LLB Criminal Law - 2024 Paper 4

Jack, a builder, is working on the roof of a two-storey house. He carelessly drops a heavy brick which lands on the head of Mike, a delivery driver walking below. Mike suffers a serious head injury and is rushed to hospital. The doctor treating Mike, Dr Patel, correctly diagnoses a skull fracture but prescribes the wrong antibiotic, to which Mike is allergic. Mike suffers anaphylactic shock and dies. Meanwhile, Jack's colleague Nadia had seen the brick near the edge of the roof earlier in the day and failed to move it despite knowing it was dangerous. Nadia is not Jack's supervisor but had promised their employer she would carry out a safety check that morning, which she did not do. Discuss the criminal liability of Jack and Nadia for Mike's death. Consider whether Dr Patel's treatment affects the analysis.

The law on consent as a defence to non-fatal offences is incoherent and paternalistic. Critically evaluate this statement with reference to R v Brown [1994], R v Wilson [1997], R v Dica [2004], and R v BM [2018].

Olivia works at a bank. She discovers that a customer, Peter, has died but no one has reported it to the bank. Olivia transfers £20,000 from Peter's account into an account she controls. She uses £5,000 to pay off her credit card debt and gives £10,000 to her partner Quinn, telling Quinn it is an inheritance she received. Quinn uses the money to buy a car. Olivia invests the remaining £5,000 in premium bonds in her own name. Three months later, Olivia's manager Ray discovers irregularities in the account records. Olivia tells Ray that Peter authorised the transfer before he died. Ray, who is planning to retire in two weeks and does not want any trouble, accepts Olivia's explanation and takes no further action. Discuss the criminal liability of Olivia, Quinn, and Ray.

To what extent does the law on conspiracy adequately address the problems of inchoate liability? Discuss with reference to the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, considering whether dual criminality is justified.

Yusuf and Zara agree to set fire to an abandoned factory as an act of protest against the factory's former owners, who they blame for environmental pollution. Yusuf prepares petrol bombs while Zara writes a manifesto explaining their cause. On the night of the planned arson, Yusuf arrives at the factory and discovers a security guard, Alan, patrolling the premises. Yusuf texts Zara: "There's a guard here, shall we go ahead?" Zara replies: "Your call." Yusuf throws a petrol bomb through a window. The fire spreads rapidly. Alan, attempting to flee, is trapped by falling debris and suffers 60% burns. He survives but is permanently disfigured. A neighbouring house is also damaged by the fire, though its occupants escape unharmed. Discuss the criminal liability of Yusuf and Zara.