The document discusses several potential exam questions on various aspects of criminal law. It covers topics such as actus reus and omissions, mens rea and strict liability, attempts, murder, manslaughter, insanity, automatism, duress, intoxication, theft offenses, and offenses against the person. The questions presented would require students to analyze, apply, and evaluate legal principles related to these areas of criminal law.

1. Possible Questions for A2 Law<br />Actus Reus <br />“In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general principle. Access the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability. (OCR, June 2005)<br />“Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do ‘the right thing’ in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or fail to help someone who is in need”. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this view. (Jan 2008)<br />“English law does not normally impose liability for a failure to act despite the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. For example, the courts have often explained that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child”. Consider whether the current legal principles governing omissions are satisfactory. (Jan 2009)<br />Mens Rea <br />“Mens rea requires fault on the part of the Defendant. The current law on intention and recklessness is unjust and uncertain.” Critically evaluate the accuracy of this statement (Jan 2010)<br />Strict Liability <br />“Strict liability offences are necessary in a modern society. They promote high standards of behaviour, protect the public and guard against dangerous activities. In these circumstances, it is fair that the prosecution do not have the difficult task of proving mens rea (a guilty mind)”. Discuss the validity of this statement using relevant cases to illustrate your answer. (Jan 2006). <br />“Strict liability offences contribute to a safer, cleaner and more efficient society and can be justified on these grounds alone”. Consider the extent to which you agree with this statement using relevant examples to illustrate your answer. (June 2007)<br />“Strict liability offences are an exception to the general rule that the prosecution has the burden of proving that a person accused of a crime possesses the relevant guilty mind”. Discuss, in light of the above statement, whether you agree that the creation of strict liability offences can ever be justified. (Specimen Q – new Spec)<br />“Strict liability offences promote high standards of behaviour, protect the public and guard against dangerous activities. They are not only necessary but perfectly justifiable in a complex modern society”. Consider the validity of the statement using relevant cases to illustrate your answer. (June 2008)<br />Attempts <br />“Criminal intentions do not always produce a completed substantive offence. Nevertheless, it is both just and essential for the protection of society that those who intend to carry out criminal acts are subject to prosecution in the same way as those who actually succeed in committing crimes”. Consider whether you agree with this statement using examples from the current law on attempts. (June 2005)<br />“A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails, still deserves to be punished just as much as a person who succeeds in committing an offence”. Consider whether you agree with this view of attempts. (June 2007)<br />Consider whether the current law relating to attempted crimes strikes the right balance between protecting society and convicting only those who deserve to be punished. (Specimen Q – new spec). <br />Murder <br />“Murder is widely recognised as the most serious offence that a person can commit. However the law governing the offence of murder is often difficult for an ordinary juror to understand”. Discuss in light of the above statement, whether the common law governing the offence of murder or is in need of reform by Parliament. (June 2006). <br />Discuss whether the common law governing the offence of murder is satisfactory or is in need of reform by Parliament. (Do not consider causation issues in answering this question) (June 2008). <br />Involuntary Manslaughter <br />Voluntary Manslaughter <br />“Judicial decisions during the last fifteen years about provocation as a special and partial defence to murder suggest that provocation has become too wide in its application and is in need of reform”. Critically consider whether there is any justification for this statement. (June 2006). <br />“Despite calls for reform, the law relating to provocation as a special and partial defence to murdcer remains muddled and occasionally unjust”. Consider the truth of the above statement. (Jan 2009)<br />Insanity <br />Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory condition. (Specimen Q – new spec). <br />“The law relating to the defence of insanity is outdated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the interests of both justice and common sense.” Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. (June 2008).<br />Automatism <br />“Insane and non-insane automatism are similar defences involving mental abnormality. It is vital that the distinction between them is fully understood since they produce very different consequences for a Defendant who relies on one or other of them”. Critically evaluate the truth of the above statement. (Jan 2006). <br />“Despite the development of the defence of automatism, a mentally disordered defendant is not always dealt with justly under English Law”. Consider the extent to which you agree with the above statement. (June 2007)<br />Duress <br />Discuss the extent to which a person who commits an offence because they have been forced to do so against their will, may have a defence of either duress or necessity (June 2006). <br />“Duress by threats is an important defence. It makes concessions to human fraility but it must not become an excuse for criminals, gang leaders and terrorists”. Discuss whether the limitations which the courts have placed on the availability of the defence of duress by threats support the above statement. (June 2007)<br />Intoxication <br />“The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justice for an individual defendant and the demands of public policy”. Assess the accuracy of this statement. (June 2005). <br />“The defence of intoxication reflects the difficult balance between legal principle and public policy”. Critically evaluate the accuracy of this statement. (Jan 2010)<br />Theft related offences<br />“The offence of burglary has been defined by Parliament. However, it has been left to decisions of the courts to clarify most of the key ingredients of the offence”. Evaluate the above statement. (Jan 2008)<br />“The current definition of appropriation does not give effect to Parliament’s original intention in the Theft Act 1968”. Discuss the extent to which this statement is true. <br />Offences Against the Person<br />“The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. Factors such as mistake and intoxication may also be relevant”. Critically consider the truth of the above statement. (Jan 2006) <br />“The law on consent as a defence has been decided according to considerations of public policy rather than being developed in a reasoned and logical way”. Critically evaluate the truth of this statement. (June 2006)<br />“The law on consent as a defence to offences against the person recognises that the causing of deliberate harm may sometimes be justified”. Consider the truth of this statement. (Jan 2008)<br />Discuss the argument that the justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. (Jan 2009)<br />