LLB Criminal Law - Practice Paper 1

Marcus owns a small electronics shop. Business has been poor and Marcus is heavily in debt. He devises a plan to claim on his insurance by staging a burglary. Marcus asks his employee, Nina, to help. Nina agrees and one night they break the shop window and remove stock worth £30,000 to a storage unit rented by Marcus. Marcus reports the burglary to the police and submits an insurance claim for £50,000, inflating the value of the stolen goods. The insurance company pays out £50,000. Two months later, Nina demands an additional £5,000 from Marcus, threatening to tell the police about the staged burglary if he refuses. Marcus refuses, and Nina sends an anonymous letter to the insurance company, revealing the fraud. Meanwhile, Marcus's accountant, Oliver, had noticed discrepancies in the shop's books suggesting the burglary was staged, but chose to say nothing because Marcus was his biggest client. Advise on the criminal liability of Marcus, Nina, and Oliver.

The doctrine of joint enterprise has historically been used to secure convictions in cases of gang violence. Critically assess whether the law on joint enterprise, as reformed by R v Jogee [2016], adequately balances the need to prosecute group criminality with the rights of individual defendants.

Ruth is a personal trainer. She designs a highly intensive workout programme for her client Sam, a 55-year-old with a known heart condition. Ruth assures Sam the programme is safe for him, despite knowing it exceeds recommended intensity levels for someone with cardiac issues. During a session, Sam collapses and suffers a cardiac arrest. Ruth performs CPR but fails to call an ambulance for 15 minutes because she is worried about the reputational damage. When paramedics arrive, they administer treatment but Sam has already suffered irreversible brain damage. Sam is placed on life support. His family decide to switch off the machine after three weeks and Sam dies. Medical evidence shows that had an ambulance been called immediately, Sam would have survived with minor complications. Discuss Ruth's criminal liability for Sam's death.

Examine the defence of diminished responsibility under s.2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Has the reformed definition of diminished responsibility improved clarity and fairness in its application?

Teresa and Umar live together. Teresa suspects Umar of stealing £200 from her purse. In fact, Umar took the money believing Teresa owed it to him for household expenses he had paid. When Teresa confronts Umar, he refuses to return the money. Teresa waits until Umar falls asleep and takes his laptop, worth £800, intending to sell it and keep the money as compensation for the £200 she believes was stolen. She sells the laptop to a pawnbroker, Warren, for £300. Warren does not ask any questions about the laptop's provenance despite its low price and Teresa's nervous demeanour. The next day, Teresa sends Umar a text saying "I took your laptop because you stole my money. Give me my £200 back and I'll tell you where to find the laptop." Advise on the criminal liability of Teresa, Umar, and Warren.