THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
LA1031
ZB
DIPLOMA IN LAW/CertHE COMMON LAW
LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW
Legal system and method
Monday 14 May 2018: 10.00 – 13.15
Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to
answer the questions.
Candidates must answer the COMPULSORY question in PART A, TWO from
the SIX questions in PART B and the COMPULSORY question in PART C.
Answer Questions 2 to 4 by writing the letter you think is the correct answer on
the answer booklet.
NOTE: Candidates may detach the sections of the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 from pages 6 to 10 of this question paper for ease of reference in
answering Question 11.
Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.
Permitted materials
None.
© University of London 2018
UL18/0354
Page 1 of 10
PART A
Candidates must answer this COMPULSORY question about the seen case
Walker v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897.
1.
2.
(a)
What charge was brought against the defendant and why was he
acquitted of this charge at his trial?
[4 marks]
(b)
What are the grounds on which the defendant appealed?
[3 marks]
(c)
Explain how Sir Bernard Rix applies the decision in Collins v
Wilcock to the appeal.
[11marks]
(d)
What measure of damages was the defendant awarded at first
instance and what does Tomlinson LJ say about this award?
[2 marks]
The defendant was charged with (choose ONE):
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
3.
Which ONE of the following claims did NOT come before the Court of
Appeal?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4.
Affray and battery of a police officer.
Affray and insulting a police officer.
Assault of a police officer in the execution of his duty.
Detaining a police officer in the execution of his duty.
Malicious prosecution.
False imprisonment.
Assault.
Battery.
Tomlinson LJ intimates that appeal is a borderline case and might have
been decided differently. Which ONE of the following statements best
describes his reasons for this?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
It might have been argued that PC Adams's words “Calm down
mate or you will end up getting arrested” meant that PC Adams
reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace.
It might have been argued that PC Adams’s words “Calm down
mate or you will end up getting arrested” meant that PC Adams
reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace in terms of an
assault on himself.
It might have been argued that PC Adams’s words “Calm down
mate or you will end up getting arrested” antagonised the
defendant.
It might have been argued that PC Adams’s words “Calm down
mate or you will end up getting arrested” meant that PC Adams
reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace in terms of a
repetition of the blow to Ms Lecky (the defendant’s girlfriend).
UL18/0354
Page 2 of 10
PART B
Candidates must answer TWO questions in this section.
5.
Describe the terms obiter dicta and ratio decidendi and discuss why the
ratio of a case is said to be vital to the operation of the doctrine of binding
precedent.
6.
Discuss the impact that the Human Rights Act 1998 has had on how
judges approach statutory interpretation.
7.
Explain why diversity among the judiciary is said to contribute to its
legitimacy and discuss the extent to which the judiciary in England and
Wales can rightly be described as ‘diverse’.
8.
Briefly describe the civil justice system and discuss the reasons for the
increased use of alternative dispute resolution in civil cases in England
and Wales.
9.
Briefly describe the criminal justice system and discuss how the Crown
Prosecution Service assess the public interest.
10.
Describe how juries are used in the English legal system and discuss
why juries are sometimes described as ‘unfair’.
UL18/0354
Page 3 of 10
PART C
Candidates must answer this COMPULSORY question.
11.
Dr Aaron and Dr Bahia, a married couple, both work as surgeons at
Epsilon hospital. Bahia had an affair with another doctor at the hospital
and when Aaron discovered this he moved out of the marital home.
Bahia asked Aaron to meet her for coffee to discuss how they might
“patch things up and get back together again”. When they met, while
Aaron was ordering coffee, Bahia removed the case from Aaron’s mobile
phone and attached a tracking device to the back of the phone and then
replaced the case. The meeting ended badly with Aaron saying he
wanted a divorce.
The next day Bahia wrote to the General Medical Council falsely
reporting that Aaron was frequently drunk when carrying out surgery and
that he was violent towards her and unfit to be a medical doctor. Bahia
also posted copies of the letter on noticeboards in Epsilon hospital. Over
the following weeks Aaron has noticed that Bahia is somehow always in
the same coffee shops and restaurants as him. Six days ago Aaron
dropped his mobile phone and the case fell off and when he was
replacing the case he noticed the tracking device. Aaron reported this to
the police.
(a)
Explain Bahia’s possible criminal liability for harassment.
[11 marks]
(b)
Explain Bahia’s possible criminal liability for stalking.
[9 marks]
(c)
Explain to the police officer investigating Aaron’s report, PC
Chokri, how he might go about seizing Bahia’s computer from her
home. PC Chokri believes that the computer contains evidence
that will prove that she was tracking Aaron.
[5 marks]
END OF PAPER
UL18/0354
Page 4 of 10
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
UL18/0354
Page 5 of 10
nl
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
Protection from Harassment Act
1997
CHAPTER40
An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
[21st March 1997]
B
E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
1
Prohibition of harassment
(1)
A person must not pursue a course of conduct(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the
other.
(lA) A person must not pursue a course of conduct(a) which involves harassment of two or more ·persons, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those
persons, and
(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of
those mentioned above)(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.
(2)
For the purposes of this section or section 2A(2)(c), the person whose course of
conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment
of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would
think the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment of the other.
(3)
Subsection (1) or (lA) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who
pursued it shows(a) .that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply
with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any
enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct
was reasonable.
Page 6 of 10
n2
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
2
Offence of harassment
(1)
A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1) or (1A) is
guilty of an offence.
(2)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
2A
Offence of stalking
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if (a) the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and
(b) the course of conduct amounts to stalking.
(2)
For the purposes of subsection (l)(b) (and section 4A(l)(a)) a person's course of
conduct amounts to stalking of another person if (a) it amounts to harassment of that person,
(b) the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and
(c) the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that
the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.
(3)
The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular
circumstances, are ones associated with stalking(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii) purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form
of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding
level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
Page 7 of 10
n3
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
2B
Power of entry in relation to offence of stalking
(1)
A justice of the peace may, on an application by a constable, issue a warrant
authorising a constable to enter and search premises if the justice of the peace
is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that(a) an offence under section 2A has been, or is being, committed,
(b) there is material on the premises which is likely to be of substantial
value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the
investigation of the offence,
(c) the material(i) is likely to be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence,
and
(ii) does not consist of, or include, items subject to legal privilege
... and
(d) either(i) entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is
produced, or
(ii) the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously
prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can
secure immediate entry to them.
(2)
A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised
under subsection (1).
(3)
A constable may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power
conferred by virtue of this section.
3
Civil remedy
(1)
An actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) may be the subject of a claim in
civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of
conduct in question.
·
(2)
On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any
anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the
harassment.
(3)
Where(a) in such proceedings the High Court or the county court grants an
injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing
any conduct which amounts to harassment, and
(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is
prohibited from doing by the injunction, the plaintiff may apply for the
issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
Page 8 of 10
n4
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
(4)
An application under subsection (3) may be made(a) where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that
court, and
(b) where the injunction was granted by the county court, to a judge of that
court.
(5)
The judge to whom an application under subsection (3) is made may only issue
a warrant if(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and
(b) the judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has
done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.
(6)
Where(a) the High Court or the county court grants an injunction for the
purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and
(b) without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is
prohibited from doing by the injunction, he is guilty of an offence.
(9)
A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.
3A
Injunctions to protect persons from harassment within section 1(1A)
(1)
This section applies where there is an actual or apprehended breach of section
l(lA) by any person ("the relevant person").
(2)
In such a case(a) any person who is or may be a victim of the course of conduct in
question, or
(b) any person who is or may be a person falling within section l(lA)(c),
may apply to the High Court or the county court for an injunction
restraining the relevant person from pursuing any conduct which
amounts to harassment in relation to any person or persons
mentioned or described in the injunction.
(3)
Section 3(3) to (9) apply in relation to an injunction granted under subsection
(2) above as they apply in relation to an injunction granted as mentioned in
section 3(3)(a).
Page 9 of 10
n5
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
7
Interpretation of this group of sections
(1)
This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to SA.
(2)
References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the
person distress.
·
(3)
A "course of conduct" must involve(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)),
conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or
(b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section
l(lA)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those
persons.
(3A) A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled
or procured by another(a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the
person whose conduct it is); and
(b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose,
and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were ·in
relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the
time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.
(4)
"Conduct" includes speech.
(5)
References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are
references to a person who is an individual.
© Crown copyright 1997
Page 10 of 10