Cambridge BA: Non-Fatal Offences & Sexual Offences Exam Paper

Alice and Ben are at a university party. Alice has been drinking heavily and is visibly intoxicated, slurring her words and struggling to walk steadily. Ben, who has had only one drink, approaches Alice and suggests they go to his room. Alice nods and follows him upstairs. In Ben's room, Alice sits on the bed and appears drowsy. Ben begins kissing her, and she responds initially but then becomes unresponsive, appearing to fall asleep. Ben continues with sexual activity despite Alice's lack of response. The next morning, Alice has no clear memory of the events and reports the matter to the police. Ben claims Alice consented and that he genuinely believed she was consenting throughout. During the police investigation, it emerges that Ben had attended a recent university seminar on consent and sexual offences. CCTV footage shows Alice's heavily intoxicated state when leaving the party. Several witnesses can testify to Alice's level of intoxication. Medical evidence suggests Alice's blood alcohol level would have significantly impaired her cognitive function and decision-making capacity. Advise on Ben's potential liability for rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with particular reference to the issues of consent and reasonable belief in consent.

David, a professional boxer, encounters his former girlfriend Emma at a nightclub. Their relationship ended acrimoniously six months ago after Emma discovered David's affair. Upon seeing Emma dancing with another man, Frank, David becomes enraged. He approaches them aggressively, shouting 'You'll pay for what you did to me!' Emma, recognising David's volatile temper from their relationship, immediately fears he will attack her and begins backing away. David then punches Frank hard in the face, breaking his nose and causing him to fall unconscious, hitting his head on the floor. Frank suffers a fractured skull and remains in hospital for two weeks. David then turns to Emma, raising his fist and saying 'You're next, you cheating witch!' Emma, terrified, runs to the bathroom and locks herself in. David follows, kicking the door violently and shouting threats about what he will do to her. Other patrons call the police, and David is arrested before gaining entry to the bathroom. Frank makes a full recovery but suffers recurring nightmares and anxiety about the incident. Emma develops post-traumatic stress disorder requiring ongoing psychiatric treatment. During police interview, David claims he only intended to frighten Emma and that his punch to Frank was instinctive due to his boxing training. Expert evidence suggests David's professional boxing background means he would have understood the serious harm his punch could cause. Discuss David's criminal liability for offences against the person.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 represents a fundamental shift in the approach to sexual offences, moving from a consent-based model focused on resistance to one centred on autonomy and capacity. Critically evaluate the effectiveness of the Act's definitional framework, particularly the interplay between the s.74 definition of consent, the evidential presumptions in s.75, and the conclusive presumptions in s.76. To what extent has this framework succeeded in addressing the deficiencies of the pre-2003 law while maintaining appropriate safeguards for defendants?

'The distinction between grievous bodily harm under s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has become increasingly blurred and problematic. The difference in mens rea requirements, while theoretically clear, creates arbitrary distinctions in practice and fails to reflect the moral culpability of defendants.' Critically assess this statement, examining whether the current approach to distinguishing between ss.18 and 20 OAPA 1861 is satisfactory, and consider what reforms, if any, might be desirable.