Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Examiner’s report 2008

2650010 Criminal law General comments

Please ensure that you read the following general comments before
reading the individual reports for the Zone A and Zone B examinations.
Many people reading this report will be studying Criminal law for the
first time this year and all candidates should read the following very
carefully.
However, before you do so, you should listen to the audio presentation
on studying Criminal law which you will find on Criminal law
homepage of the virtual learning environment (VLE). You can access
the VLE through the student portal at
http://laws.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=555.
When working your way through the subject guide, be sure to listen to
the appropriate audio presentation before you embark on your study of
that topic. You may initially find that there are not presentations
available for all of the topics. This is because they are a new
development and will be rolled out incrementally, so check the VLE
regularly to see when new audio presentations are produced.
The first observation which needs to be made is how obvious it was to
the Examiners which candidates had diligently worked their way
through the subject guide and study pack. It was equally obvious which
candidates had done the recommended readings (including the annual
Recent developments update and the newsletters published each month
on the VLE), completed the activities in the subject guide and used the
‘reflect and review’ at the end of each chapter of the guide to check
how well they understood the materials. These candidates did well. It
really is important that you take advantage of the wealth of material
provided for you, using the subject guide – and now the accompanying
audio presentations available on the VLE – to guide you through each
topic on the syllabus.
The second observation is how obvious it was that some candidates
(and perhaps, in some cases, their lecturers) were not familiar with the
syllabus. For example, many candidates from both zones considered
(inappropriately) the offence contrary to s.12 of the Theft Act 1968 i.e.
taking a conveyance without authority. This offence is not on the
University of London Criminal law syllabus. If you have not yet
looked at the syllabus please go to the Criminal law homepage on the
VLE where you will find it. You can also find the syllabus in the
Regulations. Read the syllabus carefully as you will not gain marks for
discussing topics which are not on it.

1
265 0010 Criminal law General comments

As always, there were some excellent papers this year and many good
and competent ones. Well done to those candidates. Criminal law is a
difficult subject. It was obvious from the scripts that those candidates
who did well had done the required reading and followed the advice
given in the many University of London publications about how to
study and how to prepare for the exams.
Unfortunately, it was evident from a number of papers that some
candidates had not done sufficient work throughout the year to have a
reasonable understanding of the issues raised in the questions they
attempted.
The Criminal law subject guide (and study pack) is based on the
syllabus and is the guide for the course on which you will be examined.
It is vitally important that you work your way through the subject
guide ensuring that you do the recommended reading and attempt all
of the activities. Make sure you understand the topic(s) covered in a
chapter before you go on to the next one. There is a reflect and review
section at the end of each chapter. Go through it and be honest with
yourself when deciding on your responses. Revise any areas with which
you are still having difficulties.
Ensure that you use the VLE regularly in order to keep up to date.
There is a monthly newsletter for each subject, provided by the authors
of the subject guide and/or Examiners of the relevant subject. On the
VLE you can download the subject guide and study pack in full, as well
as the Recent developments, which are published in late February. The
VLE also contains many other features to help you with your studies.
You should also ensure that you do the computer marked assessments
which are available through the VLE. There are three for each subject.
Although the tests are in a different format to the examination, they
are an excellent way for you to test your knowledge and understanding
of a subject and your ability to apply your knowledge.
You must complete the online research exercises. In addition to being a
compulsory component of the Common law reasoning and
institutions course, they will familiarise you with the databases we
provide for you through the online library and will introduce you to the
research skills you are expected to develop throughout the course.
They can be accessed through the VLE.
The VLE has been updated this year and this will make it easier for you
to navigate. There is now a single sign-on portal and you will have
been given your own University of London email account. Please check
this email account regularly as news of updates etc. will be sent to you
at this email address. Note that you can access this account and set it
up so that emails are forwarded to your preferred email account.
If you experience any problems with the VLE please email
lawsonline@lon.ac.uk. If you experience problems with the portal or
with your email account please email
support@my.londonexternal.ac.uk.
You should use the online library regularly. You can find cases, statutes
and articles to help you with your studies. You can access the library
through the VLE or go to http://www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/. Again,
ensure you listen to the audio presentations (referred to above). They

2
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

tell you which are the most important journals, series of law reports
and websites generally for Criminal law.
The examination is strictly based on the syllabus (see above) so don’t
introduce offences into your answers which are not on the syllabus, no
matter how tempted you are. You will not get extra marks for this. You
are unlikely to have studied these offences in any depth and will
therefore not have sufficient knowledge to discuss them competently.
Even if you can, you will, unfortunately, just be wasting your very
valuable examination time. This was mentioned in the examination
reports for last year and the year before and it can only be assumed
that, in addition to the candidates concerned, who clearly have not
looked at the syllabus, it may be that lecturers have not done so either
and have taught these topics. If you are familiar with the topics on the
syllabus, you will be in a position to point this out to your lecturers if
they begin to teach a topic which is irrelevant to your studies.
Remember, you have more than enough to cover without increasing
your workload with additional and irrelevant material.
It was evident from a number of papers that many candidates had not
revised sufficiently to enable them to pass. Limiting your revision to a
small number of topics is very dangerous as, if those topics do not
come up on the examination paper, you will not know enough to pass
the examination.
In addition, far too many candidates mismanaged their time, writing
extremely long answers to one or two questions and very short or no
answers to the remainder. This might, of course, be because they had
not revised sufficiently to enable them to answer more than a couple of
questions competently. Whatever the reason, if you do not attempt all
four questions, you are unlikely to pass.
All of the questions were answered at least competently by some
candidates and there were some excellent answers. However there
were also errors, many of which were common errors that are made
every year. Some of these are outlined at the beginning of the
individual examination reports and others are dealt with in the
comments on specific questions.
It is crucial that you ensure that your knowledge is up to date. It was
obvious from the answers to some questions that a number of
candidates had not read the Recent developments – or did not give
sufficient thought to what they read. Recent developments are posted to
the VLE and external system website (www.londonexternal.ac.uk) as
soon after 15 February as possible. This is the date up to which you are
expected to be aware of developments in the law in any one year.
The Fraud Act 2006 was mentioned in the Examiner’s report last year
and it was surprising to find that even this year there were some
candidates who did not seem to have heard of it. It was in the subject
guide for the year 2007/8 so there was no excuse. Most candidates,
however, were aware of it although, unfortunately, some did not
appear to know it very well.
When using a case as an authority for a legal principle in your answer
to a problem question, it is only very rarely appropriate to refer to the
facts of that case. You should state the principle upon which you are

3
265 0010 Criminal law General comments

basing your analysis of the issue, the name of the authority (case), the
court in which the decision was made and, if you can remember it, the
date. Where, however, you wish to distinguish a case, a brief reference
to the facts may be appropriate to explain the basis of the distinction.
All of the offences on the syllabus carry a maximum penalty – except
for murder which carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment.
Although it is appropriate to briefly mention its maximum penalty the
first time you refer to an offence – if only because it demonstrate that
you are aware of the seriousness or otherwise of the offence or the
importance of a defendant succeeding with one of the special defences
to murder – further repetition is not necessary.
It should be emphasised that where there is unnecessary repetition, the
problem is that, while you will not necessarily lose marks, you will not
gain them either. The time you have used up making these unnecessary
repetitions could be far better spent thinking through your answers
more fully and considering what you might have missed out – thus
gaining yourself extra marks.
When writing an essay, it is important that you come to a conclusion.
You should explain why you have come to your conclusion and, in
order to do so, you must refer to the arguments you have made both
for and against the proposition advanced in the question. See the
advice in Chapter 6 of the Criminal law subject guide.

4
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Examiner’s report 2008

2650010 Criminal law Zone B

Introduction
Read the Examiner’s general comments on the examination before
reading this report on the specific questions.
Carefully consider the list below of things to remember when
answering a Criminal law examination question. This list comes
from the most common mistakes made by candidates taking the exam
this year. Try not to be the one who makes them next year!
 Always begin each answer on a new page.
 Remember to put the numbers of the questions you have answered
in the box at the front of your answer book.
 Write legibly.
 Don’t ‘tick’ your own work. (It doesn’t fool anybody!)
 In a question where there are a number of defendants, always
discuss the principal offender’s liability before going on to consider
the liability of any accomplice.
 Where a defendant can avail him/herself of a defence, remember
to discuss the relevant offence(s) before you consider any possible
defence(s).
 Try to be concise. Some –candidates write for page before, and
sometimes without, getting to the point.
 On the issue of mens rea, it was gratifying to see how many
candidates were familiar with Lord Steyn’s statement on intention
and applied it appropriately. However some candidates did limit
their discussion to just saying ‘the mens rea for murder is
intention’. Intention to what?
 Candidates were also generally vague on the issue of recklessness.
It is not enough to say ‘recklessness is sufficient’. Sufficient what?
You should explain what needs to be proved here and apply it to
the facts of the question. That does not mean airily saying (as
many candidates did) ‘s/he was subjectively reckless’. What does
that mean? What exactly is it that the prosecution has to prove?
 On the issue of mens rea again, where an offence can be
committed intentionally or recklessly, this cannot mean – as some
seemed to think – intentionally and recklessly. Think about it…
 When the appropriate offence is murder (for example a question
which is begging for a discussion of murder, provocation and/or
diminished responsibility) you don’t need to consider the range of
non-fatal offences. If you are going to deal properly with the
question, there will not be time.
 It is not enough to merely identify a possible offence and then copy
the definition from your statute book without discussing the
ingredients of that offence and relating your discussion to the facts

1
265 0010 Criminal law Zone B

disclosed in the question or, if it is an essay question, the issue for

discussion.
 When, at a dance or a disco, a man simply asks a woman to dance,
there is no offence contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and
neither is it attempted rape!
 Finally – remember the jury does not have to prove anything!
All of the chapters referred to below are from the Criminal law
subject guide.

Specific comments on questions

Question 1
‘By using the phrase ”substantial risk” the [trial] judge blurred the line
between intention and recklessness.’ (Woollin (1998) per Lord Steyn).
Discuss.

The comments made in respect of Question 1 of the Zone A

examination paper also apply to this question.
The more complete quote of Lord Steyn (which you will find on page
67 of the subject guide) was:
...[T]he judge should not have departed from the Nedrick direction. By
using the phrase ‘substantial risk’ the judge blurred the line between
intention and recklessness, and hence between murder and manslaughter.
The misdirection enlarged the scope of the mental element required for
murder. It was a material misdirection.
Those candidates who took the time to follow the guidance in the
subject guide and complete the associated reading and activities
answered this question well. It was obvious from the answers which
candidates had done the work and which candidates had not. You
should know why using the phrase ‘substantial risk’ in the context of
‘intention’ may serve to blur the line between intention and
recklessness.
Read pages 66–69 of the subject guide, complete the activities and
then listen to audio presentation 6 which you will find on the VLE. You
should then be able to craft a competent answer to a question like this.

Question 2
Natasha was a law student with a part-time job as an office cleaner working
for Mike, an insurance broker. One evening, while cleaning his office she
noticed that he had left his computer switched on and his email inbox open.
Natasha read Mike’s emails and saw a message from his boss asking Mike to
send his bank account details so that some outstanding commission could be
transferred to his account. Natasha replied giving her own account number
and Mike’s boss transferred £1,000 to her account. When Natasha checked
her account the following day, her account was now £800 in credit instead of
being overdrawn as it had previously been.
She went to a restaurant to celebrate her new found wealth and paid for the
meal with her bank card.
While she was getting ready to leave the restaurant, she noticed an elderly
man carrying her handbag towards the door. Thinking he was going to steal

2
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

her bag, she ran up to him, snatched her bag from him and pushed him
through a glass door. He suffered a broken nose and cuts to his face and
arms. He had not been stealing her bag. It had fallen on the floor and he had
taken it to hand it in to the cashier whose desk was by the door.
Discuss Natasha’s possible criminal liability.

The first part of this question required consideration of fraud and theft.
Many candidates who answered this question seemed to think that
Natasha might be guilty of burglary. She could not be guilty of
burglary as she had not entered either the building or, indeed, Mike’s
office as a trespasser. She had permission to be there to clean the office
and there was no indication in the question that, at the time of entry,
she intended to do anything other than clean. It was only once she was
in the office and cleaning that she noticed that the computer had been
left on and decided to do what she did. Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968
requires that the defendant enters the building... as a trespasser (s.
9(1)(a)) or entered... as a trespasser (s.9(1)(b)).
Fraud is considered in Chapter 16 of the subject guide and in the 2007
Recent developments. There are also two newsletters (November and
December 2006) on this subject which can be accessed through the
Criminal law homepage on the VLE. You should read these and then
listen to the relevant audio presentation and the relevant readings,
ensuring that you complete all of the activities.
The next part of the question required, first of all, consideration of a
number of non-fatal offences against the person (see Chapters 9 and
10 and the accompanying audio presentations on the VLE). Remember,
it is not enough just to list these offences. You must consider each
possible offence separately, dealing with the ingredients of each one by
reference to the facts of the question.
Some candidates mentioned the possibility of robbery contrary to s.8 of
the Theft Act 1968. Provided it was carefully analysed, these
candidates gained marks for this. Although in ‘real life’ such a charge
would be unlikely under these circumstances, in theory it is a
possibility. Remember, one of the ingredients of robbery is theft
contrary to s.1 of the Theft Act 1968, so the ingredients of that offence
would need to be analysed in conjunction with those of robbery. The
elements of theft which needed careful consideration in this question
were ‘belonging to another’ (s.5) and dishonesty (s.2). Have a look at
Chapters 16 and 17 and the accompanying audio presentations and see
what you think.
Finally, in relation to Natasha’s conduct towards the elderly man, you
should, having considered any relevant non-fatal offences, have
considered whether the force she used was justified. She mistakenly
believed that he was going to steal her bag. See Chapter 12.2 for a
discussion of the common law defence of self-defence and s.3 of the
Criminal Law Act 1967. What are the ingredients of these defences?
Can they be used in relation to defence of property? As with offences,
you must consider all of the elements of any defence you believe to be
relevant to the facts of a question. Listen to audio presentation 12 on
the VLE and have a look at the case of Faraj (2007) which was
considered both in the 2008 Recent developments and the January 2008
newsletter.

3
265 0010 Criminal law Zone B

Question 3
Zandy borrowed a car from Jake telling him it was to be used for a ‘job’ at
the house of a local dignitary, Xavier. Jake assumed this to mean that Zandy
was going to burgle the house whereas she was, in fact, planning to plant a
bomb in order to destroy it.
Zandy’s friend, Drusilla, who used to work for Xavier, reluctantly agreed to
help Zandy plant the bomb. Zandy had threatened to beat up Drusilla’s
elderly mother if Drusilla refused to help. Because she was familiar with the
house, Drusilla was able to tell Zandy how best to get close to the front door
without being spotted and they did a successful practice run together.
Drusilla had second thoughts about helping Zandy a few days before they
were to plant the bomb. She sent her mother to stay with her brother and
told Zandy that she wanted nothing more to do with the plan and advised
Zandy to abandon it.
Zandy went alone and planted the bomb. However, she had never made a
bomb before and it was so defective that it did not explode when she
pressed the detonator, and, indeed, could not have exploded in any
circumstances.
Consider the possible criminal liability of the parties.
How, if at all, would your answer differ if, the following day, Zandy had
returned to the house with an improved version of the bomb and this bomb
went off destroying the house. The house was empty but the adjacent houses
had to be evacuated because of the risk of spreading fire.

There are a number of important points to note when there is more

than one party to a possible crime or crimes.
(a) You should always consider the liability of the principal offender
before you go on to deal with any accomplice liability.
Note in Chapter 15 of the subject guide (p.277) the author points
out that:
It should be noted that [s.8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861]
does not create an offence of ‘being a secondary party’. It provides that
a person who ‘aided, abetted, counselled or procured’ D1 to commit a
particular offence is also guilty of that offence.
Why is this important?
(b) Check the facts of the question very carefully to see if they give
rise to the inchoate offences of conspiracy and/or incitement.
Most candidates forget to do this. See Chapter 14.1 and 14.2 of
the subject guide and listen to the accompanying audio
presentation on the VLE.
(c) The inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt do
not exist in a vacuum. In other words it is not correct to say (as
many candidates did) that D might have committed the offence of
incitement/conspiracy/attempt. You should make it clear what
substantive offence D might have attempted/incited D2 to
commit/conspired with D2 to commit.
So far as Zandy’s liability is concerned, one of the most important
things to note, so far as the first part of the question was concerned,
was that the bomb did not explode. Nothing happened. You should,
therefore, have considered whether she may have committed any
offence(s) (and you should state which possible substantive offences
she might have attempted) contrary to s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act

4
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

1981. See Chapter 14.3 of the subject guide and the accompanying
audio presentation on the VLE.
You should then have considered the possible accomplice liability of
Jake and Drusilla. Apart from the issue of whether it is possible to aid
and abet an attempt, different issues (including those relating to the
actus reus and mens rea requirements) need to be considered in respect
of each of them.
So far as Jake’s liability is concerned, he thought the car was to be
used in connection with a burglary. Might this have an impact on his
liability as an accomplice? See pages 231-237 of the subject guide.
As to Drusilla, you should first consider her possible accomplice
liability – and whether or not she withdrew from the enterprise –
before you consider whether she might succeed with the defence of
duress. See pages 238–239 and 195–198 of the subject guide.
Only when you had completed your consideration of the first part of
the question should you have gone on to discuss the alternative facts.
Here you should have considered what substantive offence(s) Drusilla
may have committed and whether this might have had a different
impact on Jake and Drusilla’s liability as accomplices.

Question 4
Etienne, a Frenchman, on holiday in England was at a local disco and had
been drinking heavily. He asked Flo if she would dance with him. Flo said
‘No’ and then, as Etienne turned to go, he staggered against her, pushing her
over.
Flo’s brother Stanley, who saw what happened, rushed over and punched
Etienne on the nose shouting, ’Get out of the country you bloody foreigner’.
Etienne’s friend Thierry was upset by Stanley’s comment and said, ‘We are all
members of the EU now’. This further incensed Stanley, who threw a heavy
ashtray at Thierry. It missed Thierry but missed him. By this time the police
had arrived and, when PC Bill told Stanley he was under arrest, Stanley
pushed him out of the way in an attempt to run away. The force knocked PC
Bill over and he cracked his head against a table, fracturing his skull.
Discuss the possible criminal liability of Etienne and Stanley.

This was a very straightforward question which required discussion of

a number of non-fatal offences against the person. It is straightforward
because you can take each issue as it arises, analyse the relevant law as
it relates to that issue and then move on to the next issue.
A number of points need to be made. These arise from some of the
answers candidates gave to this question.
1. Nobody died so no homicide offences needed to be considered.
2. Provocation is not a defence to non-fatal offences. Stanley may
have been ‘incensed’ but he did not kill anybody and provocation is
only relevant when a person has been charged with murder.
3. No offence contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is committed
when, at the ‘local disco’, a man merely asks a woman if she will
dance with him. It is certainly not attempted rape contrary to s.1
of the Criminal Attempts Act 1980 as some candidates seemed
to think!

5
265 0010 Criminal law Zone B

4. Similarly if, without more, a man staggers drunkenly against a

woman it is not an offence contrary to the Sexual Offences Act
2003.
In addition, please note the following points.
(a) Very few candidates mentioned ‘racial aggravation’ when
discussing Stanley punching Etienne’s nose and throwing the
ashtray at Thierry. See the 2008 Recent developments which
considered the case of Rogers [2007] UKHL 8. What did the House
of Lords decide in relation to the words ‘bloody foreigner’?
(b) The appropriate offence contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against
the Person Act 1861 to consider when discussing Stanley pushing
PC Bill was ‘maliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent
to resist arrest’. Most candidates missed that.
As stated above, a range of non-fatal offences needed to be considered
in this question. If you have not already done so, you should read
Chapters 9 and 10 of the subject guide, listen to the accompanying
audio presentation on the VLE and then try to work out which offences
are relevant to each scenario. When you have completed the
recommended reading and the activities set out in the subject guide,
you should be able to see how to answer this question.

Question 5
In Palmer (1971) Lord Morris said of reasonable force in self-defence that, ‘It
is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend
himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do,
what is reasonably necessary.’
Discuss.

This was similar to Question 6 on the Zone A paper so please see the
Examiner’s comments on that question.
Not many candidates answered this question, which was a shame as it
was not a difficult one. What did Lord Morris have to say in Palmer
(1971) about this aspect of the defence? How did courts subsequently
decide this issue? Were any of the decisions contentious? If so, why?
What is the position now? See Chapter 12 of the subject guide and
listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the VLE.

Question 6
Boris and Susie lived together. They were both alcoholics who, when drunk
had violent rows. In the course of their rows Susie often made derogatory
comments about Boris which affected his self-esteem and which caused him
to hit her. He had served a number of prison sentences for these assaults on
Susie.
Susie and Boris spent an afternoon together in a bar, both drinking heavily.
Boris left before Susie and went home to chop some wood. When Susie
arrived home a couple of hours later, she told Boris that she had just seen
their neighbour, John, with his new dog, Rex. Boris misheard her and thought
she had said that she had just had sex with John. Incensed, he picked up the
axe he had been using to chop wood. Susie said, ’You wouldn’t dare!’ He
then struck Susie a number of times with the axe.

6
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Overcome with remorse, he called an ambulance but, due to heavy traffic,

the ambulance took 50 minutes to arrive. Susie died on the way to hospital.
Discuss Boris’s possible criminal liability.

This question raised similar issues to those raised in Question 8 on the

Zone A paper so please see the Examiner’s comments on that question.
The facts of this question were based on the case of Holley (2005) and
required a discussion of murder, provocation and diminished
responsibility. As with Question 8 in the Zone A paper, this was
popular with candidates and there were some good answers.
It cannot be emphasised strongly enough how important it is to discuss
the offence before you begin your consideration of any possible
defences. Please do not, as some candidates did, consider provocation
and diminished responsibility before you have considered the offence
of murder. Apart from anything else, you run the risk (as a few
candidates did) of forgetting to mention the offence at all! In addition,
in a question such as this there is no need to go through all the
possible non-fatal offences against the person which led up to the
death of the victim. While most, if not all of them, have been
committed, if you are going to deal properly with the relevant offence
and defences in the given time you would not have time also to discuss
assault, battery, etc. You were told that Boris’s previous assaults on
Susie had resulted in him serving prison sentences. You did not have
the facts to enable you to discuss these but nevertheless a number of
candidates tried to do so. You were given some of the history to make
you aware that, in relation to Boris’s defence of provocation, Susie’s
conduct might have been the ‘last straw’ after an accumulation of
insulting behaviour towards Boris.
Returning to the offence you should deal with the issue of murder first.
What are the elements of this offence? Begin with the actus reus. Can
that be established on the facts? This question differed from the one in
Zone A in that the causation element was in the body of the question.
It was not an alternative. Remember to deal with the issue of causation
when you are dealing with the actus reus of an offence. This is where it
is relevant.
You should then go on to the mens rea of the offence. What is it? You
must ensure that you know and understand how to apply the Woollin
direction on intention to the jury. Read Chapter 6 of the subject guide
and listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the VLE.
Having dealt with the offence, you would then – and only then –
discuss the defences. As with offences, you should know the definitions
of the defences (i.e. what ingredients need to be considered) and
analyse this by reference to the facts of the question.
See Chapter 8 of the subject guide and listen to the accompanying
audio presentation on the VLE.

Question 7
Randolph agreed to pay Lizzie, a prostitute, £50 if she would have sexual
intercourse with him. She agreed and sexual intercourse took place but
Randolph ran off without paying her.

7
265 0010 Criminal law Zone B

That afternoon, he picked up Chiara in a singles bar. He plied her with drink
buying her several double measures when she had asked for singles. They
went back to his flat, by which time she was very drunk. He suggested that
they have sexual intercourse. Chiara giggled and promptly fell asleep.
Undaunted, Randolph had sexual intercourse with her anyway.
He thought he would leave her sleeping in his flat while he went to visit
some friends. As he left he noticed that she had gone a strange colour and
her breathing did not seem normal. He thought she probably just needed to
sleep off the alcohol and went on his way. Because of her intoxication and
the way she was lying on his sofa, Chiara could not breathe properly and
died of suffocation.
Discuss the possible criminal liability of Randolph.

This question contained a selection of offences from different parts of

the syllabus which included non-fatal offences against the person (both
sexual and non-sexual) and manslaughter.
Might Randolph’s conduct towards the prostitute have amounted to
offences contrary to s.11 of the Fraud Act 2006 or s.3 of the Theft Act
1978? Do the services need to be lawful before either of these offences
can be committed?
As to Chiara, could plying her with drink (i.e. buying her doubles when
she asked for singles), constitute offences contrary to ss.23 and/or 24
of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861? (See Chapter 10.5 of the
subject guide and listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the
VLE.) Alcohol is not a recognised poison so was it administered (or
caused to be administered) in sufficient quantities to render it
harmful?
Might Randolph have committed the offence of rape when he had
sexual intercourse with Chiara? What are the ingredients of this
offence? (See Chapter 11.3 of the subject guide and listen to the
accompanying audio presentation on the VLE.) Pay particular attention
to the issue of consent, discussed in Chapter 11.8. There are three
more sexual offences on the University of London Criminal law
syllabus. Are any/all of them relevant here? See Chapter 11.4, 11.5
and 11.6 of the subject guide. They are also referred to in the sexual
offences audio presentation on the VLE.
Finally, you should have considered Randolph’s possible criminal
liability for manslaughter. There was no indication in the question that
it was his purpose to kill Chiara or to cause her grievous bodily harm
nor was there any indication that he foresaw death or serious harm as
a virtually certain consequence so there was no need (and, indeed, no
time) to consider murder.
It follows that manslaughter should have been considered in relation to
Chiara’s death. Please read carefully Chapter 7.5 of the subject guide.
You should also listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the
VLE. You should then be able to write a competent answer to this part
of the question.

Question 8
Rita went in to her local library to see if she could find the latest Achilles
Pear murder mystery novel. She intended to steal it if she could. She found
the book she wanted and took it off the bookshelf. She was about to slip it

8
 Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

into her bag when she noticed the librarian watching her and so she put it
back on the shelf and left the library.
On her way home she noticed that there was a valuable camera on the seat
inside Sam’s car which had been left unlocked. As she knew that Sam had a
conviction for distributing child pornography, she took the camera as she
thought he would be using it to take pornographic pictures of children. She
threw it into a dustbin.
When she arrived home, her neighbour, Sally, invited her in for a cup of
coffee. While she was there, she noticed Sally’s new Rolex watch and asked
Sally if she could borrow it to wear to an appointment she had later on that
day as she wanted to impress the person she was meeting. Sally refused as
she was worried that Rita might lose it. When Sally was not looking, Rita
took the watch intending to return it that evening after her appointment.
Her appointment ended earlier than she expected, however, and on the way
home she noticed that the pawnshop was still open. As she was short of
money, she decided to pawn the watch and redeem it the following day
when she received her wages. She would return it to Sally when she had
redeemed it.
Discuss Rita’s possible criminal liability.
Any candidate who had properly studied the law relating to theft and
related offences should have had no difficulty at all in answering this
question.
Although there were some competent answers to this question, there
were a number which demonstrated that candidates had not done the
necessary work and did not know how to structure their answers. You
should not find a problem question such as this at all difficult if you
are familiar with the relevant rules of law. It consisted of three
separate sets of facts, each of which required consideration of a
number of issues. It was, in effect, three mini-problems which should
have made it very easy to deal with.
So far as the incident in the library was concerned, you should have
considered burglary and theft. The most common mistake in relation to
burglary was that most candidates did not even mention it – even
those who considered burglary in their answers to Question 2 above!
Please read the first two sentences of the question and, if you cannot
see why a discussion of burglary might be relevant here, go to Chapter
17.2 of the subject guide and read it carefully and listen to the relevant
audio presentation on the VLE. Might Rita have been guilty of burglary
contrary to s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 when she entered the
library?
Another very common mistake was to come to the conclusion that she
could not possibly be guilty of theft as she did not leave the library
with the book. Again, if you cannot see why she might be guilty of
theft, read Chapter 16 of the subject guide. Also consider whether, if
she could be found guilty of theft, she could also be found guilty of
burglary contrary to s.9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.
The second set of facts (where she took the camera from the car) was
based on Activity 16.10 (c) on page 249 of the subject guide. Most
candidates had obviously not completed that activity. If you have not
done so, do so now. To check your work or, in case you have problems,
feedback is provided to all activities in the subject guide. Section 12 of
the Theft Act 1968 should not have been referred to here (even had it

9
265 0010 Criminal law Zone B

been relevant, which it was not) as it is not part of the University of

London Criminal law syllabus.
Regarding the Rolex watch incident, many candidates (not having
considered burglary in relation to the library incident) incorrectly
identified burglary as a possible offence here. Rita was invited into
Sally’s house. There was no indication in the question that she had a
burglarious intent at the time of entry nor was there any indication
that she went into any part of the house to which she had not been
invited. At no time was she a trespasser. When might she have become
guilty of the theft of the watch? At what point might she have formed
an intention to permanently deprive? See Chapter 16.1.2 of the subject
guide and don’t forget to listen to the theft audio presentation on the
VLE, which will help you to identify and analyse the issues in this
question.

10