Brief Feedback Notes On Crime & The Criminal Process Exam-S1 2014.

Due to tight deadlines for marking exams, it is not possible for teachers to provide extensive comments on individual exam scripts. In
the interests of assisting students to appreciate their performance in the exam, please refer to the notes below.
The following notes provide a general outline of what was expected in the answer to Part A. It is NOT meant to be a model answer, but
may offer some guidance for students who may not appreciate why their marks may not have been as high as expected.
Part A- Problem Question: Common Errors.
Missing important charges/issues
Simply listing relevant legislation without consideration of whether it might succeed in this particular case
Spending too long on one character and not leaving enough time to consider others in proper detail
Poor structure eg jumping from one character to another in relation to a couple of offences and then reintroducing the same
character later on.
Ignoring the part of the sub question 1) which asked you to advise on the prospects of convictionit is insufficient to simply
specify the relevant section of the offence. What is required is some discussion of the elements of the offence, ie, actus reus,
mens rea.
Part A- 1) .
The best answers were those which identified relevant charges; specified the precise statutory provisions; noted the elements
which must be proved by the Prosecution and came to a decision about the prospects of a conviction, citing reasons.
Specifically, did you discuss whether each element of the offence was capable of being satisfied on the facts? Did you discuss the
law in relation to each element? Did you apply the law to the facts?
The following statutory provisions should have been raised for consideration, even if you came to the conclusion that a conviction was
unlikely.
Theon
S10 DMTA
Rob
S4A SOA
S199 LEPRA
S93B/S93C CRIMES ACT
Arya
S10 DMTA
S25/29 DMTA
Bonus marks were awarded for a nuanced consideration of some charges eg s4A (Rob). Better answers considered the differing
standards applied in case law for the fault element of s4A (mensrea/strict liability).
Part A- 2) Bail.
The best answers thoroughly applied the factors in S17(3) Bail Act to the facts, clearly outlining the factors in favour/against Bail, and
provided a conclusion as to whether Theon and Arya posed an unacceptable risk, and what Bail conditions, if any, are appropriate.

1
CCP Exam feedback

Part A- 3) Police Powers.

A well structured discussion of each of the relevant police powers which were exercised; whether they were exercised properly and
lawfully, and the consequences of police non-compliance.
Importantly, answers should identify the courts discretionary power to exclude evidence under S138 Evidence Act on the basis of
unlawful or improper exercise of police powers.
Better answers would have already discussed in in subsection 1), how the exercise of police powers might determine whether
there is a prima facie case for a particular charge to be made out eg, Robs charge in relation to S197 LEPRA depends on firstly
whether the police lawfully exercised their power under S199 to move him on; and whether the safeguards under S201 were
complied with. Referencing back to any earlier discussion so as not to repeat, is appropriate.
reasonable suspicion =less than reas. belief but more than possibility (R v Rhondo)
Were the police searches of Theon and Arya lawful? eg, Lannisters call + Police taskforce intelligence = basis of reas susp for
searching Theon (s21 (1)(d). Running from Police not sufficient on its own.
What was the legal basis of police entry into the house? Robs invitation to the Police, gave an implied license to police to enter the
house without requiring reasonable suspicion or warrant. Bonus marks if consider whether Robs consent for police to enter
was actual?
Were the arrests of Theon, Arya and Rob lawful? i.e S99(1)(a) after finding Theons joint, but was it reasonably necessary to
arrest him? This discussion required an application of S99 to the facts, and common law/statutory principles of arrest as last resort
(Carr/Lake); Alternatives to arrest: CAN; move-on directions; warning/caution under Young Offenders Act 1997.
Was the use of Taser force in arresting Rob reasonably necessary? objective test and the reasonable officer (Ali Alkan/Bugmy)
Move on direction to the group: was it lawful in accordance with S197(c), and 197(2). Bonus points for noting that under S197(3)
the effected person was a police officer, and this has been subject to critique by the Ombudsman as insufficient to make out the
section.
Were S201 safeguards complied with for the searches arrest and move-ons? if not what were the likely effects? ie potential
exclusion of evidence, in relation to which charges?

2
CCP Exam feedback