Criminal Law 2008 Zone A Answer

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Examiner’s report 2008 2650010 Criminal law General comments

Please ensure that you read the following general comments before reading the individual reports for the Zone A and Zone B examinations. Many people reading this report will be studying Criminal law for the first time this year and all candidates should read the following very carefully. However, before you do so, you should listen to the audio presentation on studying Criminal law which you will find on Criminal law homepage of the virtual learning environment (VLE). You can access the VLE through the student portal at http://laws.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=555. When working your way through the subject guide, be sure to listen to the appropriate audio presentation before you embark on your study of that topic. You may initially find that there are not presentations available for all of the topics. This is because they are a new development and will be rolled out incrementally, so check the VLE regularly to see when new audio presentations are produced. The first observation which needs to be made is how obvious it was to the Examiners which candidates had diligently worked their way through the subject guide and study pack. It was equally obvious which candidates had done the recommended readings (including the annual Recent developments update and the newsletters published each month on the VLE), completed the activities in the subject guide and used the ‘reflect and review’ at the end of each chapter of the guide to check how well they understood the materials. These candidates did well. It really is important that you take advantage of the wealth of material provided for you, using the subject guide – and now the accompanying audio presentations available on the VLE – to guide you through each topic on the syllabus. The second observation is how obvious it was that some candidates (and perhaps, in some cases, their lecturers) were not familiar with the syllabus. For example, many candidates from both zones considered (inappropriately) the offence contrary to s.12 of the Theft Act 1968 i.e. taking a conveyance without authority. This offence is not on the University of London Criminal law syllabus. If you have not yet looked at the syllabus please go to the Criminal law homepage on the VLE where you will find it. You can also find the syllabus in the Regulations. Read the syllabus carefully as you will not gain marks for discussing topics which are not on it.

1

265 0010 Criminal law General comments

As always, there were some excellent papers this year and many good and competent ones. Well done to those candidates. Criminal law is a difficult subject. It was obvious from the scripts that those candidates who did well had done the required reading and followed the advice given in the many University of London publications about how to study and how to prepare for the exams. Unfortunately, it was evident from a number of papers that some candidates had not done sufficient work throughout the year to have a reasonable understanding of the issues raised in the questions they attempted. The Criminal law subject guide (and study pack) is based on the syllabus and is the guide for the course on which you will be examined. It is vitally important that you work your way through the subject guide ensuring that you do the recommended reading and attempt all of the activities. Make sure you understand the topic(s) covered in a chapter before you go on to the next one. There is a reflect and review section at the end of each chapter. Go through it and be honest with yourself when deciding on your responses. Revise any areas with which you are still having difficulties. Ensure that you use the VLE regularly in order to keep up to date. There is a monthly newsletter for each subject, provided by the authors of the subject guide and/or Examiners of the relevant subject. On the VLE you can download the subject guide and study pack in full, as well as the Recent developments, which are published in late February. The VLE also contains many other features to help you with your studies. You should also ensure that you do the computer marked assessments which are available through the VLE. There are three for each subject. Although the tests are in a different format to the examination, they are an excellent way for you to test your knowledge and understanding of a subject and your ability to apply your knowledge. You must complete the online research exercises. In addition to being a compulsory component of the Common law reasoning and institutions course, they will familiarise you with the databases we provide for you through the online library and will introduce you to the research skills you are expected to develop throughout the course. They can be accessed through the VLE. The VLE has been updated this year and this will make it easier for you to navigate. There is now a single sign-on portal and you will have been given your own University of London email account. Please check this email account regularly as news of updates etc. will be sent to you at this email address. Note that you can access this account and set it up so that emails are forwarded to your preferred email account. If you experience any problems with the VLE please email [email protected]. If you experience problems with the portal or with your email account please email [email protected]. You should use the online library regularly. You can find cases, statutes and articles to help you with your studies. You can access the library through the VLE or go to http://www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/. Again, ensure you listen to the audio presentations (referred to above). They

2

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

tell you which are the most important journals, series of law reports and websites generally for Criminal law. The examination is strictly based on the syllabus (see above) so don’t introduce offences into your answers which are not on the syllabus, no matter how tempted you are. You will not get extra marks for this. You are unlikely to have studied these offences in any depth and will therefore not have sufficient knowledge to discuss them competently. Even if you can, you will, unfortunately, just be wasting your very valuable examination time. This was mentioned in the examination reports for last year and the year before and it can only be assumed that, in addition to the candidates concerned, who clearly have not looked at the syllabus, it may be that lecturers have not done so either and have taught these topics. If you are familiar with the topics on the syllabus, you will be in a position to point this out to your lecturers if they begin to teach a topic which is irrelevant to your studies. Remember, you have more than enough to cover without increasing your workload with additional and irrelevant material. It was evident from a number of papers that many candidates had not revised sufficiently to enable them to pass. Limiting your revision to a small number of topics is very dangerous as, if those topics do not come up on the examination paper, you will not know enough to pass the examination. In addition, far too many candidates mismanaged their time, writing extremely long answers to one or two questions and very short or no answers to the remainder. This might, of course, be because they had not revised sufficiently to enable them to answer more than a couple of questions competently. Whatever the reason, if you do not attempt all four questions, you are unlikely to pass. All of the questions were answered at least competently by some candidates and there were some excellent answers. However there were also errors, many of which were common errors that are made every year. Some of these are outlined at the beginning of the individual examination reports and others are dealt with in the comments on specific questions. It is crucial that you ensure that your knowledge is up to date. It was obvious from the answers to some questions that a number of candidates had not read the Recent developments – or did not give sufficient thought to what they read. Recent developments are posted to the VLE and external system website (www.londonexternal.ac.uk) as soon after 15 February as possible. This is the date up to which you are expected to be aware of developments in the law in any one year. The Fraud Act 2006 was mentioned in the Examiner’s report last year and it was surprising to find that even this year there were some candidates who did not seem to have heard of it. It was in the subject guide for the year 2007/8 so there was no excuse. Most candidates, however, were aware of it although, unfortunately, some did not appear to know it very well. When using a case as an authority for a legal principle in your answer to a problem question, it is only very rarely appropriate to refer to the facts of that case. You should state the principle upon which you are

3

265 0010 Criminal law General comments

basing your analysis of the issue, the name of the authority (case), the court in which the decision was made and, if you can remember it, the date. Where, however, you wish to distinguish a case, a brief reference to the facts may be appropriate to explain the basis of the distinction. All of the offences on the syllabus carry a maximum penalty – except for murder which carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. Although it is appropriate to briefly mention its maximum penalty the first time you refer to an offence – if only because it demonstrate that you are aware of the seriousness or otherwise of the offence or the importance of a defendant succeeding with one of the special defences to murder – further repetition is not necessary. It should be emphasised that where there is unnecessary repetition, the problem is that, while you will not necessarily lose marks, you will not gain them either. The time you have used up making these unnecessary repetitions could be far better spent thinking through your answers more fully and considering what you might have missed out – thus gaining yourself extra marks. When writing an essay, it is important that you come to a conclusion. You should explain why you have come to your conclusion and, in order to do so, you must refer to the arguments you have made both for and against the proposition advanced in the question. See the advice in Chapter 6 of the Criminal law subject guide.

4

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Examiner’s report 2008 265 0010 Criminal law Zone A Introduction Read the Examiner’s general comments on the examination before reading this report on the specific questions. Carefully consider the list below of things to remember when answering a Criminal law examination question. This list comes from the most common mistakes made by candidates taking the exam this year. Try not to be the one who makes them next year! 

Always begin each answer on a new page.



Remember to put the numbers of the questions you have answered in the box at the front of your answer book.



Write legibly.



Don’t ‘tick’ your own work. (It doesn’t fool anybody!)



In a question where there are a number of defendants, always discuss the principal offender’s liability before going on to consider the liability of any accomplice.



Where a defendant can avail him/herself of a defence, remember to discuss the relevant offence(s) before you consider any possible defence(s).



Try to be concise. Some candidates write pages of material before, and sometimes without, getting to the point.



On the issue of mens rea, it was gratifying to see how many candidates were familiar with Lord Steyn’s statement on intention and applied it appropriately. However some candidates did limit their discussion merely to saying ‘the mens rea for murder is intention’. Intention to what?



Candidates were also generally vague on the issue of recklessness. It is not enough to say ‘recklessness is sufficient’. Sufficient what? You should explain what needs to be proved here and apply it to the facts of the question. That does not mean airily saying (as many candidates did) ‘s/he was subjectively reckless’. What does that mean? What exactly is it that the prosecution has to prove?



On the issue of mens rea again, where an offence can be committed intentionally or recklessly, this cannot mean – as some seemed to think – intentionally and recklessly. Think about it…

1

265 0010 Criminal law Zone A



When the appropriate offence is murder (for example a question which is begging for a discussion of murder, provocation and/or diminished responsibility) you don’t need to consider the range of non-fatal offences. Indeed, if you are going to deal properly with the question, there will not be time.



It is not enough merely to identify a possible offence and then copy the definition from your statute book. You must discuss the ingredients of that offence and relate your discussion to the facts disclosed in the question or, if it is an essay question, the issue for discussion. See in particular Question 5(a) where many candidates merely copied from the statute.



Finally – remember the jury does not have to prove anything!

All of the chapters referred to below are from the Criminal law subject guide.

Specific comments on questions Question 1 "…intention' cannot be satisfactorily defined and does not need a definition since everybody knows what it means." (Glanville Williams) Discuss. This was a straightforward essay question Most, but not all, of the cases which should have been considered deal with the offence of murder, which is the most serious of the specific intent crimes. While there are a number of cases that are relevant to this discussion, and should have been discussed, there is a world of difference between formulating a discussion using cases to exemplify the principles and writing a ‘shopping list’ of cases without any real discussion of the outcome of those cases as it relates to the issue raised in the question. This difference will have been reflected in the marks awarded. A good starting point might have been the ‘Woollin direction’ to the jury on the issue of intention, followed by a discussion of the ‘oblique’ or ‘indirect’ intent element of that direction and how the courts have dealt with this over the years. Having said that, there is more than one approach that you might have used to answer this question. The most important thing is that candidates actually deal with the issue raised in the question. Listen to audio presentation 8 on the VLE and read Chapter 8 of the subject guide. When you have done this you should be able to answer this question competently.

2

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Question 2 How does the defence of consent apply in cases involving non-fatal offences against the person? Discuss whether you think the law in this area is satisfactory. (Do not consider sexual offences.) Not many candidates attempted this question. Although the issue of consent in this area is, to a large extent, policy driven and can seem a little complex, the question itself was not a difficult one. See Chapter 9.4 of the subject guide and the accompanying VLE audio presentation on non-fatal offences. Although the rule appears to be that there is no offence where a person freely consents (i.e. the consent is ‘real’, Chapter 9.4.2) to what would otherwise be a common assault, the courts have restricted the application of this rule on public policy grounds (see Chapter 9.4.3 and AG‘s Ref (No 6 of 1980) (1981)). Nevertheless, there are many exceptions to this restriction. If you read Chapter 9.4.3 carefully, and attempt the selfreflection activities, you will become aware of how this defence applies in cases involving non-fatal offences. You will then be in a position to consider sensibly, and by reference to the decisions, whether the law in this area is satisfactory.

Question 3 Sadie belongs to a criminal organisation which deals in stolen works of art. She asked Barney, who she knew had previous convictions for theft and violence, to obtain a valuable statue from a local museum. She offered to pay Barney £5,000 on receipt of the statue. Barney, who was trying to stay out of trouble, refused at first but agreed when Sadie pointed out that she knew some very violent people who could probably be persuaded to do something not very nice to Barney's two little children. Barney entered the museum just before it closed for the night. He hid in the cloakroom until the museum closed whereupon he emerged into the main exhibition hall. He then disabled the alarm system and took the statue. As he was leaving the exhibition hall, he was confronted by Cedric and Darren, the security guards. Barney immediately hit each of them with the statue. He hit Cedric over the head knocking him unconscious and hit Darren several times in the face. Darren's nose and jaw were broken and Darren fell to the ground unconscious. Barney then made his escape. Consider the possible criminal liability of Sadie and Barney. The issues in this question require knowledge – and application to the facts of the question – of a number areas of law which are covered in the subject guide and the audio presentations on the VLE. Please remember that, when dealing with a number of parties to a crime, you should always deal with the principal offender first. It also follows that if more than one person is involved in the commission of an offence, there is likely to be an issue of incitement and/or conspiracy to discuss – as there certainly is in this question. Some candidates did acknowledge this but

3

265 0010 Criminal law Zone A

many did not do any more than that. Always remember to consider the elements of any relevant offence. You will find these in Chapter 14 of the subject guide and in the accompanying audio presentation. Possible offences committed by Barney – as the principal offender – should have been considered next. You should not consider any possible defence he might have until you have dealt with the offences. A number of candidates considered the defence at the beginning of their answer, which is not an appropriate method of dealing with a question such as this. Consider the offence of burglary contrary to s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. Did Barney commit this offence when he first entered the museum – if so, why? If not did he commit the offence when he emerged into the main exhibition hall after the museum had closed? See Chapter 17.2 of the subject guide. The s.9(1)(b) offence would be committed if, when he dishonestly appropriated the statue, he intended to permanently deprive the museum of it (see Chapter 17.3). Was Barney still in the process of committing burglary when he attacked Cedric and Darren? If so, consider aggravated burglary (see Chapter 17.2.5 and the associated reading). If the actus reus of theft (which is one of the ingredients of the offence of burglary contrary to s.9(1)(b)) was still continuing at the time of the attack you might also consider robbery contrary to s.8 of the Theft Act 1968 (see Chapter 17.1). Finally, might there have been an offence contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (see Chapter 10). You should also listen to the appropriate audio presentations on the VLE which accompany the above chapters. The defence of duress falls to be considered as Sadie did put Barney under some pressure to commit the offences. Note that it is not enough merely to point this out, you must consider the elements of any defence you consider appropriate (see Chapter 13.1 and the accompanying audio presentation). Note also, that the burden of proof is not on the defendant, contrary to that which many candidates indicated in their answers. Sadie’s possible accessorial liability must also be considered. Can she be liable as an accomplice in respect of all the offences outlined above? How is this determined? Note that in Chapter 15 of the subject guide (p.227) the author points out that: It should be noted that [section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861] does not create an offence of ‘being a secondary party’. It provides that a person who ‘aided, abetted, counselled or procured’ D1 to commit a particular offence is also guilty of that offence.

Why is this important? Go to Chapter 15 of the subject guide and listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the VLE.

Question 4 As Dipak, aged 19, had, for some time, been spending more than he was earning, his bank cancelled his overdraft facility and asked him to return his credit card to them.

4

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

Dipak then applied for a loan from a building society, stating on the application form that he was in good financial standing with his own bank. The building society insisted that their borrowers take out a life insurance policy so Dipak agreed to do so. He filled in the application form falsely stating that he was a non-smoker. He then went to a restaurant and had a meal for which he paid with his credit card, following which he decided to go to a strip club. The club required its clients to be 21 or over and Dipak assured them be was 21 before paying the entry fee in cash. The following day he heard from the building society which had checked with his bank and refused him the loan. As he was now in serious financial trouble, he decided that desperate measures were necessary. He sent an email to a number of people, making it look as though it came from a bank. The email requested a number of personal account details stating that the reason for the request was to increase banking security. Nobody complied with the request. Discuss the possible criminal liability of Dipak. The Fraud Act 2006, by virtue of s.1 creates a general offence of fraud which can be committed by false representation (s.2), failing to disclose information (s.3) and abuse of position (s.4). All three forms of fraud require proof of dishonesty and an intention to make a gain in terms of money or other property, or an intention to cause loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss in terms of money or other property. All of the elements of each offence need to be considered when answering a question and you should relate what you say to the facts of the question. Note that the offence of obtaining services dishonestly, contrary to s.11 of the Fraud Act, is also on the syllabus. Fraud is considered in Chapter 16 of the subject guide. You should listen to the accompanying audio presentation on the VLE and then read Chapter 16, ensuring that you complete all of the activities. Please note that fraud offences were considered in the 2007 Recent developments and in two newsletters, published in November and December 2006, which are available on the VLE. Although this question was straightforward, it was more than just an ‘issue spotting’ exercise. Most candidates who attempted this question did identify most, and sometimes all, of the issues raised in the question but far too many did not deal with the elements of the offences in sufficient or, in some cases, any depth. For example, although many candidates knew the term ‘phishing’, most forgot to discuss the offence itself, which was fraud by false representation. Remember that there is no need for the prosecution to prove that anyone was actually deceived by the representation. By virtue of s.2(5) a representation may be regarded as made if it is submitted in any form to a system designed to receive, convey or respond to communications. This includes representations made to machines and/or over the internet. See Chapter 16.2.3 and complete the activities. In particular , for an

5

265 0010 Criminal law Zone A

explanation of ‘phishing’ look at page 253 of the subject guide, ‘False representation using a system or device’. The issue in relation to the building society loan which needed particular attention was that a fraudulent representation is an assertion which is untrue or misleading and which the person making it knows is or might be untrue or misleading (s.2(2)). The issue of dishonesty and the Ghosh test also should have been considered here. Did he commit any offence(s) by falsely declaring that he was a non-smoker or by lying about his age to gain entry to the strip club? What implied representation did he make when he paid for the meal with his credit card? Remember, no matter how straightforward the question, you must always consider carefully all of the elements of any offence you are dealing with.

Question 5 a) When is an assault 'sexual' for the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 2003? b) While in a pub, Bertie noticed Cathie who was sitting by herself. He went over to talk to her and offered her a lift home. Cathie accepted readily as she had had too much to drink to be able to walk home herself. On the way home Bertie parked the car in a lay-by and suggested they go for a stroll. When they got out of the car Bertie had to support Cathie as she was too drunk to stand without support. He interpreted this as amounting to an encouragement to him to make advances towards her. He fondled her breasts and was pleasantly surprised when she put up no resistance so he went on to have sexual intercourse with her. Cathie's sole reaction was to submit passively while giggling hysterically. She later said that she would never have allowed sexual intercourse to take place had she not been so drunk. Consider Bertie's possible criminal liability. This was a straightforward two-part question but unfortunately it was generally not answered very well. As mentioned above, a common problem was candidates who, when answering part (a), merely copied out s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 without considering the issue raised in the question – when is an assault ‘sexual’? See Chapter 11.5.1, which sets out the offence of sexual assault, and Chapter 11.7 which considers the meaning of ‘sexual’. Note that this offence replaced the offence of indecent assault. It is important that you complete the activities and self-assessment in chapter 11.7 and listen to the accompanying audio presentation to gain an understanding of this issue. A problem related to part (b) of the question and one that arises again and again in answers to problem questions was that the issues raised by the question were not dealt with in a precise and consistent manner. First of all, candidates must identify the appropriate offence (and only deal with one offence at a time). They should then consider the ingredients of that offence as defined in the statute, always relating the analysis to the facts given in the question. Read Chapter 11 of the subject guide. What offences

6

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

should have been considered in the light of the facts of this question? Look very carefully at the ingredients of each offence. Is there any overlap between them? Ensure that you complete the activities and self-reflection exercises in Chapter 11 and listen to the audio presentation on the VLE.

Question 6 In Palmer (1971) Lord Morris said that reasonable force in self-defence, "requires no set words by way of explanation. No formula need be employed in reference to it. Only common sense is needed for its understanding." Have the courts in subsequent decisions on the use of reasonable force used common sense? Not many candidates answered this essay question. It was not particularly complex and could have been answered well by any candidate who was familiar with the defence of self-defence and approached the question logically and concisely. However many of those who did answer it did not do much more than write a shopping list of some of the cases on selfdefence. First of all what is self-defence? Always define your terms. What part does reasonable force play in this defence? What is it and who decides whether or not force is, in fact, reasonable? To see how the courts have dealt with this please see Chapter 12 of the subject guide and the accompanying audio presentation on the VLE.

Question 7 Jemima, who had been drinking heavily, was travelling in a train on her way home, having been to a football match where her local football team were badly beaten by another team. She vented her anger on the train seats two of which she ripped apart. Another passenger, Eric who was sitting nearby eating a roll and butter, hid under a seat in case Jemima attacked him. Eric had been told that day by a fortune teller that the devil was watching him and when David, the train guard, walked past Eric's seat, he thought it was the devil coming to get him. He tripped David up and then stabbed him in the leg with the knife he had used to butter the roll. The cut, although not very serious, required stitches. When David was taken to hospital, he was given an antibiotic injection which reacted badly with the insulin he took to control his diabetes. He suffered a hyperglycaemic episode during which he pushed his way into a laboratory, knocking over a bunsen burner. This caused a fire which spread quickly and burnt down one wing of the hospital. Everybody was safely evacuated and nobody was hurt. Consider the possible criminal liability of Jemima, Eric and David. This was a very straightforward problem question and most candidates who attempted it answered it reasonably competently or better. A

7

265 0010 Criminal law Zone A

worrying number, however, mentioned the possibility of Jemima being drunk and disorderly. She may well have been and may also have been guilty of a number of other offences not on the syllabus but no marks can be awarded for discussing these. Please ensure that you – and your lecturers if you are studying at an institution – are familiar with the offences on the syllabus. Most candidates did identify the offence of criminal damage, contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, but many did not consider, by reference to the elements of that offence, whether it could be established that Jemima might have committed it. The facts of the question do make it clear that she committed the actus reus of the offence (see Chapter 18 of the subject guide and the audio presentation on the VLE). As to the mens rea, this (as the statute states, intention or recklessness. The facts of the question make it fairly clear that it was her purpose to damage the seats. Would the fact that she was intoxicated have any bearing here? So far as Eric’s possible criminal liability is concerned, you should have considered a range of non-fatal offences against the person. Which ones do you think? Chapters 9 and 10 of the subject guide and the accompanying audio presentations should make this clear. You should also have considered the possible defence of insanity (Chapter 13 and accompanying audio presentation). Not many candidates dealt with this defence. Always read the question carefully as the facts will indicate what possible offences and defences are relevant. Eric thought the Devil was out to get him and that David was the Devil. That was a fairly obvious indication that he might have been suffering from a defect of reason. The offences to consider in respect of David fall within the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (see again Chapter 18 of the subject guide and listen to the audio presentation on criminal damage). In particular s.1(2) and (3) would have been relevant, although not many candidates mentioned this. See pp.280–282 of the subject guide and the associated activities. As the facts of the question make very clear, the defence of automatism was relevant (see Chapter 3 of the subject guide and the audio presentation on the VLE). Note that automatism is also considered again briefly in Chapter 13.2, pp.202–203. Although many candidates who answered this question did identify this, it was generally not dealt with in sufficient depth. Which type of automatism might he have been suffering from? What are the ingredients of this defence? On whom is the burden of proof? See also, on the VLE, the February 2008 newsletter on automatism.

Question 8 One evening Jinky received a visit from her old friend Lanky. They were both alcoholics and Jinky had a history of depression for which she was taking medication. Together with another friend, Pongo, they spent the evening drinking and reminiscing. Jinky had grievances against Lanky, some of which went back many years. The most recent was her belief that Lanky had stolen her gardening implements and sold them to buy drink. Lanky's repeated denials only inflamed Jinky further. When Pongo went into the kitchen to make a cup of tea,

8

Examination papers and Examiner’s reports 2008

the argument reached fever pitch. Lanky again denied stealing the gardening implements and Jinky lost her temper. She picked up a pair of scissors and stabbed Lanky repeatedly, killing her. Discuss Jinky's possible criminal liability. Would your answer differ if Lanky had not died immediately but had died after Pongo, who had done only one year's nursing training, had decided not to call for an ambulance but had given inappropriate first aid which exacerbated the bleeding? This was a popular question and many candidates answered it competently. There was, however, a marked tendency to deal with the alternative part of the question at the same time as the main part. Not only did this change the tenor of the main part of the question - an ’in depth’ discussion of causation was not relevant here – but candidates who did this made answering the question unecessarily complicated for themselves. The facts of the question were based on the facts of the case of Smith (Morgan) (2000). So far as the first part of the question was concerned, you were told that Lanky had died, having been stabbed by Jinky. This combined with Jinky’s possible loss of self-control and the fact that she was being treated for depression made it clear that the offence of murder and the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility fell to be considered. Why did so many candidates raise non-fatal offences and/or the defence of insanity? You should also have considered Jinky’s alcoholism, the fact that she had been drinking all evening and that she took medication for her depression. What impact might this have had? See Chapter 7 of the subject guide (murder) and Chapter 8 (provocation and diminished responsibility). Also see the May 2008 VLE newsletter on provocation and diminished responsibility. For the impact of intoxication on the defence of diminished responsibility, see Dietschman (2003) HL and Hendy (2006). The 2007 Recent developments deals with Hendy and the February 2007 VLE newsletter discusses both of these cases. The second part of the question (which should have been dealt with separately) required consideration of the rules on causation in relation to Pongo’s conduct, ie did it break the chain of causation between Jinky’s conduct and Lanky’s death? Chapter 5 of the subject guide deals with these rules as does the accompanying audio presentation.

9