Contents and Exam Overview

Your Criminal Law exam makes up 33.3% of your total A-level - so it's crucial to get this right! The paper splits into two sections: Legal System (20 marks) and Criminal Law (60 marks), giving you 2 hours to show what you know.

Here's what you're facing: Section A needs one 8-mark question and one 12-mark question from your choices. Section B requires all three 20-mark questions, but you can choose between Part 1 or Part 2. That works out to roughly a mark per minute, so time management is key.

The marking uses three assessment objectives. AO1 tests your knowledge (8 marks), whilst AO2 checks if you can apply law to scenarios and AO3 evaluates your analysis skills (both worth 12 marks each). Essay questions focus on AO1 + AO3, while scenario questions combine AO1 + AO2.

Top Tip: Always cite cases and Acts of Parliament - and never write lists! Use continuous sentences and refer to scenario names.

Actus Reus - The Guilty Act

Think of actus reus as the physical side of crime - what actually happened. You'll find three types: voluntary acts (Hill v Baxter), failure to act (omissions), and state of affairs cases like Larsonneur where someone's guilty despite acting involuntarily.

Omissions are tricky because Britain doesn't have a 'Good Samaritan' law. However, you can be liable for failing to act in six situations: statutory duties, contractual duties (Pittwood), relationship duties (Gibbins & Proctor), voluntarily assumed duties (Stone & Dobinson), official positions (Dytham), and when you've started a chain of events (Miller).

Causation requires proving both factual and legal cause. Use the 'but for' test - would the victim still be alive 'but for' the defendant's actions? Remember the 'thin skull' rule from Blaue - you take your victim as you find them.

Medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation unless it's 'so potent' it makes the defendant's act insignificant (Cheshire). The victim's own actions won't break the chain unless they're 'so daft or unexpected' (Roberts).

Remember: The defendant's act only needs to be 'more than minimal' - it doesn't have to be the main cause!

Mens Rea - The Guilty Mind

Mens rea examines what was going through the defendant's head when they committed the crime. Without it, you usually get an acquittal. The four levels are intention (highest), recklessness, negligence, and knowledge.

Intention comes in two flavours: direct (wanting the result) and oblique (foreseeing it as virtually certain). The journey from Moloney through Nedrick to Woollin shows how courts struggled with this concept. Today's test asks whether death or serious harm was a virtual certainty and whether the defendant realised this.

Recklessness uses a subjective test after G v R - did the defendant know there was a risk but take it anyway? It's sufficient for 'basic intent' crimes like assault and manslaughter. The old objective Caldwell test caused too many problems.

Special rules help when things go wrong: transferred malice (Latimer) covers when you hit the wrong person, while cases like Fagan show that actus reus and mens rea can coincide across a continuing series of acts.

Key Point: Foresight of consequences isn't intention itself - it's just evidence that might help prove intention!

Strict Liability - No Mental Element Required

Strict liability offences don't require mens rea - you can be guilty even if you're completely blameless! These typically involve regulatory matters like food safety, building regulations, or selling age-restricted products.

When statutes aren't clear, courts apply the Gammon tests: start by presuming mens rea is required, check for mental state words in the Act, distinguish between 'true crimes' (imprisonment possible) and regulatory offences, consider how dangerous the activity is, and ask whether strict liability promotes higher safety standards.

Cases like Harrow LBC v Shah show the harsh reality - selling lottery tickets to someone underage made the defendants guilty despite taking reasonable precautions. There's no defence of mistake in strict liability offences (Cundy v Le Cocq).

The Human Rights angle is interesting - in G, the Supreme Court confirmed that strict liability doesn't breach the presumption of innocence, despite seeming unfair to defendants.

Remember: Most strict liability offences are regulatory rather than 'true crimes' - but there are exceptions like B v DPP!

Murder - The Ultimate Crime

Murder remains a common law offence without statutory definition. Lord Coke's 17th-century definition still applies: 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.' Every element matters for your exam answers.

The actus reus requires killing a human being (not a foetus unless born alive), under the Queen's peace, and unlawfully. Self-defence can make killing lawful if reasonable force is used, judged by what the defendant believed (Beckford). Householders now get extra protection under s.43 Crime & Courts Act 2013.

Mens rea has two types: express malice (intention to kill) and implied malice (intention to cause GBH). This means you can be guilty of murder without intending to kill (Vickers). The normal rules on direct and oblique intention apply.

The mandatory life sentence creates problems, which is why we have partial defences like diminished responsibility and loss of control. Minimum terms range from 15 years to whole life depending on circumstances.

Critical Issue: You can be convicted of murder by only intending serious harm - many argue this is too wide!

Attempts - Trying But Failing

Attempts cover situations where defendants try to commit crimes but fail. Section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 requires intent to commit an offence plus an act 'more than merely preparatory' - this phrase is crucial for exam success.

The old common law tests (last act, proximity, Rubicon) still have persuasive value. Modern courts ask whether the defendant moved from planning to execution (Geddes) and whether they're trying to commit the full offence or just getting ready.

Key cases show the boundaries: Campbell $not guilty - just approaching the scene$, Geddes $not guilty - just being in school toilets with equipment$, but Jones $guilty - getting into victim's car with loaded gun$ and Boyle & Boyle $guilty - trying to open door$.

The 'more than merely preparatory' test requires careful case-by-case analysis. Look for when defendants cross from preparation into actually trying to commit the crime.

Exam Tip: Always explain whether the defendant has moved from preparation to execution - this is the key distinction!