Criminal Exam 2017 B

THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

LA1010

ZB

DIPLOMA IN LAW/CertHE COMMON LAW LLB DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Criminal law

Friday 5 May 2017: 10.00 – 10.00 – 13.15  13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES  in which to answer the questions. Candidates must answer answer all parts of a question question unless otherwise stated. PART TWO of

the examination consists of both problem and essay questions and is worth 75% of the marks. Candidates must answer THREE from the SIX questions in PART TWO.

Permitted materials

Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following specified document: one copy of Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law (OUP). © University of London 2017 UL17/0545 Page 1 of 3

PART TWO

1.

Mustaq and Somaya are colleagues who work at an art gallery. One day a valuable painting goes missing and Mustaq accuses Somaya of stealing it. This is untrue. Somaya is outraged and picks up a bronze sculpture and hurls it at Mustaq. In attempting to avoid being struck by the sculpture, Mustaq strikes his head on an open door, suffering a fractured skull. Somaya shouts, “You deserved that!”, and storms out of the room. When Mustaq is found an hour later an ambulance is called. He is taken to hospital but is not examined for several hours due to the hospital receptionist forgetting to log his arrival. By the time the doctor arrives Mustaq has died. If he had been examined on arrival he would have survived. Discuss the criminal liability of Somaya. How, if at all, would your answer differ if Mustaq’s accusation was true?

2.

(a)

John went to stay with his friend Luke. One evening Luke cooked a special dish of mussels and prawns for John. Later that evening John began to vomit due to an allergic reaction to the mussels. Luke put John to bed hoping that a good sleep would aid his recovery. When Luke tried to wake John the next morning John was in a coma. Luke did not realise this and so did not call the ambulance. When, a few hours later, Luke finally realised that something was seriously wrong with John he called for an ambulance. John died on the way to hospital. Consider Luke’s possible criminal liability for gross negligence manslaughter.

(b)

Imran and Ed, who were both in love with the same woman, had an argument. In the course of the argument Ed pushed Imran hard. Imran responded by pushing Ed equally hard. Ed fell over, cutting his arm badly. Imran tried to stop the bleeding with a handkerchief but was unable to do so because Ed was a haemophiliac which meant that his blood would not clot. Imran took Ed to the hospital but got stuck in traffic. By the time he had arrived at hospital Ed had died of blood loss. Consider Imran’s possible liability for constructive manslaughter.

UL17/0545 Page 2 of 3

3.

To what extent have the statutory definition of consent in section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2007 and the presumptions contained in sections 75 and 76 eased the burden of prosecution and the vulnerability of rape victims to intrusive court procedures?

4.

EITHER

(a)

Compare and contrast automatism, insanity and diminished responsibility.

OR

(b)

Compare and contrast intention, recklessness and negligence.

5.

Discuss critically the changes made to the law of joint enterprise by R v Jogee (2016).

6.

(a)

Explain and discuss the meaning of ‘intention to permanently deprive’ for the purpose of the law of theft.

(b)

Henrik and Sergio are golfing rivals. Sergio has never won a major championship. Henrik wins them all the time. On the eve of the Open Championship, Sergio removes Henrik’s putter  (a type of golf club) from Henrik’s bag and hides it. He knows that Henrik will find it difficult to win using a new putter. He is right. Henrik is forced to buy a new putter when he discovers his loss and putts badly throughout the tournament. He comes second and Sergio wins. Sergio then returns the putter as he had always intended. Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL17/0545 Page 3 of 3