FACULTY OF LAWS
Title & Code of Course Unit
LAWS1012: Criminal Law
Course Unit
1.0
Year
2013/14
Course Convenor
J Rogers + I Dennis
Number Enrolled on Course
178
Average Mark Gained
54.6
Standard Deviation
8.8
Minimum Mark
30
Maximum Mark
73
Median
57.0
Module Statistics
Number of
Students
Marks
Percentage
Number
80-100
0.0 %
0
70-79
3.9 %
7
60-69
24.2 %
43
50-59
47.2 %
84
40-49
15.2 %
27
35-39
2.2 %
4
30-34
3.9 %
7
20-29
0.0 %
0
0-19
0.0 %
0
Absent
0.0 %
0
Irregular
0.0 %
0
Not Completed
3.4 %
6
Withheld
0.0 %
0
Module Unit Report Form
A Course Organizer’s Report (quality of student work, pace and content, appropriateness of teaching methods and effects of any action(s)
taken to resolve past problems)
Unfortunately the exam results in criminal law this year (2013/4) were down on previous years. But it was not
obvious during the teaching year that this would be the case. Student performance in tutorials remained
satisfactory as was the standard of written coursework.
The one difference from previous years was that we had permitted students to write their midsessional papers at
home in early January, and the various tutors all agreed that very few students had seemingly tried to replicate
true exam conditions, as we had advised them to do. It might be suggested that this adversely affected
performances in the exam in May. However, we tend not to attach much significance to this because:
a) There was still a traditional midsessional exam in Contract
b) We were struck by how few students approached us with revision questions or extra sample work from
past papers before the May exam, again relative to previous years; we were surprised also at how few
approached us for feedback from the exam afterwards, especially from those who had failed and needed
to resit
c) Although recorded tutorial attendance remained good, it was evident that a relatively high number of
students had absented themselves from lectures from quite an early stage, even though lectures were not
yet available on lecturecast
Considering that we would lose a valuable lecture slot if we were to ask the midsessional exam to be taken
under supervised conditions, we have therefore decided, albeit with some regret, to allow students to take
the paper at home again next year.
Our general impression on reading the exam scripts was that many candidates had very poor writing
technique, and/or underestimate the complexity of the subject and the amount of independent work required.
We prepared an extensive feedback document from the exam in May 2014 which we have made available to
anyone who has asked to see it (or for any other form of feedback), and in addition to consideration of each
question, we identified the following general failings:
a) Many candidates seem not to have grasped that the lawyer is only as powerful as his or her sources. No
one gets much, if any, credit for just stating the law if there are no cases or statutory references cited in support.
Even citing the lecturer is insufficient!
b) Many candidates were afraid to apply the law to the facts. It is true that in many cases, the final answer
will be for the jury, but possible arguments and inferences from the given facts can and should be outlined.
c) Some candidates had either not been working hard enough during the course or (just as likely) had not
been working efficiently. So, even if they had learnt the main cases, they had only remembered the facts and
outcome, and so were unable to be accurate in citing its ratio so that it might still be used in another factual
context.
d) Many candidates seemed to lack clarity in their writing. We suspect that many are unaware of quite how
inaccurate or vague they tend to be. Frequently we saw references to “risks of” or “intent to cause” unspecified
consequences, or consideration of unspecified crimes, including statements that “F was guilty of recklessness”.
Other recurrent technical deficiencies included vague assertions that a case would be “used” to find someone
guilty, or a jury would “charge” someone with an offence, or a defendant might be “convicted” of murder but
have a defence, and so on; or a court might be said to have held “it doesn’t really matter if …”. A further bad
habit was that of writing in the second person, as though one were talking casually to another in class “you can
only be guilty of murder if you intend death or serious bodily harm …”
It should be understood that for most students, clear articulation comes with practice and so regular attempts at
writing full answers (not just bullet point answers) to past exam questions should be a significant part of the
exam preparation. But some candidates, including anyone who is not sure that he or she understands all of the
criticisms above, should also attend a better writing course.
These observations will be circulated to all tutorial staff in 2014/5 and we will be rigorous in reminding students
of them and in reinforcing their importance both in class and in assessing written work.
B Any Learning Resources problems (e.g quality of lecture or tutorial rooms)
The only problem identified by students, and one with which we have some sympathy, was the lateness with
which the criminal lectures, most of which were captured on lecturecast, were made available to students.
Notwithstanding the occasional student request, in fact it was never made clear to us that during the teaching
year, none had been uploaded at all. Better liason with the Undergraduate Office will be required next year, and it
may be necessary for the Undergraduate Office to revise its own timetable for this important task.
C Issues Identified by Students (from questionnaires, staff-student committee etc.) and Action Taken or Planned
The comment on the late availability of lecturecast (above) recurred frequently. The feedback on the lectures
remained complimentary, though not quite as much as in previous years. We have the impression that some
students expected to be spoon fed during lectures; and this is another expectation which we should be careful to
discourage next year. Some students wanted better feedback on written work but a lot of generic written
feedback on assignments and the midsessional was available on moodle, with relatively little evidence that it had
been digested; and in any event none of the staff to whom this comment related will be teaching the course in
2014/5.
D Issues Identified by Visiting Examiners and Action Taken or Planned
We have not seen his report at the time of writing. But we note that he did confirm the failure of the vast majority
of scripts which the internal examiners had thought should fail, and we believe that (having experience of three
previous cohorts) he shared our disappointment with the overall results this year.
E Vice-Dean for Taught Programmes’ Comments and Action Taken or Planned
Use of lecturecast within the Faculty is optional. Module conveners may organize, edit and post lectures of their own
volition. However, the Faculty policy on lecturecast is one that places the emphasis on module conveners to opt out of
allowing recordings if they so wish, the default position therefore being that lectures will be recorded unless the convener
communicates otherwise – all other Faculties at UCL require conveners to opt in, the default position being that the
lectures will not be captured.
As a consequence of the Faculty’s opt out policy, there are two methods by which lecturecast recordings may be released.
The first is that the module convener takes control of the process and can edit and release recordings as they please.
The other is that the module convener simply does not opt out of the process and the undergraduate office manages the
system. Criminal law falls into the latter category. In such cases a pragmatic view has been taken that it is not
appropriate to expect the undergraduate office to be editing and posting recordings on a weekly basis. They therefore
release recordings in batches. In 2013-14 the policy of release was that one batch of recordings would be released at the
end of teaching in term 2. In 2014-15 one batch will be released at the end of term 1 and another at the end of term 2. If
module conveners wish to make recordings available at other points in the year (perhaps on a weekly basis) then they are
free to administer the process themselves. In all modules that release recordings on a weekly basis this is what is done.
The release of recordings is therefore firmly within the hands of the module convener should they wish to be involved in
the process.