A-Level Law Past Papers & Drilling (Paper 2): Theft, Murder and Manslaughter

Question 1

(a) The actus reus of theft has three elements: appropriation (assuming the rights of the owner over the property); property (money, tangible items and intangible property); and the property must belong to another, which covers anyone having possession, control or a proprietary interest, even where the holding is defective. (10 marks)

(b) Application: A wheeled the bicycle away and resold it, which is an assumption of ownership rights and so an appropriation; a bicycle is property; and it belonged to B, who priced it at 450, so B’s inattention is not abandonment. On dishonesty, A knew there was no consent and intended a permanent deprivation – the resale at 300 against the 450 price, a difference of 150, also points to profit – so A commits theft. (10 marks)

(c) Robbery requires force or the threat of force used in order to steal, and the force must be used immediately before or at the time of taking. On these facts A simply wheeled the bicycle away after B left: no force was used or threatened against a person and none was needed to complete the taking, so this is not robbery but theft (with possible handling of stolen goods). Had B intervened and been pushed, the conclusion would differ. (10 marks)

Question 1

(a) Murder requires malice aforethought: an intention to kill or to cause serious bodily harm. Intention may be direct (death or serious harm is the aim) or oblique, where the consequence is a virtually certain result of what the defendant set out to do, from which a jury may infer intention; negligence, or an unintended death in the course of intended harm, turns on the facts. (10 marks)

(b) The present position: murder carries a mandatory life sentence, but a defendant who establishes loss of control (with a qualifying trigger and not out of revenge) or diminished responsibility (a recognised medical condition substantially impairing judgment or self-control) is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, where sentence is at the judge’s discretion.

In support: the distinction reflects different levels of culpability, allows defendants with mental health conditions to be treated rather than automatically imprisoned for life, and the reformed loss of control defence reflects ordinary human reactions and treats women more fairly than the older provocation rules.

Against: the tests are vague – what counts as a qualifying trigger or a substantial impairment – so outcomes vary; expert evidence is costly; and with several overlapping defences the line between murder and manslaughter increasingly turns on medical opinion, which can sit awkwardly with jury understanding and public expectation.

Evaluation: individualised sentencing is valuable, but the tests should be tightened, for example by clearer medical criteria for diminished responsibility and a firmer threshold for loss of control. Conclusion: the direction is sound but the detail needs reform. (20 marks)

Question 1

Time served = 18 x 0.5 = 9 months; fine = 2000 x (1 – 0.20) = 1600. Sentencing guidelines weigh seriousness, the defendant’s circumstances and the timing of the plea, and an early plea earns credit by saving the cost of a trial.

Question 2

Conviction rate = 448 / 640 x 100 = 70.0%. Prosecution policy, guilty pleas and case mix all affect it, so comparisons between courts must allow for differences in the cases they hear.