LLB Criminal Law - 2024 Paper 1

Critically evaluate the current law on the mens rea of murder. To what extent does the decision in R v Woollin [1999] provide a satisfactory definition of intention in criminal law? Consider whether the concept of oblique intent should be abolished in favour of a purely subjective test.

Dave and Emma are at a party. Dave becomes angry when Emma insults his partner. Dave picks up a heavy glass ashtray and throws it at Emma's head from across the room. The ashtray misses Emma but strikes Frank, who is standing behind her, causing a fractured skull. Frank is taken to hospital where Dr Green negligently fails to diagnose a blood clot forming on Frank's brain. Frank dies two days later. Meanwhile, Dave, believing he has killed Emma, flees the scene. He drives recklessly through a residential area at 70mph and hits Gina, a pedestrian, causing her serious spinal injuries. Dave claims he was in a state of panic and did not see Gina. Discuss Dave's criminal liability for the injuries to Frank and Gina, and consider any relevant defences.

The law on involuntary manslaughter is too broad and catches too many defendants who do not deserve a manslaughter conviction. Discuss this statement with reference to unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, considering the decisions in R v Church [1966], R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007], and R v Adomako [1995].

Helen is a nurse at a care home. She is responsible for administering medication to elderly residents. One evening, Helen is extremely tired after working a double shift. She accidentally gives Mr Jones, aged 85, a dose of medication intended for another patient. Mr Jones suffers an allergic reaction and falls into a coma. Helen, realising her mistake, panics and decides not to call for help, hoping Mr Jones will recover naturally. Mr Jones dies the following morning. A post-mortem reveals that had Helen called for medical assistance within 30 minutes of the error, Mr Jones would have survived. Additionally, Helen's colleague Ian witnessed the mistake but said nothing because he was having an affair with Helen and did not want to create problems. Advise on the criminal liability of Helen and Ian.

Analyse the distinction between ss.18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Is the current framework for non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory, or is reform long overdue? Consider the Law Commission's recommendations and the significance of R v Savage [1992], R v Parmenter [1992], and R v Dica [2004].