fatal offences against the person

Students need to re-acquaint themselves with this area of the law from Unit 2, examining in detail the actus reus and mens rea of each offence. In addition, they need to be able to evaluate this area of the law, focusing upon structural issues (eg maximum sentences, archaic language, ambiguity of assault), as well as issues relating to the actus reus (eg meaning of wounding) and mens rea (eg limited mens rea for S47 and S20, as in Savage and Mowatt respectively, and the decision in Morrison under S18) of the offences, with reference to proposals for reform. They need to be able to demonstrate how reform would overcome the weaknesses identified in the current law.

Defences

Students need to be able to explain the law relating to the defences of insanity, automatism, intoxication, consent and self-defence/prevention of crime, and to apply it to the problem scenarios. For insanity, they should be aware of the extent of the meaning of a defect of reason, understand the range of factors that constitute a disease of the mind and appreciate the limitation imposed by the need for the defendant not to know the nature and quality of the act or to fail to appreciate that the act is wrong. Under automatism, they need to understand the need for the act to be totally involuntary and for it to have been caused by an external factor, both of which serve to limit the availability of the defence. They should also understand the effect of intoxication on the availability of both defences. For intoxication, they should be familiar with the need for the defendant to be incapable of forming the mens rea for the offence, and be aware of the effect of the distinctions between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and between basic and specific intent offences. For consent, they should understand the general principle that the more serious the harm, the less likely the defence will be available, subject to certain exceptions such as horseplay, properly conducted sport, and forms of surgery. For self-defence/prevention of crime, they should understand the distinction between the private and public defence and appreciate the subjective and objective elements. In all of these defences, relevant cases are required to illustrate the law. Finally, students also need to be able to evaluate the current state of the law for each of these defences and to discuss possible areas of reform, including any proposals made by law reform bodies.



Assessments

You will be examined on your ability to meet three 3 grading criteria, referred to as sound, clear and some. It is important that students understand how their work will be marked and how to hit specific criteria

SoundThe answer correctly identifies and accurately explains the relevant rule(s) in the central aspects of the potential content. Where appropriate, the explanations are supported by relevant statutory and/or case authority and illustration (which is adequately developed where necessary to explain the ratio and/or assist in the application to the facts). Where there are more marginal aspects of the rules, there may be some minor omissions or inaccuracies in the explanation of the rule(s) and/or supporting statutory/case authority and illustration.

The answer selects and emphasises the relevant facts from the scenario and makes close reference to them when explaining how the rules (including any supporting and/or case authority) apply to afford a solution. Where appropriate, the application explores the effect of different interpretations of the rule(s) and/or of conflicting rules and/or of different interpretations of the facts. The solution suggested is clearly based on the explanation and application of the rules and is sustainable.

ClearThe answer correctly identifies and accurately explains significant parts of the rule(s) in the central aspects of the potential content, though there are omissions of some part(s) of the rule(s), or errors in the explanation, in those central aspects. There may be a little over-emphasis on marginal aspects of the rules at the expense of some of the more central aspects. In the higher part of the band, statutory and/or case authority and illustration are used but there may be a little confusion and error in selection and/or explanation or the explanation may be limited.

At the lower end of the band, there may be little evidence of statutory and/or case authority and illustration or more evident inaccuracies. The answer selects and emphasises some of the relevant facts from the scenario and makes reference to them when explaining how the rules (including any supporting statutory and/or case authority) apply to afford a solution. The application, though otherwise persuasive, may fail to canvass credible alternative solutions (based on alternative interpretation of the law or of the facts) or there may be a little error or confusion in the application to the facts. The solution suggested is broadly based on the explanation and application of the rules, though there may be some evident weakness.



SomeThe answer correctly identifies and accurately explains a very limited part of the relevant rule(s) in the central aspects of the potential content. There may be a very evident imbalance between explanation of central and of more marginal aspects of the rule(s). Alternatively, the answer explains a more substantial part of the relevant rule(s) in the central aspects of the potential content but the explanations suffer from significant omission, error or confusion. Explanations may emerge only out of attempts to introduce relevant case authority and illustration. If introduced at all, statutory and/or case authority and illustration may be of marginal relevance or the explanation may be highly superficial or subject to significant inaccuracies or not properly used to support the explanation of the relevant rule(s).

The answer selects and emphasises one or two relevant facts from the scenario and makes reference to them without being able to suggest a coherent application. More broad ranging attempts to identify and make reference to relevant facts display confusion or error. Alternatively, the answer tends to make simple assertions or assumptions about the way in which the rule(s) apply to the facts, so that application is general and unspecific, being unrelated to particular facts. The application fails to canvass credible alternative solutions (based on alternative interpretations of the law or of the facts). Little use is made of whatever statutory or case authority and illustration is incorporated in explanations. The solution suggested is only imprecisely related to the explanation of the rule(s).

AssessmentAt AS level, the assessment recognises the candidate’s ability to recall selected relevant material in a given context and to make limited evaluation or application of the material in a given context. To gain the highest marks candidates are required to provide not only a detailed, accurate explanation of relevant law, but also thoughtful evaluation and precise application to short scenarios.

At A2, the proportion of marks allocated to the higher level skills of analysis, evaluation and application significantly increases. Candidates who rely on mere description will therefore merit a low maximum on the mark scheme. To achieve the highest marks candidates will be required to identify, explain and illustrate relevant law; apply it consistently and coherently to arrive at sustainable conclusions; and develop arguments, supported by authority, that display understanding and perception.

The development from AS to A2 is characterised by increased complexity of material and problems to be solved. The length of response is also increased from no more than a 20 minute response at AS to an hour long essay in Unit 4. The challenge of sophisticated problem-solving and synoptic essay writing in Unit 4 will challenge all students to demonstrate their true ability and will inevitably include tasks that will only be tackled well by the most able.

What are Ao1/2/3?



Ao1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of legal rules and principles by selecting and explaining relevant information and illustrating with examples and citation.

Ao2 Analysis, evaluation and application

Analyse legal material, issues and situations, and evaluate and apply the appropriate legal rules and principles

Ao3 Communication and presentation

Present a logical and coherent argument and communicate relevant material in a clear and effective manner using appropriate legal terminology

Homework for Term 1

1. What kind of homework might I get?



A variety! Past questions; independent research; opinion pieces; revision for tests

2. How can I hand it in?

In person in the lesson would be the traditional way! However, in this age of new technology, you may also need to upload your work to FERN.

3. But what if I have a genuine reason for not handing it in?

Well, on the very rare occasion that you have a genuine excuse, then it is up to you to find Miss Hart before the lesson and your lecturer.

4. What happens if I do forget/ don’t hand it in?

You will have 24 hours to get it to Miss Hart by email, or in person. It is your responsibility to ensure that it reaches her. After this, it will not be marked, and you will receive a U for that piece of work. If you receive more than one U grade per half term, you will be subject to further sanctions. These will include contacting parents, and may ultimately lead to you being invited to leave the course.

You should remember that the homework will go towards progress and UCAS grades, and thus U’s will be taken into account. Likewise, if you are late with homework more than 3 times within a half term, you will also be subject to sanctions.

Attendance

Attendance Academic year 2010 ~ 2011

The course is assessed entirely through examination. Because of this, your homework and assessments are vital in assessing your progress at A2, and will inform both the progress sheets (including UCAS) and the decision of whether or not to enter you for the exam. You need to be very aware that if you choose not to do homework, or miss assessments, that you will be accepting responsibility for t he consequences. By taking this course, you are agreeing to fulfill the work requirements!

HOMEWORK will be set once per week, and you will normally have may be occasions when a shorter deadline is imposed – it will mean the task is shorter!


So, how often should you attend class? 100% of the time. Again, it should be pointed out that this course is assessed entirely through examination in May/June 2009. Thus, teaching time is vital and limited. If you miss a lesson, it will not be repeated. It is your responsibility to ensure that all the work is caught up on including IS tasks and/or homework. If you feel you need help, or further notes, please ask Miss Hart and she will help. You should not be taking holidays during term time. You have about 11 weeks of holiday a year – at least a week every 6 weeks, and there is no excuse for extra absence. Dental and medical appointments should not be made during lesson time – use your weekends, after school, lunches or frees. If you have an appointment booked in advance, let Miss Hart know and she will ensure that you will have all relevant notes.

Finally: a warning. DO NOT approach me and ask for time off for a driving lesson/theory exam. It will not be approved by me, home will be contacted, and you will be expected to make up any missed lessons out of your own time.

You should be aware that Universities are now starting to ask about attendance as part of the application, and employers certainly will!

Known Absences

If you have a genuine reason why you cannot attend a lesson, you should let a member of the department know as soon as possible either by leaving a message, or by emailing [email protected]

What happens if you’re attendance falls?

Well, firstly if you are on EMA – you’ll lose money. Secondly, your parents or guardians will be contacted, you may be place on report (yes, really, I am not kidding!!). Ultimately, if your attendance fails to improve after these steps, you will be invited to leave the course.


mailto:[email protected]


ResourcesSo, you need some help, or you’ve been asked to go away and do some research. Where do you start? The Library Queensbury Library is very well stocked with recent law texts – including the key texts for AS law by Jacquline Martin – OCR Law for AS, as well as some of the more challenging texts.

The library also subscribes to and stocks the A level Law Review. This is an excellent magazine which is published three times a year. It is aimed at you and contains a number of articles and law updates which you will find useful.

The people writing the articles are the examiners – and they tend to sum up key areas in no more than two pages – very useful for revision, consolidation or catch up work. There are also a number of quizzes etc!

The internet The internet is a hugely useful tool in research... if you know how to use it! Please bear in mind that simply copying and pasting from it is plagiarism. This means passing off someone else’s work as your own. DO NOT DO IT. If you are found plagiarising another’s work, you will be repeating the task in your own time. Secondly, do not use Wikipedia for the law. Don’t get me wrong – it’s great for information and gossip, but its great weakness is that it is written by anyone. Please do not use it. Instead, use any of the following websites, all of which are aimed at you at your stage of education.


Students can access the following websites to enhance their knowledge of these areas of law.Website Address

www.acas.org.uk www.bailii.org www.adviceguide.org.uk www.justask.org.uk www.europa.eu.int www.homeoffice.gov.uk www.ilex.org.uk www.lawcom.gov.uk www.lawsociety.org.uk www.e-lawstudent.com www.law.com/uk www.dca.gov.uk www.stbrn.ac.uk/other/depts/law/index.htm www.butterworths.com/butterwort www.barcouncil.org.uk www.citfou.org.uk www.a-level-law.com www.guardian.co.uk

Newspapers and Journals

www.philipallan.co.uk www.butterworths.co.uk www.butterworths.co.uk/nlj/index.htm www.cavendishpublishing.com

http://www.cavendishpublishing.com/

http://www.butterworths.co.uk/nlj/index.htm

http://www.butterworths.co.uk/nlj/index.htm

http://www.butterworths.co.uk/

http://www.philipallan.co.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

http://www.a-level-law.com/

http://www.citfou.org.uk/

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/

http://www.butterworths.com/butterwort

http://www.stbrn.ac.uk/other/depts/law/index.htm

http://www.stbrn.ac.uk/other/depts/law/index.htm

http://www.dca.gov.uk/

http://www.law.com/uk

http://www.e-lawstudent.com/

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/

http://www.ilex.org.uk/

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

http://www.europa.eu.int/

http://www.justask.org.uk/

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/

http://www.bailii.org/

http://www.acas.org.uk/


Students will have access to all of the books in the library but will also be encouraged to purchase the AQA student guides by Philip Allan. They are just £7.99 and are an invaluable tool for ensuring student success



Support Materials

Please make use of the AQA website where there are a host of previous examination papers, marking schemes and support materials. Follow this link

http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/business/law_noticeboard.php?id=05&prev=05


http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/business/law_noticeboard.php?id=05&prev=05


Enrichment at A2

Extra curricular Activities

Enrichment Opportunities

Enrichment opportunities enhance the student’s knowledge of the specification area. In these modules, enrichment opportunities can be gained through scheduled visits to local courts or HM Prison, the research of legal cases and materials, role-play, debate and the delivery of moots. Further opportunities for court and tribunal visits can also be utilised.



Example Essays for Part (c)

In the part (a) and (b) questions in Units 3 and 4, students are often invited to “consider” or to “discuss” an area of law. This requires them to explain and illustrate the relevant law and then to apply it to the facts of the problem in the scenario. When applying the law, they should be aware that all the facts are material and should be used as evidence. Encourage them to avoid making unsubstantiated assertions. In the part (c) questions in Unit 3, they are also invited to discuss an area of law. A sound answer will normally offer a critique of the current law by explaining and illustrating its strengths and/or weaknesses, and then consider proposals for reform, referring to published proposals where available. Here is an example.

Critically consider the strengths and weaknesses of the current law on provocation, including in your answer any appropriate suggestions for reform. (25 marks)

Under section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the defence of Provocation is available to the defendant who is provoked by things said or done into losing his self-control and killing. He is allowed the defence only where a reasonable man would have reacted in the same way.It seems strange that virtually anything, even the crying of a baby (Doughty) is considered sufficient for provocation. Many academics have argued that this first test should be limited to “things done” and should exclude “things said”. Others suggest that even “things done” should be limited to more extreme acts of provocation.

The loss of self-control test, a subjective one, has also become easier to satisfy. In Duffy, Lord Devlin said that the loss of self-control must be sudden and temporary. However, it has been extended to include slow-burn anger, as in Baillie, thus seeming to fail to distinguish between reaction and revenge killings. It has also been stretched to recognise the cumulative effect of domestic violence, as in Ahluwalia. Although understandable as a response to the criticism that provocation is discriminatory against women, this moves further away from Lord Devlin’s requirement that the loss of self-control be sudden and temporary.

It is arguable that senior judges have deliberately extended the availability of provocation to allow them more discretion in sentencing as they are bound by the mandatory life sentence for anyone guilty of murder. The objective element of provocation has caused considerable confusion. Under the 1957 Act the jury has to consider whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as the defendant did. In coming to their decision they are invited totake into account what the effect of the provocation would have been on the reasonable man. This is clearly an objective test. There is an argument of course that a perfectly reasonable man would never kill, even under extreme provocation. However, the law is designed as a concession to human frailty.

When considering this (objective) test in Smith, the House of Lords declared that the jury should now consider all characteristics as relevant, even those that affected the defendant’s powers of self-control. Thus extreme jealousy and possessiveness were considered relevant in Weller. In other words they should consider the effect not on a reasonable man, but on a jealous or bad-



tempered reasonable man! Such a decision blurs the distinction between provocation and diminished responsibility: the latter was designed as the defence for people with abnormalities, such as no self-control; the former for normal people who flip under extreme circumstances. It would be better to keep the two defences separate.

In Holley, the Privy Council has effectively done this by overruling Smith and Weller in declaring that only those characteristics that affect the gravity of the provocation can be considered relevant. This, I suggest, is a welcome limitation on the availability of the defence, and it keeps provocation and diminished responsibility as distinct defences. In 2004 the Law Commission asked whether provocation should be scrapped along with the mandatory life sentence for murder. It also asked whether the current special defences should be replaced with a single defence of extreme emotional disturbance. I would support such a move, as it would provide a defence to deserving cases such as Cocker, who killed his terminally ill wife, not out of anger, but out of loving sympathy. In December 2005 the Law Commission proposed that provocation fall under the new umbrella of second-degree murder, along with homicides committed under duress or diminished responsibility. This change in terminology would have limited impact on the operation of the defence. In view of the uncertainties caused by House of Lords decisions in recent years, it would now be better for Parliament to intervene in this area. However, that does not necessarily remove future judicial uncertainty.

Examiner’s comment


Although the answer does not deal with all the issues that could be raised, it does succeed in explaining the current law on provocation, taking into account recent developments and illustrating with cases. It also considers proposals for reform, and comments upon the desirability of these. It would therefore score highly.


Accessing FERN

All students are expects to use FERN on a regular basis. You can access FERN via your own student portal. The course password is AQALAW2010 all in upper case. You will be shown how to access FERN in your induction and we will regularly monitor its usage.



Exam questions (U3)

Arron rode his bicycle to Ben.s house and said, .Fancy a scary ride?. They then set off with Arron standing on the pedals and Ben sitting on the saddle. Arron steered onto the pavement, cycled up fast behind Colin, a pedestrian, and shouted to him to get out of the way. Colin was walking just ahead of Dan, his three-year-old child. Hearing Arron.s shout, Colin jumped backwards and to his left, straight onto Dan, and bruised Dan.s ankle. Shortly afterwards, Ben fell off the bicycle when Arron suddenly swerved to avoid a collision with another pedestrian. Arron rode off after seeing that Ben.s leg was bleeding badly.

Arron went home and drank some wine mixed with some tablets that he had been given at a party the night before. He then went out again on his bicycle and, while cycling at high speed past Ellie, another cyclist, kicked out at her and knocked her off her bicycle. Ellie clearly had arm and shoulder injuries and was taken to hospital. However, Felix, a junior doctor who attended to her on admission to casualty, did not realise that she had also suffered serious internal injuries. By the time that the true extent of her injuries was discovered, it was too late to save her life.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Arron arising out of the incidents involving Ben, Colin and Dan. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Arron and of Felix for the involuntary manslaughter of Ellie. (25 marks)

(c) Choose one of the following: In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)



Harry saw Ian trying to take a mobile phone from a youth in the street. He chased Ian and caught up with him. Ian said, “Leave it, mate, or I’ll get my friends to sort you out.” At that moment, Greg came round the corner and saw Harry holding Ian in a headlock. Thinking that Harry was attacking Ian, despite Harry’s attempts to explain, Greg punched Harry in the face, knocking him down and causing bruising. Whilst Harry was on the floor, Greg kicked him a few times, breaking a number of Harry’s ribs and cutting his arm with the steel-capped toe of his shoe.

Harry’s brother, James, had recently been treated for depression. He was furious when he heard what had happened to Harry and he brooded on it for some time. Eventually, he drove round to Greg’s house, but when he knocked on the door he was confronted by Greg’s wife, Karen. Karen shouted abuse at him, made fun of his treatment for depression, and complained about his horrible family, before slamming the door. James went back to his car and took out a can of petrol that was in the boot. He then set fire to Greg’s house. Karen was unable to escape and died in the fierce blaze.

(a) Ignoring any possible property offence, discuss the criminal liability of Harry, of Ian and of Greg arising out of the incidents in the street. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of James for the murder of Karen. (25 marks)

(c) Choose one of the following:

In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, discuss the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)



Femi persuaded her boyfriend, Ewan, to cut his initials into her arm, using a razor blade with which he had recently shaved. At the time when this happened, Ewan was awaiting an appointment for hospital tests for a possible serious infection, though he did not mention this to Femi. In fact, Ewan did have the infection, some of which was in his blood on the razor blade. The infection was transmitted to Femi. When Femi found out, she broke off their relationship and sent a message telling him to watch out because her brother was going to ‘sort him out’.

Ewan became depressed and had to have medical treatment. Unknown to him, a friend put a powerful stimulant drug into Ewan’s coffee one day when they were in a café. After he left the café, Ewan ran off and found himself in a small park with a lake. He entered the children’s playground, which was deserted apart from Gemma and her two-year-old son, Harry. There, Ewan stood up on a swing and began swinging very fast and high before suddenly jumping off when the swing was at its highest. At that moment, Gemma was walking past and Ewan landed very heavily on her, breaking her neck and killing her. Ewan hurried off, leaving Harry on his own. Eventually, Harry wandered over to the lake, where he fell into the water and drowned.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Ewan arising out of the cutting of the initials, and of Femi arising out of the message that she sent to Ewan. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Ewan for the involuntary manslaughter of Gemma and of Harry. (25 marks)


In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)



Alvin, a diabetic who had forgotten to take his regular dose of insulin, was sitting holding a glass of lemonade in a pub. Suddenly, he began shouting and waving his arms around whilst still holding the glass. Other customers nearby, including Bez and Chris, reacted by trying to get away from him. However, Bez collided with Chris, causing Chris to lose his balance and strike his head on the corner of a table as he fell. Chris was unconscious for some time and suffered from persistent and severe headaches for a month afterwards. Alvin had no recollection of anything that had happened after he had gone into the pub.

Following this incident, Chris appeared to undergo a personality change which resulted in frequent bouts of bad temper and aggressiveness. He blamed Bez for his injury rather than Alvin, and had had a number of arguments with him. One night when out in town, Chris came across Bez and his girlfriend, Danni. When Chris and Bez began to argue, Danni said that they were behaving like “a pair of kids”. Chris suddenly punched her in the face, knocking her backwards. As she fell to the ground, he kicked her in the head. Danni died from head injuries.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Alvin in relation to Bez, Chris and other customers, arising out of the incident in the pub. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Chris for the murder of Danni. (25 marks)


In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, consider what criticisms may be made of the current law. (25 marks)



Early one morning, Alan was standing on a stepladder, washing the windows of his house with a powerful detergent solution. Bob and Chris came walking noisily up the street, having spent all night out, drinking alcohol. Bob shouted something and suddenly veered across the street in Alan’s direction, followed by Chris, who was trying to take hold of his arm. Alan was convinced that Bob was coming to knock him off the stepladder, and quickly got down and threw the bucket of detergent solution over Bob. Some of the solution also went over Chris, causing him to suffer an extreme allergic reaction which required hospital treatment for damage to the skin on his face. In fact, though very drunk, Bob had merely wanted to have a friendly talk to Alan.

Dave, who lived in the same street as Alan, had become obsessive about cleaning his car and ensuring that he could park it outside his house. He suffered great stress and became angry when he was prevented from doing either. He had begun to believe that his neighbours, Edward in particular, were splashing his car with mud and deliberately parking immediately outside his house to stop him parking there. When Dave saw Edward park there, he rushed out and told him to move his car. Edward swore at him before walking off. Dave went into his kitchen, seized a knife, and ran after Edward. As he heard footsteps behind him, Edward turned and a brief struggle took place, during which Dave stabbed Edward in the leg. The stab wound severed a main artery and Edward rapidly bled to death.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Alan and of Bob arising out of the incident in the street.

(25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Dave for the murder of Edward. (25 marks)


In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to the non-fatal offences against the person, consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)



Farrah, who was 14 years old, began to receive notes through the post which contained drawings of dead bodies and statements such as “This will be you”. In consequence, she became very reluctant to leave the house and had to have specialist counselling for depression and panic attacks. Eventually, Farrah’s mother, Gill, discovered that the notes were being sent by Isi, a girl in Farrah’s class at school, and she went round to confront Isi at her house. When she did so, a furious argument broke out on the doorstep, during which Isi grabbed Gill’s hair and slapped her very hard three or four times. Gill then managed to push Isi, who tripped over the doorstep and fell backwards through a glass door panel, suffering deep cuts to her arm and face.

Isi’s father, Jack, was very angry about these events. Whilst driving through town, he saw Farrah’s 13-year-old brother, Karl, walking along the street. He rapidly braked, forced Karl into the car, and drove off into the countryside. When the car stopped at a junction, Karl managed to jump out and run away. Jack panicked and drove off, and so did not see that, almost immediately, Karl was struck by a car driven by Leon as it came round a bend. Karl was thrown into a ditch and Leon drove away without stopping. Karl was not discovered until the next day, by which time he had died from his injuries.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Isi and of Gill. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Jack and of Leon for the involuntary manslaughter of Karl. (25 marks)


In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to the non-fatal offences against the person, consider whether the current law is satisfactory. (25 marks)



George and Henry were brothers who led a violent gang. Henry had suffered some brain damage in an accident when younger, and was well known for his sudden rages and unpredictable, extreme violence. George argued with an associate, John, and sent a mobile telephone text message to him, which stated, “If I see you on the street after tomorrow, you are dead.” Two nights later, George approached John in a crowded nightclub. As soon as he saw George, John took out a can of pepper spray, which was in his possession illegally, and sprayed it into George’s face. George suffered eyesight problems which were expected to last for up to a year.

Henry was also in the nightclub and was armed with a gun. When he realised what had happened, he chased John out of the nightclub but lost him in a maze of streets. About 10 minutes later, as Henry was still walking around, a car being driven by John passed him and then stopped at traffic lights. Henry ran towards the car and fired three bullets into the back of it as it started up again. Though John was unharmed, one of the bullets hit his passenger, Karen, in the head and killed her.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of George and of John arising out of the text message and the use of the pepper spray. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Henry for the murder of Karen. (25 marks)

(c) Choose one of the following.

In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

Mike and Neil went to see Les, who had been drinking heavily. Following some good-natured joking about, they began to push and wrestle each other. Mike



was much weaker than the others and, despite protesting, suffered a broken wrist when he was wrestled vigorously to the floor by Les. Les then fell asleep, giving Neil the opportunity to shave off Les’s beard, something that he had jokingly threatened to do many times before. When Les woke up, he was very annoyed that he had lost his beard, which he had been growing for a number of years. Before leaving Les’s house, Neil swallowed some tablets which he found in the bathroom.

Subsequently, back in his own flat, he set fire to the carpet (which belonged to the landlord) under the delusion that he was making a camp-fire. The fire spread rapidly through the house, trapping Pam in her top-floor flat. In an attempt to help her to escape, Raisa, a next-door neighbour, put a ladder up to the window. However, Raisa did not lock the sections of the ladder properly and it collapsed when Pam stepped onto it. Pam fell from the ladder and was killed.

(a) Discuss the criminal liability of Les arising out of Mike’s injury, and of Neil arising out of shaving off Les’s beard. (25 marks)

(b) Discuss the criminal liability of Neil and of Raisa for the involuntary manslaughter of Pam. (25 marks)

(c) Choose one of the following.

In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to involuntary manslaughter, consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)

OR

In relation to non-fatal offences against the person, consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory. (25 marks)



Updates

NOTES ON THE EVALUATION OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

Note: this section has been contributed by a practicing teacher, who is happy to share some of her teaching notes.

Importance or relevance of this ‘defence’

Intoxication, particularly voluntary intoxication, increases the risk of violent or anti-social behaviour – eg Law Commission Report (2009) (LC) points out that one third of victims of domestic violence say their assailant had been drinking beforehand

Annual cost of alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour is £7.3 billion. So the LC points out that the availability or not of this ‘defence’ is not just a matter oflegal principle, but also has a ‘far-reaching effect on the perception … of whether justice has been done’. So this is an important area of law to get right!The term ‘defence’ is potentially misleading in this context – there is no defence of intoxication as such, but intoxication may be relevant to proving absence of mens rea.

When intoxication is voluntary, the law distinguishes between two types of offence in this regard: crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent (Majewski). Voluntary intoxication may be relied upon to show absence of mens rea for crimes of specific intent (R v Sheehan and Moore) but may not be relied upon to show absence of mens rea for crimes of basic intent (Majewski): in the latter case, the jury must decide whether the D would have foreseen the relevant risk if sober (R v Richardson and Irwin).

The LC criticises the terms ‘basic’ and ‘specific intent’, saying they are ‘confusing’,‘misleading’ and ‘should be abandoned’ (par 1.28). It is worth noting that in Majewski, although all the Law Lords agreed there was such a distinction, they failed to agree on a definition of basic and specific intent! The LC point out that there is no single uniform test for deciding if an offence is one of basic or specific intent.

Specific problems with these terms

Basic intent is defined purely negatively – ie it is not specific intent

Basic intent is misleading as no intent is required – eg gross negligence manslaughter is a crime of basic intent requiring only evidence of negligence, albeit gross

Illogically though, rape is a crime of basic intent even though intention is required – penetration must be intentional

Specific intent offences do not all require proof of intention – handling stolen goods requires only the knowledge or belief that the goods are stolen



Many basic intent offences can be committed with intention – eg assault, battery. They are classed as basic intent because they can also be committed recklessly (Venna).

What is your opinion?

The rationale for the current law: does it make sense? Have we got it right?

The current law is a compromise between two extremes:

(a) The Subjectivist Approach to criminal liability – can only be liable for criminal offence with subjective mens rea – evident in R v G and R

(b) The Absolutist Approach – voluntary intoxication should never be available as a defence.

The LC finds the compromise acceptable, pointing out that neither extreme is desirable for the following reasons. A purely subjective approach would put public safety at risk, as dangerous people would be able to rely on voluntary intoxication as a way of escaping criminal liability. Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is culpable behaviour and so deserves to result in some criminal liability. An absolutist approach would result in negligence – eg D could be liable for murder when his or her culpability was nowhere near the legal requirement for that crime: there would be potential for a huge mismatch between D’s actual state of mind and the mens rea required for the crime, and this would be ‘wrong’ (par 1.57).

Law Commission explanation of policy underlying law on intoxicationThe principle of moral equivalence

‘We believe that an offence will be regarded as one of basic intent if the judiciary conclude that the commission of its external element in a state of voluntary intoxication (without the fault required by the definition of the offence) is the moral equivalent of committing it with the fault required by the definition of the offence, and that D therefore ought to incur criminal liability.’

The moral equivalence principle does not apply to specific intent offences – ie committing their actus reus in a state of voluntary intoxication is not morally equivalent to committing the offence with its mens rea. So, for these offences, theProsecution must prove mens rea: if they cannot, D is not liable for that offence, though usually there is a fall-back offence of basic intent, eg s20 for s.18 OAPA.What is your opinion? Do you agree with the current compromise? Would you prefer a purely subjective approach? Or an absolute denial of voluntary intoxication as a way of showing no mens rea?

Although the LC agree with the current balance between the subjective and absolutist approaches, they propose abolishing the misleading terms ‘basic’ and ‘specific’ intent. They would list the states of mind that always have to be proved by the Prosecution:

• Intention as to a consequence• Knowledge as to something• Belief as to something



• Fraud• Dishonesty

These states of mind would be called ‘integral fault elements’. For offences withintegral fault elements, evidence of voluntary intoxication could be used to establish lack of mens rea.

Other offences would be classed as those where the fault element is not integral, and here the Majewski rule would apply. In deciding whether or not the D is liable, the D should be treated as having been aware of anything which he would have seen aware of if he had been sober.

(Involuntary intoxication: the LC do not propose any change here, ie involuntary intoxication could always be relied on to show absence of mens rea).

Advantages

(a) Confusing terms of basic and specific intent would be removed

(b) Existing common law balance between subjective and absolutist approachi. would be maintained

(c) States of mind which require proof by Prosecution would be clearly identified.

Disadvantages

(a) New unfamiliar terms would take time to be understood: ‘integral fault element’i. is not the clearest of terms – couldn’t we argue that all

crimes, other than thoseii. of strict liability, have integral fault elements?

Conclusion

Overall, the proposals of the LC would make the law clearer, and enacting them in a statute would make the law more accessible. But would a government be bothered to enact them? The last proposals from the LC in 1995 were ignored. Professor Horder (responsible for this recent report) warns that there is always the possibility that the courts could relax their approach to intoxication, perhaps in response to the rising prison population, and so urges legislative action!




Documents

AQA.docxcoursehandbook