THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA1010 ZB

DIPLOMA IN LAW/CertHE COMMON LAW

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Criminal law

Friday 5 May 2017: 10.00 13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions. Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless
otherwise stated.

PART TWO of the examination consists of both problem and essay questions
and is worth 75% of the marks. Candidates must answer THREE from the SIX
questions in PART TWO.

Permitted materials
Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: one copy of Blackstones Statutes on Criminal Law (OUP).

University of London 2017

UL17/0545
Page 1 of 3
PART TWO

1. Mustaq and Somaya are colleagues who work at an art gallery. One day
a valuable painting goes missing and Mustaq accuses Somaya of stealing
it. This is untrue. Somaya is outraged and picks up a bronze sculpture
and hurls it at Mustaq. In attempting to avoid being struck by the
sculpture, Mustaq strikes his head on an open door, suffering a fractured
skull. Somaya shouts, You deserved that!, and storms out of the room.
When Mustaq is found an hour later an ambulance is called. He is taken
to hospital but is not examined for several hours due to the hospital
receptionist forgetting to log his arrival. By the time the doctor arrives
Mustaq has died. If he had been examined on arrival he would have
survived.

Discuss the criminal liability of Somaya.

How, if at all, would your answer differ if Mustaqs accusation was true?

2. (a) John went to stay with his friend Luke. One evening Luke
cooked a special dish of mussels and prawns for John. Later
that evening John began to vomit due to an allergic reaction to
the mussels. Luke put John to bed hoping that a good sleep
would aid his recovery. When Luke tried to wake John the next
morning John was in a coma. Luke did not realise this and so
did not call the ambulance. When, a few hours later, Luke finally
realised that something was seriously wrong with John he called
for an ambulance. John died on the way to hospital.

Consider Lukes possible criminal liability for gross negligence

manslaughter.

(b) Imran and Ed, who were both in love with the same woman, had
an argument. In the course of the argument Ed pushed Imran
hard. Imran responded by pushing Ed equally hard. Ed fell over,
cutting his arm badly. Imran tried to stop the bleeding with a
handkerchief but was unable to do so because Ed was a
haemophiliac which meant that his blood would not clot. Imran
took Ed to the hospital but got stuck in traffic. By the time he had
arrived at hospital Ed had died of blood loss.

Consider Imrans possible liability for constructive manslaughter.

UL17/0545
Page 2 of 3
3. To what extent have the statutory definition of consent in section 74 of
the Sexual Offences Act 2007 and the presumptions contained in
sections 75 and 76 eased the burden of prosecution and the vulnerability
of rape victims to intrusive court procedures?

4. EITHER

(a) Compare and contrast automatism, insanity and diminished

responsibility.

OR

(b) Compare and contrast intention, recklessness and negligence.

5. Discuss critically the changes made to the law of joint enterprise by R v

Jogee (2016).

6. (a) Explain and discuss the meaning of intention to permanently

deprive for the purpose of the law of theft.

(b) Henrik and Sergio are golfing rivals. Sergio has never won a
major championship. Henrik wins them all the time. On the eve
of the Open Championship, Sergio removes Henriks putter (a
type of golf club) from Henriks bag and hides it. He knows that
Henrik will find it difficult to win using a new putter. He is right.
Henrik is forced to buy a new putter when he discovers his loss
and putts badly throughout the tournament. He comes second
and Sergio wins. Sergio then returns the putter as he had
always intended.

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL17/0545
Page 3 of 3