Distance Learning Module Planner
Criminal Law 1
Course Code: MP–LD2002
Module Leader: Margaret Walsh
© University of Wolverhampton 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without either the written permission of the copyright holder, application for
which should be made to the University of Wolverhampton, or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Any person who infringes
the above in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for
damages.
Contents
How to Use Your Module Planner
5
Topics Covered by Module
7
Skills to be Developed and Examined
8
Examinations
9
A Brief Guide to Study Skills
10
Introduction to Study Units
13
Reading List
14
Study Unit 1: Actus Reus and Mens Rea
16
Study Unit 2: Homicide (I): Murder – Causation and Mens Rea
S
tudy Unit 3: Homicide (II): Murder-specific Defences: Provocation
and Diminished Responsibility (Voluntary Manslaughter)
19
Study Unit 4: Homicide (III): Involuntary Manslaughter – Gross
Negligence and Constructive Manslaughter; Proposals for Reform
22
25
Study Unit 5: General Defences: Where the Mental Element is Affected 28
Study Unit 6: Review of Homicide: Problem-solving Exercises
31
Study Unit 7: Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
32
Study Unit 8: General Defences: Compulsion
36
Study Unit 9: Inchoate Offences
39
Study Unit 10: Review: Problem-solving Exercises
42
Learning Project
44
Practice Question and Suggested Answer
49
Revision
55
Taking the Examination
59
Module Questionnaire
61
How to Use Your Module Planner
The Module Planner is vital to your studies. It divides the work in each area into Units, and shows
you the minimum number of hours you should spend on each Unit, at the top right hand corner of
the first page of each Study Unit, in order to understand the law involved. You should plan on devoting a minimum of 150 hours to each module you study.
The section headed ‘Essential Reading’ contained in the Reading List and each Study Unit refers
you to the materials with which you are provided: the Textbook, 150 Leading Cases and Statute
Book. The materials listed in the Essential Reading are sufficient to enable you to complete the
course very effectively.
The section headed ‘General Reading’ lists other books which, if you wish, you can read to give
you other approaches to the law. These books are not provided but you should be able to purchase them from Hammicks Legal Bookshop, whose address, telephone number and website details are provided in the General Reading section of the Reading List. They are not essential for
you to be successful on the course, but they may help to give you a different viewpoint of the law
involved in this module.
The Module Planner guides you through the course. Work through it logically, and in order, and
make sure you understand one Unit before you move on to the next. At the end of each Unit you
will find a set of Self-Study Questions. Test yourself on these and make sure you understand them
before you move onto the next Unit.
At the end of the Study Units you will find the Learning Project. A compulsory question will be set
in the examination in Section A of your paper on all or parts of the material covered by the Learning Project, and this will count for 50 per cent of your overall grade, so it is essential that you ensure you study and understand all aspects covered by it. The Study Units which relate to the
Learning Project have been indicated to guide you through this material while you study.
The Module Planner is your guide to the topic of English law that it covers. Have it with you as you
study and you will make the most of this opportunity to obtain the best law degree of which you
are capable.
With this Module Planner you should have the following materials:
Criminal Law Textbook
Molan (4th edition 2006) Old Bailey Press
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases
Molan, M. Cases & Materials on Criminal Law, 4th edition (2007), Cavendish
Cracknell (6th edition 2007) Old Bailey Press
Criminal Law Revision WorkBook
(3rd edition 2002) Old Bailey Press
If you do not receive this set of materials, please contact:
Distance Learning Department
Holborn College
Woolwich Road
Charlton
London
SE7 8LN
Tel: +44 (0) 208 317 6000
Fax: +44 (0) 208 317 6003
E-mail: dl@holborncollege.ac.uk
Topics Covered by Module
This module covers the following topics within English law.
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Homicide (I): Murder – Causation and Mens Rea
Homicide (II): Murder-specific Defences: Provocation and Diminished
Responsibility (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Homicide (III): Involuntary Manslaughter – Gross Negligence and
Constructive Manslaughter; Proposals for Reform
General Defences: Where the Mental Element is Affected
Review of Homicide: Problem-solving Exercises
Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
General Defences: Compulsion
Inchoate Offences
Review: Problem-solving Exercises
Skills to be Developed and Examined
To be successful in the end of module examination you need to show that you understand and
can apply the area(s) of law you have been studying. You must be able to demonstrate this to the
examiners by writing answers which communicate the points you wish to make accurately and in
good English. This is a key part of demonstrating that you have understood the points of law, the
cases and the Acts of Parliament that you have studied.
Before you start to write your answer, identify the issues that are relevant to the question. These
must be clearly stated in your short introductory paragraph(s). When referring to case law and
statute law, you then need to explain the relevant legal principles in the context of the issues you
identified in your introductory paragraph(s). Finally, you need to write a concluding paragraph
which brings your points together. Do not write everything you know about an area, or write
answers that take the form of a series of notes. Your answer should be structured in the way described above and be written in good English.
For further guidance on how you will be graded please consult your Award Guide which contains
an explanation of the criteria used to grade your work.
It is important that you practice answering questions and in particular take the opportunity to submit a sample question for marking and feedback. This question is contained in the Practice Question section of the Module Planner.
Examinations
This module is assessed by one, two hour, unseen written examination. Examinations take place
in September, January, and May of each year. The examination is in two parts: Part A is a compulsory question and counts for 50 per cent of the total grade, Part B has four questions of which
you will be required to answer two only. Each of the questions in Part B is worth 25 per cent of the
total grade.
The compulsory question in Part A is based on those topics which make up the Learning Project.
You will find details of the Learning Project and the topic area covered by it at the end of the Study
Units in this Module Planner. You should read this section carefully to identify those areas of the
module covered by the Learning Project.
You will, therefore, know in advance of the examination that there will be a substantial question on
the topics covered by the Learning Project. When you write the examination you should make sure
that you devote 50 per cent of the time to the question in Part A. Your answer to this question
should normally be about twice as long as your answer to the two questions in Part B.
The purpose of the Learning Project is to allow you to study a significant part of the syllabus in
depth in the sure knowledge that you will be examined on it. In this way, hard-working students
who have studied their materials thoroughly will be able to write an in-depth answer and have full
credit for the work they have done reflected in the grade awarded.
There is no assessed coursework for this module. The total grade for the module is based upon
the unseen written examination. Although you should make sure that you cover the whole syllabus, it is particularly important that you study those syllabus topics which are covered by the
Learning Project thoroughly so that you can write a complete answer to the compulsory question
in Part A and take advantage of the fact that this question is worth 50 per cent of the grade.
The examination is a two-hour examination with an additional 15 minutes reading time. It is an unseen examination. You will, however, be able to take into the examination an unmarked copy of
your 150 Leading Cases, Statute Book and Law Update (this means that you should not write on
these materials; you are only allowed to underline or highlight part of the text). As stated above,
you will also know what topics will be covered by the compulsory question in Part A of the
examination, provided you have studied the details of the Learning Project at page 44 of this Planner.
A Brief Guide to Study Skills
As a distance learning student you will undoubtedly have other demands on your time. It is, therefore, important that you use your time effectively. The following tips are intended to help you do
so.
Time Management
Be realistic.
Work out what time you have available for study; take out time for sleeping, eating, recreation, etc.
Try to plan ahead – do not leave everything to the last minute.
Prioritise – do not do the easiest task first, but the one that really needs to be done first.
Set objectives which are reasonable, and make sure that they are somewhere you see
them.
Break large tasks into manageable sub-tasks and set target dates against each sub-task.
Keep a wall planner chart.
Try doing the most difficult things when you feel at your best.
Remember the unexpected always happens, so be flexible – don’t get angry when plans
have to change.
Effective Reading
Reading
Read with purpose (what questions have to be answered?).
Read selectively – scan and skim – only read in detail what you need to.
Mentally recite what you have just read.
Make notes at appropriate points – bullet points, do not rewrite the whole book.
Review
Did I answer the questions I wanted to?
Do I understand and remember what I read?
Studying
Where?
Choose somewhere that is conducive to study. You need: a large table or desk; a suitable
chair; a bookcase; adequate, suitable lighting; adequate ventilation; reasonable temperature – too cold,
you can’t concentrate – too warm, you will go to sleep.
Banish distractions – magazines, radio, telephone, TV.
Decide where you study best, and try to keep to it.
When?
When you are alert.
Not when you are too tired.
When it is the best time of day for you – some people work better at night, others early in
the morning.
How?
Try studying for 50 minutes, break for 10 minutes, etc.
Have all you need available – pens, pencils, dictionary, PC, etc.
Avoid too much physical relaxation or you will go to sleep!
Actively study – make notes, etc. It is difficult to just read for too
long; it makes you sleepy and you lose concentration.
Remember to have breaks and do have time for relaxation.
Set yourself targets, and give yourself rewards!
Practice Questions
At the end of each unit you will find Sample Questions, and at the end of the Planner is a Practice
Question and Suggested Answer. strongly advised to submit at least one answer to either a Sample Question or the Practice Question for marking. Unless you do so you will not gain any insight
into your strengths and weaknesses.
Introduction to Study Units
The Study Units deal with the individual topics covered by the module. The module is broken
down into Study Units to enable you to look at each area of law in digestible parts. You must work
through each Study Unit in order, ensuring that you understand the material covered by each Unit
before progressing on to the next one.
Each Study Unit is broken down into four major sections.
Reading List
This indicates what reading you must do (Essential Reading) in order to cover all of the material
set in the Unit. All material listed in the Essential Reading is provided as part of your study materials. You can, if you wish, further your knowledge and understanding by completing the General
Reading in each Unit. These materials are not essential for you to complete the course, but you
may find them useful in your study. Such materials are not supplied, and you are responsible for
obtaining copies of the titles listed in the General Reading. Details are given in the Reading List of
suppliers.
Case Law and Statutes
This section directs you to those cases and statutes that you will need to read and understand in
order to complete the Unit. All materials listed here can be found in your Textbook or 150 Leading
Cases.
Self-Study Questions
These are questions designed to set the parameters of the Study Unit and to test your application
of the basic principles.
Sample Questions
These may be essay or problem questions, often taken from past examination papers. You should
attempt your own answers to all of these questions.
Reading List
These are the titles that you will use throughout the course. They are referred to in the reading
section of each Study Unit, to guide you in your learning.
Essential Reading
All materials listed here must be read in order for you to understand the module. These books are
supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook
Molan (4th edition 2006) Old Bailey Press
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases
Molan (4th edition 2007) Old Bailey Press
Criminal Law Statute Book
Cracknell (6th edition 2007) Old Bailey Press
General Reading
These materials are not supplied, and are not essential to pass the module. You may, however,
wish to refer to them to deepen your understanding of the topics covered by the course. You are
responsible for obtaining your own copies of these titles. If you choose to do so, you should be
able to purchase them by contacting Hammicks Legal Bookshops at 192 Fleet Street, London
EC4A 2NJ; tel: +44 (0)20-7405- 5711 or you can order online at www.hammickslegal.co.uk.
Ormerod, D, “Smith & Hogan Criminal Law” (2005), 11th edition, Oxford
Ormerod, D, “Smith & Hogan Criminal Law Cases & Materials” (2006), 9th edition, Oxford.
Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, 5th edition (2006), Oxford
Criminal Law Jefferson (8th edition 2007) Addison Wesley Longman
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Elliott and Wood (9th edition 2006) Sweet & Maxwell
In addition, in each Study Unit you will find a list of cases which should be consulted. Summaries
of these can be found in the 150 Leading Cases; cases marked with an * are referred to in the
Textbook. If you have access to the Internet you may wish to take advantage of the legal materials
available via this source. See your Award Guide for details.
For those students who have never studied the law, certain terminology used may be difficult to
understand at first. As you progress through the course, you will learn a range of new words and
phrases that are frequently used in the study of law. If you encounter any difficulties with the terminology used, however, you will find it useful to refer to a legal dictionary, which will explain the
meaning of legal words and phrases in plain English. Mozley and Whitley’s Law Dictionary (12th
edition 2001) by Butterworths is very helpful, and can be purchased through Hammicks Legal
Bookshops.
Study Unit 1 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Introduction
Crimes, by their nature, have ‘elements’: factors that must be proved before guilt can be established. In this Unit, we examine the two main elements of a crime; the actus reus (or the guilty act)
and the mens rea (the guilty mind). It is important at this stage that you understand, and can identify, the actus reus and mens rea of a particular crime, and that you appreciate how the two must
coincide before guilt can be established.
Objectives
a To examine the technical requirements of a crime.
b To examine types of actus reus.
c To differentiate between the various degrees of mens rea.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Chapters on Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but
you may wish to refer to them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and
Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Case law and statutes
ACTUS REUS
* Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121
R v Cogan and Leak [1975] 3 WLR 316; [1976] QB 217
* R v Deller (1952) 36 Cr App R 184
* R v Instan [1893] 1 QBD 450
* R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
R v Miller [1983] 2 WLR 539; [1983] 1 All ER 978
Matthews [2003] 2 Cr App R 461
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 (DC)
* R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354
Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
MENS REA
Attorney–General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936
B v DPP [2000] 1 All ER 833
Beckford v R [1988] AC 130; [1987] 3 WLR 611; [1987] 3 All ER 425
Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763 (HL)
* Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Shimmen (1987) 84 Cr App R 7
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Caldwell [1982] AC 341;
[1981] 1 All ER 961
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182
Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55; [1974] 2 All ER 41
R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171; [1994] 3 WLR 288 (HL)
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59
R v Coles [1994] Crim LR 820
* R v Crossman [1986] Crim LR 406
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412; [1957] 2 QB 396
R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493; [1983] 2 All ER 1058
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455 (HL)
R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
R v Le Brun [1991] 3 WLR 653; [1991] 4 All ER 673
R v Moloney [1985] 2 WLR 648; [1985] 1 All ER 1025 (HL)
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025; [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119
R v Woollin [1998] 3 WLR 382; [1998] 4 All ER 103 (HL)
Matthews [2003] 2 Cr App R 461
Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228
* W (A Minor) v Dolbey [1983] Crim LR 681
Criminal Attempts Act 1981: s1(1)
Criminal Justice Act 1967: s8
Criminal Law Act 1977: s1(1) (as amended)
Offences Against the Person Act 1861: s18(1)
Theft Act 1968: ss1(1), 3, 9(1)(a) and 22(1)
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 Distinguish between:
a intention;
b recklessness; and
c negligence.
2 What is meant by saying ‘mens rea and actus reus must coincide’?
3 Distinguish between direct and indirect intention. In what circumstances may a jury be directed
to infer intention from a defendant’s conduct?
Sample Questions
1 With reference to decided cases illustrate the concept of mens rea and clearly distinguish between ‘intention’, ‘recklessness’ and ‘gross negligence’.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, January 2001,Question 2.)
2 Discuss the proposition that, since the House of Lords has now had three attempts at defining
intent, Parliament should adopt the proposals set out in the draft Criminal Code.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, May 2001, Question 2.)
Study Unit 2 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Homicide (I): Murder – Actus Reus and Mens Rea
This Unit covers material contained in the Learning Project.
Introduction
English criminal law provides a range of offences that recognise the
sanctity of life by prohibiting the unlawful killing of a human being. In
this Unit, we shall examine the gravest of these crimes, murder, and
consider the required actus reus and mens rea for this offence.
Objectives
a To examine the actus reus of murder.
b To examine the doctrine of causation in relation to murder.
c To consider the mens rea of murder.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and
Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Case law and statutes
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936 (HL)
Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41; [1975] AC 55 (HL)
* R v Armstrong [1989] Crim LR 149
R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446; [1975] 1 WLR 1411
R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670; [1991] 1 WLR 844; (1991) 93 Cr App R 251
Marchant [2004] 1 WLR 442 (CA)
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59; [1965] 2 All ER 72
* R v Coroner for Inner West London, ex parte De Luca [1988] 3 WLR 286
R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566
R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 (CA)
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641; [1986] AC 455 (HL)
R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
R v Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673; [1991] 3 WLR 653
R v Malcherek; R v Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
Gowans [2003] EWCA Crim 3935
R v Moloney [1985] 2 WLR 648; [1985] 1 All ER 1025; [1985] AC 905
R v Nedrick [1986] Crim LR 742; [1986] 1 WLR 1025; [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
* R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664
R v Williams; R v Davies [1992] Crim LR 198; [1992] 1 WLR 380;
[1992] 2 All ER 183 (CA)
R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103 (HL)
Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228
Criminal Justice Act 1967: s8
Homicide Act 1957: s1
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What is the full definition of murder?
2 Explain the doctrine of causation in relation to murder.
3 What is the effect of the ‘thin skull rule’ (see R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER
446)?
4 Does negligent medical treatment break the ‘chain of causation’?
5 What is the effect of the unforeseeable act of a third party on the
‘chain of causation’?
6 What direction should a trial judge give the jury on the meaning of
intention in a murder case?
Sample Question
Susan (Mary’s daughter) was a haemophiliac whose blood would not clot like ordinary persons.
After a row with Mary, Henry, intending to frighten Mary, threw a brick through what he believed to
be Mary’s bedroom. Susan, who was asleep in the room, was cut by flying glass.
She was rushed to hospital for a blood transfusion. Danny, a doctor, gave her the wrong type of
blood and Susan’s body rejected the treatment. She went into a coma and died.
Discuss Henry’s liability for murder.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 3 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Homicide (II): Murder-specific Defences: Provocation and Diminished
Responsibility (Voluntary Manslaughter)
This Unit covers material contained in the Learning Project.
Introduction
In this Unit, we shall examine the various defences available to a defendant who has caused a
victim’s death, and has been proved to have had the requisite mens rea for murder, but, by reason
of the defence being established, can reduce a murder charge to one of voluntary manslaughter.
Objectives
a To examine the limited defences available to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
b Consider the purposes and effects of the defences.
c Outline the criticisms of the defences, particularly provocation and diminished responsibility, and
consider how they may be reformed.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and
Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant Chapter(s)
Case law and statutes
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936 (HL)
DPP v Camplin [1978] 2 All ER 168; [1978] AC 705 (HL)
* Luc Thiet Than v R [1996] 2 All ER 1033; [1997] AC 131 (PC)
* R v Acott [1997] 1 WLR 306; [1997] 1 All ER 706 (HL)
R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
* R v Ali [1989] Crim LR 736
R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
* R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932
* R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470
* R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261
R v Gittens [1984] 3 All ER 252; [1984] QB 698
* R v Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008 (CA)
* R v Inseal [1992] Crim LR 35
* R v McShane (1978) 66 Cr App R 97
* R v Marks [1998] Crim LR 676
R v Morhall [1995] 3 WLR 330; [1995] 3 All ER 659; [1996] 1 AC 90 (HL)
* R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193
* R v Richens [1993] Crim LR 384
* R v Roberts [1986] Crim LR 122
* R v Rossiter [1994] 2 All ER 752 (CA)
R v Sanderson (1994) 98 Cr App R 325
* R v Thornton (No 2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 (CA)
R v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 4 All ER 289
Weller [2004] 1 Cr App R 1 (CA)
Holley v Attorney General for Jersey [2005] 2 AC 580
Mohammed [2005] EWCA Crim 1880
James [2006] 1 AER 759 (CA)
R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr App R 45; [1989] 1 All ER 267
Dietschmann [2003] 1 AC 1209
Homicide Act 1957: s2 (diminished responsibility)
Homicide Act 1957: s3 (provocation)
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What subjective condition has to be satisfied to show provocation?
2 What is the importance of the ‘cooling off’ period between the provocation and the killing?
3 What objective condition needs to be satisfied?
4 Explain the effect of R v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 4 All ER 289 on the objective condition for provocation.
5 May the jury take into account the mental state of the defendant for the purposes of provocation?
6 What is the effect of s2 Homicide Act 1957?
7 How will a jury decide if the abnormality ‘substantially impairs’ the accused’s responsibility for his
acts?
Note: you will need to return to diminished responsibility after you have studied the general defences.
Sample Questions
1 Fred and Harold were arguing about the respective merits of two different types of beer. Fred
preferred ‘real ale’ and he belonged to a group which promoted ‘real ale’. Harold preferred ‘keg
beer’ and he said to Fred: ‘You lot that drink and promote “real ale” are all the same, your obsession with the stuff is just a cover up for your own sexual inadequacy’. Fred, distressed by Harold’s
opposition to ‘real ale’, became enraged when he heard what Harold had said, picked up a
glass mug and smashed Harold over the head with it.
Discuss Fred’s criminal liability if Harold dies from the injuries sustained in the attack.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 Harry was hit on the head by Ian in a boxing match. He appeared to suffer no ill effects from the
blow but later developed a blood clot in the brain. Harry became subject to periods of depression,
tiredness and outbursts of uncontrollable violence. He hit his wife over the head with a spade,
though he had no recollection of the event. Harry was driving his car when he fell asleep at the
wheel and ran down and killed James, who was waiting for a bus. When he arrived home he was
very depressed and drank two large whiskies before falling asleep. When he came round he discovered he had strangled his sister Kate.
What crimes, if any, have been committed?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 4 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Homicide (III): Involuntary Manslaughter – Gross Negligence and Constructive Manslaughter; Proposals for Reform
Introduction
Involuntary manslaughter, unlike murder or voluntary manslaughter, is charged when the defendant causes the death of a victim, but has no requisite mens rea to kill or commit grievous bodily
harm.
Objectives
a To examine the different types of involuntary manslaughter.
b To compare involuntary manslaughter with murder and by so doing revise the various degrees
of mens rea included within the offences, and consider once more the distinction between a subjective approach and an objective approach.
c To consider the recommendations regarding unlawful homicide made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee 14th Report and examine how those recommendations would change the present
law if implemented.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant Chapter(s)
Case law and statutes
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) [2000] 3 All ER 182 (CA)
DPP v Newbury and Jones [1976] AC 500; [1976] 2 All ER 365
Kong Cheuk Kwan v R [1985] Crim LR 78; (1985) 82 Cr App R 18
R v Adomako [1994] 3WLR 288; [1994] 3 All ER 79; [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)
Wacker [2003] QB 1207
Misra [2005] 1 WLR 1
R (on the application of Rowley) v DPP [2003] EWCH 693
* R v Arobieke [1988] Crim LR 314
R v Bateman [1925] All ER Rep 45; (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110; (1976) 62 Cr App R 41
Rogers [2003] 1 WLR 1374
Kennedy (No. 2) [2005] 1 WLR 2159
Dias [2002] 2 Cr App R 96
Andrews [2003] Crim LR 477
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59; [1965] 2 All ER 72
Dhaliwal [2006] EWCA Crim 1139 (CA)
R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150; [1985] Crim LR 383
R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163
R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
* R v Jennings [1990] Crim LR 588
R v Lamb [1967] 2 All ER 1282; [1967] 2 QB 981
* R v Lowe [1973] QB 702
R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 (HL)
Matthews [2003] 2 Cr App R 461
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 (DC)
R v Mitchell [1983] 2 WLR 938; [1983] 2 All ER 427
R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493; [1983] 2 All ER 1058
* R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570
R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354
R v Watson [1989] 2 All ER 865; [1989] 1 WLR 684
Homicide Act 1957
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What is the doctrine of constructive manslaughter?
2 What is meant by an ‘unlawful act’ in this context?
3 Is the test of dangerousness an objective or a subjective test?
4 What is the effect of R v Dawson and R v Watson on the test of dangerousness?
5 What is the mens rea for constructive manslaughter?
6 What test did Lord Mackay set out for gross negligence manslaughter in R v Adomako?
Sample Questions
1 Distinguish between constructive manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. Does the
recklessness type still exist and, if so, what conditions must be met in order for it to apply? What is
the effect of Adomako on Seymour?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 Examine the need for reform of the law relating to involuntary manslaughter, and discuss the
proposals for reform suggested by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Criminal Code Bill,
and the Law Commission.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
3 E’s nephew, F, was a drug addict. F accepted E’s invitation to live with him. F became very ill as
a result of the withdrawal from heroin. E managed to obtain the drug for him and watched as F
injected himself with it. The heroin was contaminated and F went into a coma. E did not know
what to do; he was afraid to call an ambulance in case the police were notified. He hoped that F
would recover, but several hours later F died.
Advise E.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 5 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
General Defences: Where the Mental Element is Affected
This Unit covers material contained in the Learning Project.
Introduction
In this Unit, we shall examine three general defences available; insanity, automatism and intoxication, and consider their application to particular circumstances.
Objectives
a To compare and contrast insanity, automatism and intoxication.
b To consider diabetics, drunks, drug-users, epileptics and sleepwalkers.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant Chapter(s)
Case law and statute
INSANITY
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 C & F 200
* R v Antoine [2000] 2 All ER 208 (HL)
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287; [1989] Crim LR 356
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399; [1956] 3 All ER 249
R v Quick [1973] QB 910
R v Sullivan [1983] 2 WLR 392; [1984] AC 156
R v Windle [1952] 2 All ER 1; [1952] 2 QB 826
NON-INSANE AUTOMATISM
Roach [2002] EWCA Crim 2700
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982; [1993] 4 All ER 683 (CA)
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
Broome v Perkins [1987] RTR 321
R v Bailey [1983] 2 All ER 503; [1983] 1 WLR 760
R v Burgess [1991] 2 All ER 769; [1991] 2 WLR 1206
R v T [1990] Crim LR 256
INTOXICATION/EFFECT OF DRUGS
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] 3 WLR 11
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER
961; [1982] AC 341 (HL)
DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443; [1976] 2 All ER 142
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527; [1981] 2 WLR 118
* R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
* R v Fotheringham [1988] Crim LR 846
R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64; [1984] 3 All ER 848
R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519; [1994] 3 All ER 353 (HL)
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152
R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases
can be found in your 150 Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What is the definition of insanity in the M’Naghten Rules?
2 What is a defect of reason?
3 What is the connection between insanity and automatism?
4 Distinguish insanity from diminished responsibility. How does a ‘disease of the mind’ differ from
an ‘abnormality of the mind’?
5 Distinguish between specific and basic intent crimes. What is the significance of this for the defence of intoxication?
Sample Questions
1 Distinguish between the defences of:
a automatism;
b insanity; and
c diminished responsibility.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 State a case for the retention of insanity as a defence.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 6 Suggested minimum study hours: 5
Topic
Review of Homicide: Problem-solving Exercises
Introduction
In this Unit, you will reinforce your learning and understanding of the topics previously covered by
applying your knowledge to a series of mock situations. The following questions are designed to
give further practice in tackling issues raised by Study Units 1–5.
Sample Questions
1 Jack had lived with Martin for ten years, during which time he had been subjected to brutal treatment by Martin. Many times Jack had been tempted to leave Martin, but Martin said that if Jack
were to do so, Martin would never rest until he found him and killed him. Gradually, Jack’s will was
eroded and his sense of self-esteem was very low.
One day, during a meal made by Jack, Martin threw the plateful of food straight at him, saying:
‘This tastes like dog food!’. The plate broke and cut Jack badly about the face. Jack thereupon determined that the only way to escape the torment was to kill Martin.
Waiting until Martin fell asleep some hours later, Jack stabbed him repeatedly with a bread knife.
Martin was not dead when the police arrived and was taken to hospital. A nurse gave a transfusion of the wrong type of blood and Martin died.
Discuss Jack’s liability for murder.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 J had visited K, his hypnotherapist, for treatment for the relief of pain. After treatment J was still
under the influence of hypnosis, though he gave no signs of this. Whilst driving home J ran down
and killed L, a child aged six years, who had run out in front of J’s car. Unaware of the accident, J
walked away to his home nearby. There he drank three whiskies. J then went for a walk and met
M, who called him a thick idiot. J lost his temper and hit M over the head with his walking stick. M
had a thin skull and died from the blow.
Advise J as to his criminal liability.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 7 Suggested minimum study hours: 15
Topic
Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Introduction
In this Unit, you will consider the various types of non-fatal offences against the person that exist
in English law, examining the varying degrees of actus reus and mens rea that are required for
each particular offence.
Objectives
a To examine in detail the individual offences in the area of offences against the person.
b To compare and contrast the different types of actus reus and mens rea within the various offences.
c To examine the progression in the degree of seriousness of the offences reflected in the varying
mens rea and actus reus of the offences.
d To consider the effect of consent as a defence to non-fatal offences.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and
Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant
Chapter(s)
Note: the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is referred to as ‘OAP’.
Case law and statute
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
* DPP v Taylor [1992] 1 All ER 299; [1992] 2 WLR 460
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 3 All ER 445; [1969]
1 QB 439
Dpp v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471
* Haystead v DPP [2000] 3 All ER 890 (CA)
* Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121
R v Burstow; R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534; [1997] 4 All ER 225 (HL)
* R v Wilson [1955] 1 All ER 744
* Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234
* Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3
OAP ACT 1861: S47 (ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM)
R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689; [1994] 2 All ER 552
Dhaliwal [2006] 2 Cr App R 348
DPP v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1571
T v DPP [2003] Crim LR 622
R v Miller [1954] 2 All ER 529; [1954] 2 QB 282
R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421; [1967] 3 All ER 47
R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
* R v Rushworth (1993) 95 Cr App R 252
R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] 4 All ER 698; [1991] 3 WLR 914 (HL)
R v Spratt (1990) 91 Cr App R 362; [1990] 1 WLR 1073; [1991] 2 All ER 210
G [2004] 1 AC 1034 (HL)
OAP ACT 1861: S20 (INFLICTING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM)
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 (HL)
Bollam [2004] 2 Cr App R 50
* JJC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230; [1984] QB 331
R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
Dica [2004] QB 1257
Konzani [2005] 2 Cr App R 198 (CA)
R v Mandair [1994] 2 All ER 715 (HL); [1994] 2 WLR 700 (HL)
R v Mowatt (above)
* R v Rushworth (above)
R v Savage; R v Parmenter (above)
* W (A Minor) v Dolbey [1983] Crim LR 681
OAP ACT 1861: S18 (CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT)
DPP v Smith (above)
* R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741; [1976] 3 All ER 46
* R v Brown and Stratton [1998] Crim LR 485
OAP ACT 1861: SS23 AND 24 (POISONING)
R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412; [1957] 2 QB 396
* R v Dones [1987] Crim LR 682
* R v Gillard (1988) 87 Cr App R 189
R v Hill [1986] Crim LR 815
* R v Marcus [1981] 1 WLR 774
CONSENT
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 1057; [1981] QB 715
* R v Adkins [2000] 2 All ER 185 (CA)
R v Aitken and Others [1992] 1 WLR 1066; [1992] 4 All ER 541
R v Boyea [1992] Crim LR 574
R v Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556 (HL); [1993] 2 All ER 75 (HL)
Dica [2004] QB 1257
Konzani [2005] 2 Cr App R 198 (CA)
Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910
DPP v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1571
R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
R v Kimber [1983] 1 WLR 1118
* R v Richardson and Others (1989) The Times 20 October
R v Wilson [1996] 3 WLR 125 (CA)
Criminal Justice Act 1988: s39 (common assault)
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What is an assault?
2 What is a battery?
3 What mens rea is required for each?
4 What is the effect of R v Mowatt?
5 What is the effect of R v Savage; R v Parmenter on mens rea for nonfatal offences?
Sample Questions
1 Dave and Dan were on their way home from work when they came across Vic. They stared at
Vic and blocked his path. Vic was terrified and decided to escape. Vic fell and twisted his ankle.
Dan was excited and, waving his arms at Vic, turned to Dave, misjudged the distance and caught
him in the face with his arm, causing him a broken nose. Dave reached into his pocket, pulled out
a knife and stabbed Dan, causing him serious injury.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dave and Dan.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, May 2001, Question 4.)
2 Jack and Jill visited a gun shooting range. Jack scored higher than Jill. Jill, in a temper, picked
up her gun and aimed it at Jack. Jack believed he was about to be shot, and ran and jumped out
of a nearby window, suffering serious injury in the fall. Jill says that she intended no harm, the gun
was unloaded and that she can’t believe the way Jack behaved.
Consider Jill’s position for liability under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, September 2001,
Question 5.)
Study Unit 8 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
General Defences: Compulsion
Introduction
We have already noted the general defences available in respect of the mental element. In this
Unit, we will consider two other defences available; compulsion and justification.
Objectives
a To examine the scope of the defence of duress.
b To consider the availability of self-defence as a defence.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant Chapter(s)
Case law and statute
DURESS AND COERCION
Abbott v R [1977] AC 755
* DPP v Bell [1992] Crim LR 176
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913; [1975] AC 653 (HL)
R v Abdul-Hussain and Others [1999] Crim LR 570
R v Bowen [1996] 2 Cr App R 157; [1996] 4 All ER 837 (CA)
Holley [2005] UKPC 23
R v Fitzpatrick [1977] NI 20
* R v Flatt [1996] Crim LR 576 (CA)
R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412; [1991] Crim LR 366; [1992] 2 WLR 284;
[1992] 1 All ER 832 (HL)
R v Graham (1982) 74 Cr App R 235; [1982] Crim LR 365; [1982] 1 WLR 294
Antar [2006] EWCA 2708
R v Howe [1987] 2 WLR 568; [1987] AC 417 (HL)
R v Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 All ER 244; [1971] 2 QB 202
* R v Martin [2000] Crim LR 615
Hasan [2005] 2 AC 467 (HL)
SELF-DEFENCE
Palmer v R [1971] 1 All ER 1077; [1971] AC 814
R v Clegg [1995] 2 WLR 80; [1995] 1 All ER 334 (HL)
Hatton [2006] 1 Cr App R247
R v McInnes [1971] 3 All ER 295; [1971] 1 WLR 1600
Kelleher [2003] EWCA Crim 3525
Martin [2003] QB 1 (CA)
R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743 (CA)
R v Scarlett [1993] 4 All ER 629
R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984) 78 Cr App R 276
R [on the Application of Bennet] v H.M. Coroner for Inner South London (2006) 170 JP 109
Criminal Law Act 1967: s3 (reasonable force)
NECESSITY
A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation), Re [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA)
* Buckoke v Greater London Council [1971] 1 Ch 655; [1971] 2 All ER 254
Jones v Gloucestershire CPS [2005] QB 259
Jones [2006] UKHL 16
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652; [1989] Crim LR 284; (1989) 88 Cr App R 343
* R v Rodger and Another [1998] 1 Cr App R 143
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 What must be shown for the defence of duress to operate? What test should the jury be asked
to consider?
2 How may the defence of marital coercion be defined?
3 What are the proposals of the Law Commission regarding duress, coercion and necessity?
4 What is the effect of s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 on the common law right of private defence and
is s3 limited to a defence of person?
5 How will the reasonableness or otherwise of an action be decided?
Sample Questions
1 What reasons did Lord Hailsham give in his judgment in Howe for disallowing the plea of duress
to a charge of murder?Should the defence be available when D is charged:
a as principal in the second degree to murder (ie the helper, rather than the actual killer); or
b as the actual killer; or
c with attempted murder; or
d with s18 OAP?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 When, if ever, may criminal conduct be justified on grounds of necessity?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Study Unit 9 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Inchoate Offences
Introduction
Inchoate liability can be imposed upon a person who progresses some way towards committing a
criminal offence, but does not necessarily succeed in completing the commission of the entire offence.
Objectives
a To examine the law of inchoate offences, in particular the differing requirements of mens rea
and actus reus in the individual offences of
incitement, conspiracy and attempt.
b To consider the pre-1981 law regarding the issue of impossibility and the changes brought about
by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Essential Reading
These titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.
Criminal Law Textbook – Relevant chapters
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)
General Reading
These titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, but you may wish to refer to
them to further your understanding.
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Smith and
Hogan – Relevant Chapter(s)
Principles of Criminal Law, Ashworth – Relevant Chapter(s)
Criminal Law, Jefferson – Relevant Chapter(s)
Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Elliott and Wood – Relevant Chapter(s)
Case law and statutes
INCITEMENT
DPP v Armstrong [2000] Crim LR 379
O’Shea [2004] Crim LR 365 (CA)
DPP v Nock [1978] AC 979; [1978] 2 All ER 654
* Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare [1976] RTR 251; [1976] Crim LR 131
R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944; [1967] 1 All ER 478
R v Fitzmaurice [1983] QB 1083
* R v Most (1881) 7 QBD 244
* R v Ransford (1874) 13 Cox CC 9
R v Sirat [1986] Crim LR 245
* R v Whitehouse [1977] 3 All ER 737; [1977] QB 868
* Race Relations Board v Applin [1973] QB 815
CONSPIRACY
* Adams v R [1995] 1 WLR 52 (PC)
* DPP v Doot [1973] AC 807
DPP v Nock (above)
R v Anderson [1985] 2 All ER 961; [1986] AC 27
* R v Ayers [1984] 1 All ER 619; [1984] AC 447
* R v Hollinshead [1975] 2 All ER 769; [1975] AC 975
* R v O’Brien [1974] 3 All ER 663
* R v Reed [1982] Crim LR 819
Wai Yu-Tsang v R [1991] 4 All ER 664; [1991] 3 WLR 1006 (PC)
ATTEMPT
Anderton v Ryan [1985] 2 All ER 355; [1985] AC 560 (HL)
* Comer v Bloomfield (1970) 55 Cr App R 305
Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476; [1973] 2 All ER 1109 (HL)
* R v Bristol Magistrates’ Court, ex parte E [1998] 3 All ER 798
* R v Campbell [1991] Crim LR 268; (1991) 93 Cr App R 350
* R v Easom [1971] 2 QB 315
R v Geddes [1996] Crim LR 894
R v Gullefer [1990] 3 All ER 882
* R v Jones (1990) 91 Cr App R 351; [1990] 1 WLR 1057; [1990] 3 All ER
886 (CA)
* R v Pearman [1984] Crim LR 675; (1985) 80 Cr App R 259
R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1; [1986] 2 All ER 334 (HL)
* R v Walker & Hayles [1990] Crim LR 44; (1990) 90 Cr App R 226
R v Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 141
* R v Widdowson [1986] Crim LR 233; (1986) 82 Cr App R 314
Criminal Attempts Act 1981: ss1, 5 and 6
Criminal Justice Act 1987: s12
Criminal Law Act 1977: ss1 and 2 (conspiracy)
Criminal Law 1
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Self-Study Questions
1 Define an attempt.
2 What is the present law regarding impossibility in attempt?
3 What is the mens rea for incitement?
4 Define conspiracy.
5 What is the mens rea required in a charge of conspiracy?
Sample Questions
1 Fred is unemployed and suffers from delusions. Fred decides to shoot Alan, his neighbour and a
successful salesman, in the wild belief that he will then be able to have Alan’s job. Fred hides and
as Alan is getting out of his car Fred shoots him. The bullet misses Alan but wounds Ann, Alan’s
passenger.
Advise Fred of his liability in criminal law, if any, in respect of Alan and Ann.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, September 2001,
Question 4.)
2 ‘If a person intends to commit a contemplated offence, it is immaterial
that the offence is in fact impossible to commit.’
Discuss.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, May 2001, Question 3.)
3 Compare the law of attempt pre and post the Criminal Attempts Act
1981.
Study Unit 10 Suggested minimum study hours: 10
Topic
Review: Problem-solving Exercises
Introduction
In this Unit, you will again reinforce your learning and understanding of the topics previously covered by applying your knowledge to a series of mock situations. The following questions are designed to give further practice in tackling issues covered by Study Units 7–9.
Sample Questions
1 A knew she had AIDS and she had sexual intercourse with B, who did not know of A’s condition.
A and B enjoyed consensual sadomasochistic sex, in the course of which A frequently whipped B
until blood ran from the weals. On other occasions, B suffered bruising to various parts of the
body. B did not complain of this, but his friend noticed the injuries on B’s back and told the police.
A states that she never thought about the injuries which might result and that B was a
willing party to the activities. After undergoing a medical examination, B discovered that he was
HIV positive.
Examine the charges which might be faced by A.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
2 Andy was of a nervous disposition. He saw three youths walking towards him down a dark
street. One of the youths, Basil, was carrying and swinging a bicycle chain. Andy was apprehensive that they were going to attack him. Andy crossed the road. The youths followed. Andy said:
‘Not one step further or I’ll have to defend myself.’ The youths believed that they were being
threatened. One ran away. Basil was unable to run because he had a heart illness. His brother
Charles stayed with him. Basil, who then began to feel very unwell, stumbled forward and fell on
Andy, who believed he was being attacked and kicked Basil, inducing a severe heart attack.
Charles entered the melee to protect his brother and kicked Andy before a passer-by stopped the
fight. The youths had not intended to attack Andy but had been going to retrieve Basil’s broken
bicycle.
What crimes, if any, have been committed?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
3 Soo owed money to Archoo who was threatening her with serious violence about its non-payment. Soo was desperate and so Archoo said that he would let her off the debt if she killed Boo.
Soo bought a quantity of arsenophine, which she was told by Tai, a chemist, was a deadly poison
even in small amounts. She put a teaspoon of it into Boo’s tea. Boo fell to the ground after drinking
a small amount. Soo called an ambulance quickly, hoping that he would not die. Boo had in fact
had a heart attack and the arsenophine was a harmless substance which had no effect on him at
all. He recovered in hospital.
Discuss what charges might be brought against Soo and whether
she would have any defence.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning Question.)
Learning Project Suggested minimum study hours: 50
In common with all the modules that form part of the LLB by Distance Learning programme this
module involves a Learning Project. Undergraduate students at the University of Wolverhampton
are required to demonstrate that they are capable of independent research before they can be
recommended for the award of a degree. For distance learning students this is assessed by reference to the
Learning Project you undertake in respect of each module. It requires you to pay specific attention
to a list of defined reading. Commonly covering a range of cases and statutes you are required to
demonstrate your mastery of the area(s) of law concerned by undertaking a compulsory question
as part of the end of module examination. This will commonly take the form of an extended legal
problem and require you to demonstrate not only that you understand the areas of law concerned
but are able to apply them clearly and without error. It could also take the form of an essay question requiring you to demonstrate an ability to comment on linked areas of law. Particular attention
will be paid to the accuracy with which you cite the law and the arguments of those responsible for
its
development. You will also be expected to demonstrate that you understand, and have not been
confused by, the ambiguities and contradictions that exist in the undergraduate study of the law.
This question, which will change with each examination paper, will account for 50 per cent of the
overall grade and require you to devote one hour of the two-hour examination period to it. Please
note that for each examination you are allowed 15 minutes’ reading time on top of the two hours
you have to write your answers. You may also take into the examination the relevant 150 Leading
Cases and Statute Book. Please note that these may not contain any additional notes or markings.
Learning Project for Criminal Law 1: Defences to Murder and Manslaughter
Essential Reading
Criminal Law Textbook (Chapters 4 and 14) Molan (4th edition 2006)
Old Bailey Press
Criminal Law 150 Leading Cases (Relevant Chapter(s)) Molan (4th
edition 2007) Old Bailey Press
Guidance notes
This Learning Project is covered by Units 2, 3 and 5 in your Module Planner. In carrying out your
reading and research you should have special regard to the following key points.
• The mens rea for murder/manslaughter.
• The effect of diminished responsibility.
• The effect of provocation.
• Characteristics to be taken into account for provocation.
• What is meant by abnormality of mind?
• What is meant by insanity?
• The connection between insanity and automatism.
• Intoxication and crimes of specific and basic intent.
Case law and statutes
MURDER – SPECIFIC DEFENCES – PROVOCATION AND DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
(VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER)
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936 (HL)
DPP v Camplin [1978] 2 All ER 168; [1978] AC 705 (HL)
* Luc Thiet Than v R [1996] 2 All ER 1033; [1997] AC 131 (PC)
* R v Acott [1997] 1 WLR 306; [1997] 1 All ER 706 (HL)
R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
R v Byrne [1960] 3 All ER 1; [1960] 2 QB 396
* R v Doughty [1986] Crim LR 625
* R v Dryden [1995] 4 All ER 987 (CA)
* R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932
* R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470
* R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261
R v Gittens [1984] 3 All ER 252; [1984] QB 698
* R v Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008 (CA)
* R v Ibrams and Gregory (1981) 74 Cr App R 154
* R v Inseal [1992] Crim LR 35
* R v McShane (1978) 66 Cr App R 97
* R v Marks [1998] Crim LR 676
R v Morhall [1995] 3 WLR 330; [1995] 3 All ER 659; [1996] 1 AC 90 (HL)
* R v Newell (1980) 71 Cr App R 331
* R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193
* R v Richens [1993] Crim LR 384
* R v Roberts [1986] Crim LR 122
* R v Rossiter [1994] 2 All ER 752 (CA)
R v Sanderson (1994) 98 Cr App R 325
R v Seers [1985] Crim LR 85
R v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 4 All ER 289
Weller [2004] 1 Cr App R 1 (CA)
Holley v Attorney General for Jersey [2005] 2 AC 580
Mohammed [2005] EWCA Crim 1880
James [2006] 1 AER 759 (CA)
R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr App R 45; [1989] 1 All ER 267
Dietschmann [2003] 1 AC 1209
* R v Thornton (No 2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 (CA)
Homicide Act 1957: s2 (diminished responsibility)
Homicide Act 1957: s3 (provocation)
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
INSANITY
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 C & F 200
R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287; [1989] Crim LR 356
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399; [1956] 3 All ER 249
R v Quick [1973] QB 910
R v Stephenson [1979] QB 695
R v Sullivan [1983] 2 WLR 392; [1984] AC 156
R v Windle [1952] 2 All ER 1; [1952] 2 QB 826
NON-INSANE AUTOMATISM
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982; [1993] 4 All ER 683 (CA)
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
Broome v Perkins [1987] RTR 321
R v Bailey [1983] 2 All ER 503; [1983] 1 WLR 760
R v Burgess [1991] 2 All ER 769; [1991] 2 WLR 1206
* R v T [1990] Crim LR 256
Roach [2002] EWCA Crim 2700
INTOXICATION/EFFECT OF DRUGS
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] 3 WLR 11
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961; [1982] AC 341 (HL)
DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443; [1976] 2 All ER 142
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527; [1981] 2 WLR 118
* R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
* R v Fotheringham [1988] Crim LR 846
R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64; [1984] 3 All ER 848
R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519; [1994] 3 All ER 353 (HL)
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152
R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
Cases marked with an * can be found in your Textbook; all other cases can be found in your 150
Leading Cases.
Sample Questions
1 Arthur was an alcoholic. He had been involved in a car crash in which he was driving and his
wife and children were killed. Subsequently, his work suffered, and his employer, Jane, told him
that he was a drunken, murdering, useless waste of space. Arthur was incensed. He left Jane’s
office in a temper and rushed down to the car park where he spotted Jane’s car. He partly sawed
through the brake cables. Later that day, Jane was killed when her brakes failed and she
ploughed into a tree.
Arthur was charged with murder. Discuss Arthur’s liability. Ignoring all other arguments about
mens rea and actus reus, answer the following questions, explaining your answers.
a The defence receive a medical report confirming that Arthur is an alcoholic. Explain how this
could be used in promoting the defence of diminished responsibility by reference to decided cases.
b As an alternative provocation could be put forward; illustrate how this could be used as a defence by Arthur.c What are the dangers for Arthur from the prosecution if the diminished responsibility argument is put forward by his defence?
d Can intoxication be a defence to murder?
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, May 1999, Question 1.)
2 Mac and Mable were husband and wife. They had been married for 13 years with a long history
of domestic violence. In the past Mac had abused Mable by beating her, burning her with a hot
iron, and on several occasions he had knocked her unconscious with blows to the stomach.
One afternoon when Mac was asleep, Mable crept up to the bed and poured petrol all over him
and set him alight. Mac died from the burns. Mable said that she had done this to ‘wash away his
sins as God wants’. Mable is charged with murder.
Answer the following questions in the context of the above.
a The defence suggests putting forward the defence of diminished responsibility. Illustrate and explain this defence.
b If provocation were to be put forward as a defence, using cases to illustrate your answer, are the
subjective and objective conditions fulfilled?
c Distinguish between automatism and insanity.
d Consider whether it would make a difference to Mable’s defence if she had consumed three
quarters of a bottle of vodka before pouring the petrol over Mac.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, January 2001,
Question 1.)
Practice Question and Suggested
Answer
The following test is designed for practice only and does NOT count as part of the assessment
regime. A Suggested Solution is, however, offered in the following section. Students are advised
not to consult this solution until they have completed the test. It is expected that you will return
your answer to the College for marking and feedback.
Unless you undertake such work you will not gain an insight into your academic strengths and
weaknesses before you attempt the examination.
Before attempting your answer, please ensure that you understand the assessment criteria explained in the Award Guide, and the guidance contained in the section of the Module Planner
headed ‘Skills to be Developed and examined’.
Question
Punch and Judy lived together for ten years. Punch knew Judy had wanted to leave him because
of the brutal treatment he gave her. Punch always said that if Judy left him he would never rest
until he found her and killed her. One day Punch threw the meal Judy had made him at her claiming ‘this tastes like dog food!’. The plate cut Judy badly on the face. Judy felt determined to kill
Punch, as this was the only way to escape. Some hours later when Punch was asleep, Judy crept
upstairs and stabbed him repeatedly with a bread knife. Judy is charged with murder.
Ignoring all other arguments about mens rea and actus reus answer the following.
a Explain with reference to decided cases the main defence that Judy’s lawyer will put forward.
b If alternatively the defence received a medical report suggesting Judy had some ‘abnormality’ of
mind, explain how it could use this as part of its argument.
c If Judy had been drunk at the time she killed Punch explain whether this could be used as a defence to a murder charge.
d Illustrate the connection between insanity and automatism.
(Wolverhampton LLB by Distance Learning, May 2001, Question 1.)
Suggested Answer to Practice
Question
NB: Do not consult this solution until you have completed the test.
Outline Answer
In answering this question, you should have regard to the following key points in particular.
• Defence of provocation; was Judy ‘provoked’? ‘Cooling time’ too long for the defence? Objective
test and reasonableness.
• Defence of diminished responsibility; ‘abnormality of the mind’?
• Intoxication may be a relevant factor when establishing mens rea for a crime of specific intent.
• Compare defences of insanity and automatism; internal and external factors; lack of mens rea.
Answer
Note: this answer is based on one written by a distance learning student covering the question set
as part of an examination. a According to the circumstances, the lawyer will put forward the defence of provocation in respect of s3 of the Homicide Act 1957. The main essence of s3 of the Act
is such that Judy may put forward evidence to show that she had been provoked by Punch, by
things that were done or said by Punch, to such an extent that Judy lost her self-control. It appears
that Punch gave Judy brutal treatment and threatened her if she left him.
Section 3 of the Act indicates that it is left to the jury to determine whether such a provocation was
enough to make a reasonable person kill in reaction. Decided cases such as DPP v Camplin
(1978) indicate some insight on how to interpret the ‘reasonable person’ test. Lord Diplock in his
speech said that what the jury ought to consider was ‘not the reaction of a reasonable adult but
the reaction of a reasonable boy of the accused’s age’. The public policy that underlay the adoption of the ‘reasonable man’ test in the common law doctrine of provocation was to reduce the incidence of fatal violence by preventing a person relying on his own exceptional pugnacity or
excitability as an excuse for loss of self-control. Thus the exceptional bad temper of a person
could not be an excuse. It was also decided in DPP v Camplin (1978) that the ‘reasonable man’
referred to is a person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the
sex and age of the accused, but in other respects sharing such of the accused’s characteristics as
they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to the accused.
In another case, R v Smith (Morgan) (2000), the Court of Appeal held that the evidence of the
defendant’s chronic alcoholism, that had damaged the left temporal lobe of his brain, ought to
have been taken into account when assessing the defence of provocation. In the case of Attorney General for Jersey v Holley (2005) a majority of the Privy Council refused to follow Smith and
considered that the standard of a reasonable person had to be a constant objective standard in all
cases. In Judy’s situation therefore, any mental abnormality could not be taken into account for the
defence of provocation. The statutory reasonable person has the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the same sex and age. Since Judy has long been receiving
brutal treatment for almost ten years, Punch’s claim that her meal ‘tastes like dog food’ might trigger the sudden loss of self-control of Judy when the plate cut her badly on the face. However, we
should be cautious on the point that, some hours later when Punch was asleep, Judy killed him,
as the prosecution may rebut the allegation of provocation because Judy had time to cool down
before she determined to kill. If the judge is satisfied on the balance of probability that the evidential burden in respect of the defence of provocation is acceptable, he would leave it to the jury to
determine whether the accused has been provoked sufficiently to kill. If the defence of provocation
is established, Judy will be guilty of manslaughter instead of murder. In the case of murder, the
mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.
b Judy’s lawyer may put forward the defence of diminished responsibility according to s2 of the
Homicide Act 1957. It reads ‘… a person shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from
such abnormality of the mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of the mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired
his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing’. In the
case of R v Byrne (1960), Lord Parker explained that an ‘abnormality of the mind’ should be distinguished from the M’Naghten Rules, which is a ‘defect of reason’. It appears that it covers the
mind’s activity in all its aspects, not only the perception of physical acts and matters, and the ability to form a rational judgment whether the act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will
power to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment. It is not known whether
the medical report of Judy is sufficient to conclude that she has an ‘abnormality of the mind’. It is a
question for the jury to decide. The jury are entitled to take into consideration all the evidence, including the acts or statements of the accused and her demeanour. They are not bound to accept
the medical evidence, if there is other material before them which, in their good judgment, conflicts
with it and outweighs it. If the defence of ‘abnormality of the mind’ is accepted by the jury, Judy will
be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.
c In common law, murder is a ‘specific intent’ crime which means that
the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus. Generally, intoxication can
be a defence to a specific intent crime. It has been established in common law that where a specific intent is an essential element of the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the
accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether she had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If she
was so drunk that she was incapable of forming the intent required, she could not be
convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved. In a charge of murder
based upon intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, if the jury are satisfied that the accused
was, by reason of her drunken condition, incapable of forming the intent to kill or to do grievous
bodily harm, she cannot be convicted of murder.
However, if evidence shows that she had the intent to kill before she drank and the voluntary
drunkenness was such as to make her have the courage to kill, the situation is different and Judy
may still be convicted of murder.
d The case of R v Sullivan (1984) demonstrates the connection between insanity and automatism.
In their Lordship’s views, insanity should be based on the M’Naghten Rules; for a defence on the
ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party
accused was labouring under a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, and was not to know
the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, then he did not know that what
he was doing was wrong. ‘Mind’ in the M’Naghten Rules is used in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason, memory and
understanding. If the effect of a disease is to impair these faculties so severely as to have either of
the consequences referred in the Rules, it matters not whether the aetiology of the impairment is
organic, as in epilepsy, or functional, or whether the impairment itself is permanent or is transient
and intermittent, provided that it subsisted at the time of the commission of the act. On the other
hand, automatism refers to cases where temporary impairment results from some external factor,
causing the involuntary action of the accused. There is another definition laid down in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963). ‘Automatism’ means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion, or an act
done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering
from concussion or whilst sleep-walking. Automatism is a complete defence and the accused will
be released if the defence is accepted by the jury. On the other hand, the jury may find the ac-
cused ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and the accused will be kept in custody in a mental hospital
permanently. It may be said that there is a need, for social policy reasons, to
distinguish between the two, for example because in the case of insanity due to inherent disease
of the mind, which is prone to reoccur and manifest itself in violence, it is better to keep the accused in a mental hospital.
Marker’s comment on Student Answer
The following observations can be made about this student answer.
1 It identified the points of law required to be discussed in each part of the question.
2 It gave a sufficiently accurate definition of that relevant point of law by reference to either an Act
of Parliament or a decided case.
3 It explained in ordinary language the meaning of the relevant law and by using cases further explained how the law has developed.
4 It applied the law to the facts of the scenario and thus reached a conclusion.
5 It considered the defences which the facts of the scenario suggested might be available to the
defendant.
6 Where relevant, comment was made upon any shortcomings in the substantive law or the available defences and suggestions were put forward for any changes or reforms which might be considered. The answer was clearly written and contained few spelling and grammatical errors.
Importantly, the answer was written following a logical sequence making it easy to read and thus
mark. Cases could have been underlined, although a student in an examination might not
have enough time to do this. Each part of the question commenced on a separate page and therefore it was very easy for any examiner to identify where each part of the question began and ended.
Revision
What to revise
Consider carefully what you have been told about the format of the examination. How many questions will you be required to answer in what length of time? Work out how long you are likely to
have to write an answer to any one question.
Look at past exam papers. A sample can be accessed via the School of Legal Studies website
www.wlv.ac.uk/sls. They may help you to identify the questions which are most likely to appear on
your exam; and on which you can concentrate your revision. This is known as question spotting
and, although this is not advisable, it may sometimes be necessary. If you have to do this, you
should revise two additional topics just in case: the question on one of the topics on which you
have concentrated most may be phrased in such a way that you are not certain how to answer it.
It is, however, safer to deal with every topic in the module so that you are prepared for all questions.
By looking at past exam papers you may also be able to determine whether certain topics tend to
be examined by way of problem scenarios or general discussion questions. Structure your revision
to accommodate the different approaches those two different types of question require.
Look closely at the topics covered by the module. Those topics which have been given the greatest emphasis are a good bet to appear in the exam.
The question in the Learning Project is compulsory so make sure that your revision is thorough on
the topic, or topics, it covers.
Planning your revision
The best method of revision is to revise continuously throughout your study of a module, but
whether you revise continuously or prefer the last minute approach, try to relax on the day before
an exam. To do well you need to be both physically and mentally fit.
Well before the exam period make yourself a revision calendar. Make sure that the revision period
you plan is long enough to cover all of the modules you have studied, and gives you regular
breaks away from your studies. You need to start your revision at least two weeks before the examination period. It is not wise to plan to revise for more than an hour at a time without a short
break. You should build in some days in which you put revision aside altogether and do something
which will take your mind off the upcoming exam period.
Don’t just divide the revision period equally between topics. Make a realistic appraisal of which
topic(s) you are weakest in and plan to give them the most time. In deciding how much time to
give each topic you should also take into account how much the exam counts towards your overall
mark. In other words, plan your revision to do best on exams which will give you the most benefit
in terms of your overall results.
Do not concentrate all your revision of any one topic in a solid block. You will find that your concentration will be better if you rotate your revision from topic to topic.
Plan your revision of any one topic in stages. The first stage is to acquire a knowledge of the topic.
This involves re-reading your notes and whatever is necessary in your books. The second stage is
to break that knowledge down into easily remembered key components. The third stage is to hone
your ability to identify issues and relate them to those key components. This is best accomplished
by writing answers to past exam questions.
How to revise
If you have any general problems with your studying, don’t just sit there hoping it will come right in
the end; contact the Module Leader or the College.
There are a number of stages in the revision process. First you have to ensure that you have an
adequate knowledge of the topics. This is a matter of re-reading notes and filling in gaps by reading relevant sections of your Textbook or other materials until you have reached the point where
you understand the material being dealt with.
While you are reviewing your notes and other study materials, you should be identifying and marking key points which you can return to when you start to make your revision notes.
Remember: revision can only be effective if it is based on a previously acquired basic knowledge
and understanding of the topics.
The second stage of revision is to create a set of revision notes.
These will be aimed at (1) setting out key points and (2) relating these to each other in such a way
that they form a coherent picture of a particular topic (3) identifying key cases and/or statutory provisions which you need to know details of.
There are numerous ways of structuring revision notes. Which you choose will be a matter of personal preference. The basic aims, however, are to create a set of notes which you can review
quickly many times; and one from which you can retain a vivid mental image so that you will be
easily able to recall them in the examination.
Therefore your revision notes should be made up of key words and phrases. Each entry in the
notes should represent a condensation of information about the topic at hand. Strike a balance
between brevity and comprehensiveness. Some concepts may be too complicated to remember
without a detailed note. Others readily lend themselves to summing up in a phrase of even a word
or two. A rule of thumb is to confine all the revision notes on one topic to one page or less of A4
paper.
Using different colours for different topics, or writing the notes so that they create a distinctive pattern on the page, is a way of creating a vivid mental image of your notes. During the exam you
may be able to recall the particular information you need by calling up a ‘picture’ of the information. A stepped outline or a spider diagram are two of the ways you can create a pattern which will
help you to recall information by focussing on the image and the way it was written down. Spider
diagrams are especially useful for creating an image of the way ideas or rules link together.
Your friends may think you have become very eccentric but it is a good idea to stroll about your
room reciting out loud the contents of a page of revision notes. This, after all, is how actors learn
their lines before a performance, and you are doing the same thing when you set out to learn your
revision notes before an exam.
You may be tempted to shortcut the process of building up a set of your own revision notes by
buying one of the many revision guides which are available. These can be extremely useful to give
you a very condensed overview of a topic, but remember this: what makes for exam success is
displaying to the examiner your own knowledge of the topic. The only way to create your own
knowledge of the topic is to create your own set of revision notes using all those other sources
The third stage of revision is self-testing. Pick a question from a past exam – and this is where
having made a considered choice about which topics to revise is essential – and write an answer
to it under ‘exam conditions’: ie taking the length of time you would be given to do the question in
the exam. Then go back over your revision notes on that topic and see what you have left out,
what you did wrong and what you put in that was not really relevant to the question asked.
You may want to return to your original notes from lectures and reading and have another look at
that material. After half an hour or more break, pick another question on the same topic and write
an answer to it. Go through the same review process again. Repeat the whole process once or
twice more. The advantages of doing this will soon become apparent. You will identify weaknesses in your knowledge and/or understanding. You will see how some components of an answer to a
question on a particular topic will re-appear over and over again no matter how the question is
worded, and you will have written those bits down often enough that you will not have to spend
time in the exam trying to work out how to phrase that part of your answer.
The benefit of self-testing is enormously enhanced if you do it as part of a group. Three or four of
you working together will amongst you have a very comprehensive knowledge of any topic. What
you are weak on, you can pick up from one of the others and vice versa. There is also the psychological boost which comes from working as part of a team. You will find that some of the things
you thought it was important to write about completely eluded other members of the group. Also,
you will not have seen some important point which they did. Discussing all of your answers together will help you to craft a complete answer to all of the aspects of the question. If you are not in
contact with fellow distance learning students, ask members of your family or friends to test you.
As well as helping you, this will give them a valuable insight into how much your studies
mean to you and the hard work involved.
Taking the Examination
Hints for Answering Questions
The very first thing you must do is to read the whole question. If the question is a problem:
DO
Ask yourself:
• Why am I being asked to advise this person?
• What has gone wrong?
• What are the areas of law involved?
If the question is an essay:
DO
Ask yourself:
• What area of law does the essay cover?
• Which part of that area of law is the essay asking me to discuss?
• Which points do I have to focus on in answering the question?
DO NOT, IN EITHER TYPE OF QUESTION
• Start writing before you have read the whole question.
• Identify one area of law and write all you know about that area without putting it into the context
of the question.
The next step is to write an outline plan of your answer. In this plan, you should identify the main
points in the problem. If you do not want the plan to be taken into account in your answer, then
cross it through and your examiner will ignore it. When you are writing your answer, follow your
plan. This will help you avoid discussing areas of law which are not relevant to the question. It will
also help you ensure that you cover all the points raised in the question and do so in a
logical, reasoned way. After you have read the question and written your outline plan you should
re-read the question and then attempt the answer.
WRITING THE ANSWER
In writing your answer, start at the beginning and work through to the end. Make sure that you
deal with each issue raised and that you apply the law to the relevant points. Reach a conclusion
at the end. Do not start with your conclusion as you may find, part of the way through your answer,
that you realise your original conclusion was wrong and you will have to start again.
Always give authorities for your answers. These authorities will be statutes and/or cases.
DO
• Address the issues from the start of your answer.
• Start at the beginning and work through to the end.
• Reach a conclusion at the end.
• Relate your answer to specific points in the question.
• Give authority for every point of law you make.
• Write clearly and in good English.
• Time your answers.
DO NOT
• Write all you know about the area before you start actually answering the question; you will only
have to write it out again in dealing with the specific points in the question.
• Reach a conclusion at the beginning.
• Move away from the structure of your outline plan.
• Give unsupported statements of law.
• Spend so long answering one question that you do not have enough time to answer the rest.
• Write in note form (unless you have spent too much time on your previous answers and are left
with insufficient time to write a full answer).
• Copy large amounts of material from the books you are allowed to take into the examination.
Make sure that you put all quotations in quotation marks otherwise you may be thought to have
been cheating.
Module Questionnaire
Criminal Law 1
The School of Legal Studies and Holborn College attach great importance to your views. We
would, therefore, be grateful, if now that you have finished studying this module, you would answer the following questions and return them to the address give below. Your answers will be considered by the distance learning teaching team and used in updating teaching materials.
1 What two things did you find most useful about the materials you
were provided with for this module?
________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2 What two things did you find least helpful about the materials you
were provided with for this module?
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
3 Please identify any typographical errors you encountered in using this
planner (please make reference to appropriate page numbers).
________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Return to:
External Programmes Administrator
School of Legal Studies
University of Wolverhampton
Arthur Storer Building
Molineux Street
Wolverhampton
WV1 1SB
United Kingdom
You may if you wish e-mail your answers to in4655@wlv.ac.uk