LLB Criminal Law - 2024 Paper 3

Critically assess whether the current law on intoxication and criminal liability strikes the right balance between individual autonomy and public protection. Discuss the distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication and between crimes of specific and basic intent, with reference to DPP v Majewski [1977], R v Kingston [1995], and R v Heard [2007].

Sarah and Tom are neighbours who have been in dispute for months over a boundary fence. One afternoon, Sarah deliberately drives her car through Tom's fence, destroying it. Tom runs out and confronts Sarah. During a heated argument, Tom pushes Sarah, who falls against her car and suffers bruising to her back (ABH). Sarah then picks up a piece of the broken fence (a wooden plank with nails protruding) and strikes Tom across the face, causing deep lacerations requiring 40 stitches and permanent scarring. Tom's 14-year-old daughter, Wendy, witnesses the attack from an upstairs window and suffers severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. Discuss the criminal liability of Sarah and Tom for these events.

"The law of theft is a mess. The decisions in R v Hinks [2001] and R v Ghosh [1982] demonstrate that the concepts of appropriation and dishonesty are fundamentally flawed." Discuss this statement in light of the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] and its impact on the test for dishonesty.

Robert, aged 16, is persuaded by his older brother Craig, aged 25, to help him break into a house. Craig tells Robert that the house belongs to a friend who has asked Craig to collect some belongings. In reality, Craig intends to steal valuables. Robert acts as lookout while Craig enters through an unlocked window. Inside, Craig takes jewellery worth £5,000. He also finds a safe which he cannot open. Craig texts his friend Donna, a locksmith, who arrives and opens the safe, from which Craig takes £10,000 in cash. Donna is paid £500 and told the money belongs to Craig. On their way home, Craig is stopped by police. He gives Robert the jewellery to hide. Robert, now suspicious about the true nature of events, nevertheless hides the jewellery under his bed. Advise on the criminal liability of Robert, Craig, and Donna.

Evaluate the law on criminal attempts under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Is the distinction between acts that are merely preparatory and those that are more than merely preparatory workable? Discuss with reference to R v Gullefer [1990], R v Geddes [1996], and R v Tosti [1997].