LLB Criminal Law - Practice Paper 3

Adrian and Beth are married but their relationship has deteriorated. Adrian has been emotionally and financially abusive towards Beth for several years, controlling her finances and isolating her from friends. One evening, Adrian tells Beth he has emptied their joint bank account and transferred all funds to his personal account, leaving Beth and their two children with nothing. Adrian then says, "You're worthless. No one would care if you disappeared." Beth, who has been diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety, goes to the kitchen, takes a large knife, and stabs Adrian once in the chest while he sits watching television. Adrian dies from the wound. Beth immediately calls the emergency services and says, "I've killed him. I couldn't take it anymore." A neighbour, Carol, who had heard years of arguments through the walls, testifies that she saw Beth appear calm and deliberate when she made the 999 call. Discuss Beth's criminal liability for Adrian's death. Consider all available defences, including the interplay between loss of control, diminished responsibility, and self-defence in the context of coercive control.

Critically analyse the relationship between the principles of fair labelling, proportionality, and maximum certainty in criminal law. Using examples from at least three areas of substantive criminal law, evaluate whether the current law achieves an appropriate balance between these principles.

Edward runs a pharmaceutical company. He discovers that one of his company's drugs, widely prescribed for high blood pressure, has a rare side effect causing liver failure in approximately 1 in 50,000 patients. Edward commissions a risk assessment which confirms the risk but concludes that withdrawing the drug would cause more deaths from untreated blood pressure than the liver failure risk. Edward decides not to withdraw the drug or warn patients and doctors about the risk. He also instructs his head of research, Frances, to delete the risk assessment report. Frances complies but secretly keeps a copy. Six months later, Grace, a patient taking the drug, develops liver failure and dies. Her husband, Henry, discovers the cover-up through a whistleblower and sues the company. During the civil proceedings, Edward lies under oath about the existence of the risk assessment. Frances then produces her copy. Discuss the criminal liability of Edward and Frances, considering corporate and individual criminal liability, gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, perverting the course of justice, and any other relevant offences.

The law on secondary liability and withdrawal from a joint criminal enterprise remains uncertain despite the Supreme Court's decision in R v Jogee [2016]. Critically evaluate the requirements for effective withdrawal, considering R v Becerra [1975], R v Mitchell [1999], and R v O'Flaherty [2004], and assess whether a statutory codification of withdrawal would improve the law.

James and Kara agree to rob a petrol station. James will enter with a replica firearm and demand cash while Kara drives the getaway car. On the night, James enters the petrol station and points the replica gun at the cashier, Laura. Laura, who suffers from a severe anxiety disorder, has a panic attack and collapses, hitting her head on the counter. She suffers a concussion. James takes £800 from the till. As James runs to the car, a customer, Martin, attempts to tackle him. James strikes Martin with the replica gun, breaking Martin's jaw. Kara, who can see the events through the window, drives off without James, having decided the violence has gone too far. James runs to a nearby bus stop and hides the replica gun and cash in a bin. A passerby, Nathan, witnesses James hiding the items. Nathan retrieves the cash from the bin and keeps it. Police later recover the replica gun. Discuss the criminal liability of James, Kara, Martin, and Nathan.