GDL Criminal Law - Paper 3

Aisha and Bilal agree to set fire to an abandoned warehouse for insurance fraud. Aisha prepares petrol bombs while Bilal researches the building's layout. On the night, Bilal decides the plan is too risky and texts Aisha saying "I'm out." Aisha proceeds alone. Unknown to Aisha, a homeless person, Callum, is sleeping inside. The fire kills Callum. Aisha is arrested and tells police that Bilal planned everything. During the investigation, it emerges that Aisha has a personality disorder that impairs her judgment. The psychiatrist confirms she understood what she was doing but her condition made it harder to resist Bilal's influence. Discuss the criminal liability of both Aisha and Bilal, including inchoate offences, homicide, and any available defences.

The law of complicity has been fundamentally reshaped by R v Jogee (2016). Critically evaluate this decision and its impact on joint enterprise liability. Consider the previous law under R v Powell and English (1999), the concept of parasitic accessorial liability, and whether Jogee has created a principled and workable framework. Assess the implications for defendants previously convicted under the pre-Jogee principles.

Diana, a nurse, is caring for her terminally ill mother, Edith, who is in severe pain and has repeatedly asked Diana to end her suffering. Diana increases Edith's morphine dosage beyond the prescribed amount, knowing this will hasten death but primarily intending to relieve pain. Edith dies. Diana's colleague, Felix, discovers what happened and threatens to report Diana unless she pays him £10,000. Diana refuses, and Felix reports her to the police. During the investigation, it emerges that the hospital had recently changed its pain management protocol, and the old protocol would have permitted the dosage Diana administered. Discuss Diana's criminal liability and any defences available to her. Also consider Felix's liability for blackmail.

Critically assess the law on consent as a defence to non-fatal offences against the person. Evaluate the decision in R v Brown (1994) and its subsequent application, including the exceptions recognised in case law. Consider whether the current law is coherent and whether it unjustifiably restricts personal autonomy. Discuss the implications of R v Wilson (1997) and the evolving approach to body modification and sporting injuries.

Grace owns a valuable painting. Her neighbour, Hugo, tells her it is a worthless reproduction and offers to buy it for £100. Grace, trusting Hugo, agrees. Hugo sells the painting at auction for £50,000. Grace discovers the truth and confronts Hugo, who laughs and says "a deal is a deal." Grace then enters Hugo's house through an unlocked door while he is away and takes back the painting. Hugo reports Grace to the police for burglary. Meanwhile, Hugo's wife, Iris, had been secretly photographing Hugo's private financial documents and sending them to Hugo's business rival, Jake, in exchange for payments totalling £20,000. Discuss the criminal liability of Hugo, Grace, Iris, and Jake.