Questions as text
Q1 · Giovanni is shopping in a supermarket 9084/21 May/June 2017
2 (a) Giovanni is shopping in a supermarket. At the till he hands over a £20 note. The cashier is busy talking to her friend and gives Giovanni change for a £50 note. Giovanni sees what has happened but he puts the money in his pocket and leaves the supermarket. After a few minutes Giovanni thinks about going back to the supermarket but he decides it was the cashier’s fault and spends the money. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Giovanni. [10] (b) Camilla goes to a restaurant for lunch on a rainy day and leaves her coat in the cloakroom. When Camilla leaves it is sunny and she forgets about her coat, leaving it in the cloakroom. Two months later Camilla goes for dinner at the same restaurant. When she is leaving it is raining heavily so she goes to the cloakroom and takes a coat. By coincidence, the coat Camilla takes is the same one she left there two months ago. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Camilla. [10] (c) Maria gives £50 to her son, Rodrigo, to do some grocery shopping. She also gives him a list of items to buy. Maria tells Rodrigo that if there is any money left he can spend it on himself. On the way to do the shopping, Rodrigo sees a shirt in a shop window. He tries the shirt on and buys it for £30. Rodrigo does not have enough money left to buy all of the items on the list. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Rodrigo. [10] (d) Critically evaluate the use of precedent to develop the law. [20] Source material for Question 2 Theft Act 1968 Section 5 “Belonging to another” (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest). … (3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. (4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds. R v Turner (No 2) [1971] Turner had taken his car to a garage to be repaired. The job was finished and the car was parked outside overnight awaiting collection. Turner used his spare set of keys to remove the car without paying. Held: The jury found Turner guilty of stealing his own car. The reason was that the garage proprietor had temporary possession and control of Turner’s car until the bill had been settled. Davidge v Bunnett [1984] B received cheques from her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill. B spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill. Held: B was liable for theft as under s.5(3) Theft Act 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill. A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] The defendant, a police-woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The Attorney General referred a question to the Court of Appeal. Held: It was possible for a theft conviction to arise where the defendant had not withdrawn the money. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake.
50 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Giovanni. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 – 3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Giovanni is covered by s5 Theft Act 1968. and/or • Reference to s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985) with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to some of s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Giovanni comes within s5. Under s5(1) he does have possession and control of the extra change but not a proprietary right. This is because under s5(4) he has been given the money by mistake and he realises so he has a legal obligation to return it. Apply AG Ref as in that case the police-woman had received the money by mistake but did not say anything when she realised this was the case. 2(b) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Camilla. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 – 3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Camilla is covered by s5 Theft Act 1968. and/or • Reference to s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or R v Turner (1971) with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to some of s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or R v Turner (1971) with some development some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Camilla is covered by s5. Under s5(1) the restaurant is in possession and control of the rain coat. Camilla may argue she has a proprietary interest as it is in fact her own raincoat. Apply law as developed by R v Turner to the effect that Camilla can steal her own coat and so be covered by s5 as the restaurant were in possession and control of it. 2(c) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Rodrigo. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 – 3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Rodrigo is covered by s5 Theft Act 1968. and/or • Reference to s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or Davidge v Bunnett (1984) with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s5 Theft Act 1968 and/or Davidge v Bunnett (1984) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Rodrigo is covered by s5. Under s5(1) he does have possession and control of the money. Credit argument that he may have a proprietary interest as it is money between a mother and son. Under s5(3) he has been given money for shopping his mother wants, not to buy a shirt first. Apply Davidge v Bunnett as money has been given for a specific purpose. Credit discussion that the case can be distinguished as being between a mother and son rather than flat mates. 2(d) Critically evaluate the use of precedent to develop the law. 20 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes and/or discusses precedent in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] More detailed references to precedent and some discussion of its developmental role but with a largely factual basis. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good detail on the way in which precedent develops the law and good discussion on its effectiveness. To reach higher marks need to engage with both the role and effectiveness of precedent showing good critical awareness.
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2017
Q2 · Daisy, aged 40, runs a business walking people’s dogs whilst they are at work 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2017
1 (a) Daisy, aged 40, runs a business walking people’s dogs whilst they are at work. Stefan pays Daisy to walk Rex, his large and lively dog. Rex has bitten the postman (who wears a yellow jacket) twice but Stefan does not tell Daisy this. While Daisy is walking Rex on a lead in the local park, a runner goes past in a yellow jacket. Rex pulls hard on the lead causing Daisy to let go. Rex chases the runner and rips their shorts. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Stefan. [10] (b) John advertises his dog, Millie, for sale for £200. John got her from a friend who breeds pit bull terriers. When a buyer comes to look at Millie, John says he does not know her breed but that she is a friendly dog. The buyer takes Millie away but brings her back the next day because they have been told the dog looks like a pit bull terrier. John takes Millie to a housing estate a mile away and leaves her tied to a lamp post. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to John. [10] (c) Courtney is given a puppy by her boyfriend. She calls the puppy Lucky. She takes Lucky to see a local vet who says he believes the dog is a pit bull terrier. Lucky grows to be very strong so Courtney always puts a lead and muzzle on him when they are out. One day Courtney is walking Lucky when Mike rides towards them on his bicycle. Lucky jumps towards Mike, who falls off his bicycle and breaks his arm. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Courtney. [10] (d) Describe the sentences given to adult offenders and critically analyse the aims behind those sentences. [20] Source material for Question 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Section 1 Dogs bred for fighting (1) This section applies to— (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier; … (2) No person shall— (a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies; (b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange; (c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift; (d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or (e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray. (7) Any person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both except that a person who publishes an advertisement— … (b) shall not be convicted if he shows that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it related to a dog to which this section applies. Section 3 Keeping dogs under proper control (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place— (a) the owner; and (b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. (2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. … (4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under that subsection is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Stefan. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Stefan is likely to be liable. and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s3 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s3(1), (2) and (4) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Stefan may or may not be liable for an offence. Under s3(1) the ripped shorts will not be an aggravated offence. Stefan may have a defence to a charge under s3(1)(a) using s3(2) as he paid Daisy who was running a dog walking business and so he would not be convicted under s3(4). Alternatively Stefan may be liable for an offence under s3(1)(a) as he knew of a problem with Rex and so he would be convicted using s3(4). 1(b) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to John. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that John will be liable. and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s1 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s1(1)(a) and/or s1(2)(b) and/or s1(2)(e) and/or s1(7) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: John will be liable under s1(1)(a) if Millie is proved to be a pit bull terrier. He is liable under s1(2)(b) as he is offering Millie for sale. He is also liable under s1(2)(e) as he abandons Millie. He is likely to be convicted under s7 and not to have a defence under s7(b) as he knows his friend breeds pit bull terriers. Credit reference to s1(2)(d) as Millie is left without a muzzle on a housing estate which may be a public place 1(c) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Courtney. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Courtney will not be liable and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s1 and s3 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s1(1)(a) and/or s1(2)(d) and/or s3 with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Courtney will not be liable. There is a breach of s1(1)(a) as the vet has said Lucky is a pit bull terrier. She is not liable under s1(2)(d) as she makes Lucky wear a lead and muzzle. This also means she is not liable under s3(1) as Lucky is not dangerously out of control and so Courtney has not committed an offence under s3(4) even though Mike suffers an injury in a public place. 1(d) Describe the sentences given to adult offenders and critically analyse 20 the aims behind those sentences. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes and/or discusses adult sentencing in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to adult sentences and/or the aims which lie behind the sentences. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good discussion of the sentences available for adults and the aims which lie behind them. To reach higher marks candidates need to deal with both parts of the question in detail. Need to show a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2017
Q3 · Daisy, aged 40, runs a business walking people’s dogs whilst they are at work 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2017
1 (a) Daisy, aged 40, runs a business walking people’s dogs whilst they are at work. Stefan pays Daisy to walk Rex, his large and lively dog. Rex has bitten the postman (who wears a yellow jacket) twice but Stefan does not tell Daisy this. While Daisy is walking Rex on a lead in the local park, a runner goes past in a yellow jacket. Rex pulls hard on the lead causing Daisy to let go. Rex chases the runner and rips their shorts. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Stefan. [10] (b) John advertises his dog, Millie, for sale for £200. John got her from a friend who breeds pit bull terriers. When a buyer comes to look at Millie, John says he does not know her breed but that she is a friendly dog. The buyer takes Millie away but brings her back the next day because they have been told the dog looks like a pit bull terrier. John takes Millie to a housing estate a mile away and leaves her tied to a lamp post. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to John. [10] (c) Courtney is given a puppy by her boyfriend. She calls the puppy Lucky. She takes Lucky to see a local vet who says he believes the dog is a pit bull terrier. Lucky grows to be very strong so Courtney always puts a lead and muzzle on him when they are out. One day Courtney is walking Lucky when Mike rides towards them on his bicycle. Lucky jumps towards Mike, who falls off his bicycle and breaks his arm. Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Courtney. [10] (d) Describe the sentences given to adult offenders and critically analyse the aims behind those sentences. [20] Source material for Question 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Section 1 Dogs bred for fighting (1) This section applies to— (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier; … (2) No person shall— (a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies; (b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange; (c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift; (d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or (e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray. (7) Any person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both except that a person who publishes an advertisement— … (b) shall not be convicted if he shows that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it related to a dog to which this section applies. Section 3 Keeping dogs under proper control (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place— (a) the owner; and (b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. (2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. … (4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under that subsection is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Stefan. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Stefan is likely to be liable. and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s3 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s3(1), (2) and (4) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Stefan may or may not be liable for an offence. Under s3(1) the ripped shorts will not be an aggravated offence. Stefan may have a defence to a charge under s3(1)(a) using s3(2) as he paid Daisy who was running a dog walking business and so he would not be convicted under s3(4). Alternatively Stefan may be liable for an offence under s3(1)(a) as he knew of a problem with Rex and so he would be convicted using s3(4). 1(b) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to John. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that John will be liable. and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s1 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s1(1)(a) and/or s1(2)(b) and/or s1(2)(e) and/or s1(7) with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: John will be liable under s1(1)(a) if Millie is proved to be a pit bull terrier. He is liable under s1(2)(b) as he is offering Millie for sale. He is also liable under s1(2)(e) as he abandons Millie. He is likely to be convicted under s7 and not to have a defence under s7(b) as he knows his friend breeds pit bull terriers. Credit reference to s1(2)(d) as Millie is left without a muzzle on a housing estate which may be a public place 1(c) Explain how the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will apply to Courtney. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Courtney will not be liable and/or • Reference to Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s1 and s3 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Reference to s1(1)(a) and/or s1(2)(d) and/or s3 with some development and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Courtney will not be liable. There is a breach of s1(1)(a) as the vet has said Lucky is a pit bull terrier. She is not liable under s1(2)(d) as she makes Lucky wear a lead and muzzle. This also means she is not liable under s3(1) as Lucky is not dangerously out of control and so Courtney has not committed an offence under s3(4) even though Mike suffers an injury in a public place. 1(d) Describe the sentences given to adult offenders and critically analyse 20 the aims behind those sentences. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes and/or discusses adult sentencing in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to adult sentences and/or the aims which lie behind the sentences. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good discussion of the sentences available for adults and the aims which lie behind them. To reach higher marks candidates need to deal with both parts of the question in detail. Need to show a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2017
Q4 · Ralph has finished his exercise routine at the gym, where he is a member 9084/23 May/June 2018
1 (a) Ralph has finished his exercise routine at the gym, where he is a member. In the changing room there is a curtain on which a sign says, ‘Private – staff only’. Ralph goes behind the curtain and sees a watch on a shelf. As Ralph is about to pick up the watch, Simon shouts, ‘That’s my watch!’ Ralph punches Simon in the face, breaking his jaw and then runs out of the gym. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Ralph. [10] (b) Bernard is a student in London and he visits his father’s house in Wales once a month. Bernard owes money to several people so he asks his father for a loan. His father refuses which makes Bernard angry. A month later Bernard is still angry. He goes to his father’s house in Wales whilst his father is away. Bernard takes his father’s laptop back to London and sells it to pay back the money he owes. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Bernard. [10] (c) Anita has seen an expensive dress in a shop window. She cannot afford the dress so she decides to steal it. As she enters the shop, the fire alarm sounds and she has to leave without the dress. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Anita. [10] (d) Describe the sentences used by courts when dealing with adult offenders and assess their effectiveness. [20] Source material for Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 9 Burglary (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm … therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. (3) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding— (a) where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, fourteen years; (b) in any other case, ten years. R v Jones and Smith [1976] D stole two televisions from his father’s house, which he had general permission to enter. He had left home but was allowed to visit. Held: D was a trespasser if he entered premises knowing that or being reckless whether he was entering in excess of any permission that had been given to him to enter. R v Walkington [1979] D went behind a counter in a large store and opened a till drawer. The counter was movable, but occupied a clearly identified area. It was empty so he slammed it shut. D was convicted for burglary. D claimed he did not realise that he was not allowed to go behind the counter and therefore had not entered as a trespasser. Held: it is for the jury to decide whether the area physically marked out by a counter was sufficiently segregated to amount to a “part of a building” from which the general public are excluded. It was clear that the public was impliedly prohibited from entering the counter area and D knew this. R v Ryan [1996] D burgled a house but only got as far as being trapped by his neck with only his head and right arm inside a window. He was not in a position to steal. Held: D need not have got so far into the building as to be able to accomplish his unlawful purpose.
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Ralph. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Ralph will be guilty of burglary. and/or • Reference to s9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 and/or s9(3) and/or R v Walkington with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s9(1)(b) and/or s9(3) and/or R v Walkington and some application Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Ralph will be guilty of burglary under s9(1)(b) as by going behind the curtain marked ‘private’ he becomes a trespasser and he attempts to steal the watch as well as inflicting GBH on Simon. A jury would see going behind the curtain as a part of a building from which he is excluded as in Walkington and the sentence under s9(3)(b) will be up to 10 years as a gym is not a dwelling. 1(b) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Bernard. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Bernard has committed burglary. and/or • Reference to s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 and/or s9(3) and/or R v Jones and Smith with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 and/or s9(3) and/or R v Jones and Smith and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Bernard will be guilty of burglary under s9(1)(a). He is a trespasser because before he enters his father’s house he is angry and intends to exceed the permission he has been given, as in Jones and Smith. Bernard meets s9(2) as he steals the laptop. His sentence under s9(3)(a) will be up to 14 years as his father’s house is a dwelling. 1(c) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to Anita. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Anita has committed burglary. and/or • Reference to s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 and/or s9(2) and/or s9(3) and/or R v Ryan with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of some of s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 and/or s9(2) and/or s9(3) and/or R v Ryan and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Anita has committed burglary under s9(1)(a) as she intended to steal the dress when she enters the store which is an offence under s9(2). The fact that she cannot do so will not matter according to Ryan. Her sentence under s9(3)(b) will be up to 10 years as the shop is not a dwelling. 1(d) Describe the sentences used by courts when dealing with adult 20 offenders and assess their effectiveness. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Discusses sentences for adults and/or their effectiveness in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to the sentences used by courts in relation to adults but with a largely factual basis and/or some evaluation. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good detail on the range of sentences used by the courts when dealing with adults and good discussion of their effectiveness. To reach higher marks both aspects of the question need to be dealt with in some detail with good critical awareness.
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2018
Q5 · Rufus is granted a pet shop licence on 1 January 2017 9084/21 May/June 2019
2 (a) Rufus is granted a pet shop licence on 1 January 2017. On 3 June 2017 Trevor buys a puppy as a present for his wife at Rufus’ shop. He notices there is no food or water for the puppies and that bags of dog food are stacked in front of the emergency exit. Trevor rings the local authority. They write to a local vet, Claire, and ask her to visit Rufus’ shop. Claire goes to the shop at 10:00 on a Friday morning but Rufus will not let her in. Explain whether Rufus has committed an offence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. [10] (b) Alison buys an old pet shop and 60 kittens, splitting them between 10 cages. She applies for a pet shop licence but on 1 February 2017 the local authority inspector refuses her application because the cages are small and overcrowded. Alison takes 20 kittens to a local market and sells them. The inspector returns to Alison’s shop on 10 February 2017 and grants her a licence for that year on condition that she keeps a maximum of four kittens in a cage. On 2 January 2018 Alison sells a kitten which is one of six in the same cage. Explain whether Alison has committed an offence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. [10] (c) Amit wants to sell imported Indian snakes. He buys tanks with controlled light and heat which are easy to clean. He imports special food and each snake has its own tank. Amit is granted a pet shop licence on 1 January 2017. On 31 December 2017 Ben comes to Amit’s shop to buy a snake. Ben is 11 years old but looks older. Amit asks Ben his age and Ben says he is 14. Amit sells Ben the snake. Ben’s parents complain to the local authority. Explain whether Amit has committed an offence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. [10] (d) Describe and evaluate the rules of statutory interpretation used by judges. [20] Source material for Question 2 Pet Animals Act 1951 Section 1 Licensing of pet shops. (1) No person shall keep a pet shop except under the authority of a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) … (3) In determining whether to grant a licence for the keeping of a pet shop by any person at any premises, a local authority shall in particular (but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds) have regard to the need for securing— (a) that animals will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as respects size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness; (b) that animals will be adequately supplied with suitable food and drink and (so far as necessary) visited at suitable intervals; (c) … (d) … (e) that appropriate steps will be taken in case of fire or other emergency; and shall specify such conditions in the licence, if granted by them, as appear to the local authority necessary or expedient in the particular case for securing all or any of the objects specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection. (4) … (5) Any such licence shall (according to the applicants’ requirements) relate to the year in which it is granted or to the next following year. (6) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to cancellation, any such licence shall remain in force until the end of the year to which it related and shall then expire. (7) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence; and if any condition subject to which a licence is granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act is contravened or not complied with the person to whom the licence was granted shall be guilty of an offence. Section 2 Pets not to be sold in streets. If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street, road or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence. Section 3 Pets not to be sold to children under twelve years of age. If any person sells an animal as a pet to a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be under the age of twelve years, the seller shall be guilty of an offence. Section 4 overleaf. Section 4 Inspection of pet shops. (1) A local authority may authorise in writing any of its officers or any veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner to inspect (subject to compliance with such precautions as the authority may specify to prevent the spread among animals of infectious diseases) any premises in their area as respects which a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act is for the time being in force, and any person authorised under this section may, on producing his authority if so required, enter any such premises at all reasonable times and inspect them and any animals found thereon or anything therein, for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed against this Act. (2) Any person who wilfully obstructs or delays any person in the exercise of his powers of entry or inspection under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
50 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain whether Rufus has committed an offence under the Pet 10 Animals Act 1951. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Rufus has committed an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s4 Pet Animals Act 1951 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s4 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Rufus has committed an offence under s1(7). Under s1(1) he does have a licence when he sells Trevor the puppy but he has breached the conditions under (3)(b) as there is no food or water in the cages and under (3)(e) as the emergency exit is blocked. Rufus also commits an offence under s4 as Claire is lawfully authorised by the local authority to visit Rufus’ shop under (1) and as 10:00 is a reasonable time he breaches (2) when he will not let Claire in. 2(b) Explain whether Alison has committed an offence under the Pet 10 Animals Act 1951. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Alison has committed an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s2 Pet Animals Act 1951 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s2 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Alison has committed an offence under s1(7). She has committed an offence under s1(6) as her licence has expired when she sold the kittens on 2 January 2018 and she has contravened s1(3)(a) because the cages were overcrowded and so she was in breach of a condition imposed by the local authority. She has also committed an offence under s2 as she sold 20 kittens at a market. 2(c) Explain whether Amit has committed an offence under the Pet Animals 10 Act 1951. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Amit has probably committed an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 Pet Animals Act 1951 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and some application. Band 5 8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Amit has probably committed an offence. His licence is valid under s1(1) as he has complied with the conditions under s1(3)(a) and (b). It is also valid on the day he sells the snake under s1(5) or s1(6). Amit has probably committed an offence under s3 as he simply asked Ben his age but candidates may argue in the alternative based on what is ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances as long as their answer is well-supported. 2(d) Describe and evaluate the rules of statutory interpretation used by 20 judges. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes the rules of statutory interpretation and/or evaluates their use by judges in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to the rules of statutory interpretation including relevant citation, perhaps focused on factual aspects and/or some general evaluation of their use by judges. Band 4–5 [14–20 marks] Very good detail on the rules of statutory interpretation and good evaluation of their use. To reach higher marks all parts of the question need to be dealt with in detail showing good critical awareness.
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2019
Q6 · Anna decides to start a business importing live salmon 9084/23 May/June 2020
1 (a) Anna decides to start a business importing live salmon. She applies for a licence to import 1000 salmon from Canada as they are bigger than English salmon. The Minister consults the Nature Conservancy Council and the Salmon Breeders’ Association. Neither organisation objects so the Minister grants Anna a licence, subject to a charge of £500. Anna thinks that is too much money so she starts importing live Canadian salmon without paying the licence charge. Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will apply in this situation. [10] (b) Guido applies for a licence to import live eggs of Australian freshwater fish. The Minister consults the Nature Conservancy Council, which says it does not know if the live eggs will turn into a type of fish that will destroy the habitat of English freshwater fish. The Minister grants Guido a licence and authorises research on the live eggs being imported. Six months later, the Minister authorises a vet to inspect Guido’s fish. The vet arrives very early in the morning and Guido will not let him in as he says it will frighten the fish. Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will apply in this situation. [10] (c) Arnie successfully applies for a licence to import live American shellfish on condition that they are kept separate from English shellfish. Arnie cannot afford to build separate areas on his land for the shellfish so he mixes them together. A month later an inspector authorised by the Minister visits Arnie. The inspector sees that the shellfish are mixed and he tells Arnie they will be seized. Arnie will not let the inspector into his house where he has an additional small tank containing live eggs of only American shellfish. Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will apply in this situation. [10] (d) Describe the legislative process used when making an Act of Parliament. Assess the extent to which this leads to the making of effective laws. [20] Source material for Question 1 Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 Section 1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Minister may by order forbid either absolutely or except under this section, the import into, or the keeping or the release, in any part of England and Wales of live fish, or live eggs of fish, of a species which is not native to England and Wales and which in the opinion of the Minister might compete with, displace, prey on or harm the habitat of any freshwater fish, shellfish or salmon in England and Wales. (2) Before determining whether or not to make an order under this section, the Minister shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council and any other person with whom the Minister considers that consultation is appropriate. (3) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, grant a licence to any person to import or keep live fish, or the live eggs of fish, of a species specified in an order under this section and the Minister may revoke or vary any such licence. (4) An order under this section may authorise the making of a charge for a licence under this section and shall specify a maximum charge. Section 2 (1) While an order under section 1 of this Act is in force any officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, a police constable or a person duly authorised by the Minister may at all reasonable times, on production of his authority if so required, enter and inspect any land occupied by a person holding a licence granted under that section and any other land upon which he has reason to believe that live fish, or the live eggs of fish, of the species specified in the order are being kept or may be found. (2) In this section “land” includes land covered with water but does not include a dwelling-house. Section 3 (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, any person who— (a) imports or attempts to import into, or keeps or releases, in any part of England and Wales any live fish, or the live eggs of fish, of a species specified in an order under section 1 of this Act (i) in a case where the order forbids absolutely such import, keeping or release; (ii) without having a valid licence granted under the said section 1 authorising such import or keeping, in a case where the order forbids the import or keeping except under such a licence; (b) being the holder of a licence granted to him under the said section 1, acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any term of the licence; (c) obstructs any person from entering or inspecting any land in pursuance of section 2 of this Act; shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. (2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act in respect of any act if he does the act for some scientific or research purpose authorised by the Minister. (3) …. (4) Any person who is empowered to enter land under section 2 of this Act may seize any fish or eggs with respect to which he has reason to believe that an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above has been committed, and may detain them pending the determination of any proceedings to be instituted under the said paragraph (a) or (b), or until the Minister is satisfied
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will 10 apply in this situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2/3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that there is no valid licence. and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and some application Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: there is no valid licence. Canadian salmon may come under s1(1) as they breed larger fish and could displace English salmon. However, the licence is valid under (2) as the Minister and the charge of £500 is laid under (4). Anna commits an offence under s3(1)(b) when she imports the Canadian salmon without paying the licence charge. 1(b) Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will 10 apply in this situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2/3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that no offence has been committed. and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s2 and/or s3 Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s2 and/or s3 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: no offence has been committed. The live fish eggs come under s1(1) as they could destroy the habitat of the native species. The Minister has consulted under (2) and the condition imposed makes the licence valid under (3). It seems likely that the vet breaches s2(1) by arriving very early in the morning. Although Guido may breach s3(1)(c) as he will not let the vet in he will have a valid defence under s3(2). 1(c) Explain how the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 will 10 apply in this situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2/3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that an offence has been committed. and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s2 and/or s3 Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s2 and/or s3 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: an offence has been committed. There appears to be a valid licence under s1(1) but with a specific condition as allowed by (3) and Arnie breaches this by mixing the shellfish. Arnie would appear to commit an offence under s3(1)(b) as he has not met the condition of his licence. The inspector appears to fulfil the terms of s3(4) but under s2(2) the inspector cannot go into Arnie’s house and seize the live eggs. 1(d) Describe the legislative process used when making an Act of 20 Parliament. Assess the extent to which this leads to the making of effective laws. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes the legislative process used by Parliament and/or assesses its effectiveness in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed description of the legislative process used by Parliament, by reference to the role of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the monarch, perhaps with a factual approach and/or some assessment of the effectiveness of these processes in law making. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good discussion of a wide range of the processes used by Parliament when making laws and good assessment as to the extent to which this results in effective laws, perhaps looking at wider issues such as parliamentary time and expertise, the extent to which Parliament is constrained by government and the inadequacies of the drafting process. To reach higher marks, candidates need to deal with both parts of the question, showing a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2020
Q7 · Carlos knows that his friend, Andreas, would like to own a motorbike but cannot afford to… 9084/21 May/June 2021
1 (a) Carlos knows that his friend, Andreas, would like to own a motorbike but cannot afford to buy one. One day Andreas arrives at Carlos’s house on an expensive new motorbike. Andreas says it has been loaned to him by his boss. In fact Andreas has taken the motorbike without his boss’s permission. Andreas invites Carlos to go for a ride and he accepts. At his trial for theft, Andreas argues that he often heard his boss joking about employees wanting to ride his motorbike and so he really thought his boss would not mind him taking it. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Andreas and Carlos in this situation. [10] (b) Natalie breaks into premises, belonging to Brian, to steal a car. Unknown to Natalie, she sets off a burglar alarm linked to the local police station. As she hears police sirens approaching Natalie drives the car away from the premises. She is driving on the wrong side of the road when she loses control, crashing into a house and damaging both the house and the car. Natalie is arrested and she gives the name of her identical twin sister, Roberta, who is on holiday in the United States. Roberta is prosecuted but at her trial she is able to show she was not in the country on the date of the offence. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Natalie and Roberta in this situation. [10] (c) Bob and his friend, Tom, are both in debt. They go to the home of Bob’s father to ask if he will lend them some money. Bob’s father refuses to lend any money so Bob and Tom break into his garage to see if there is anything they can steal and sell. Tom sees a very expensive pedal cycle and rides home on it. Bob finds the key to his father’s car and drives it away from the house at speed. He is going so fast he crashes into a man, injuring him badly. Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Bob and Tom in this situation. [10] (d) Describe the factors considered when hearing an application for bail and the conditions which may be imposed. Assess the effectiveness of these factors and conditions in the bail process. [20] Source material for Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 12 Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority. (1) Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it. … (5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to pedal cycles; but, subject to subsection (6) below, a person who, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, takes a pedal cycle for his own or another’s use, or rides a pedal cycle knowing it to have been taken without such authority, shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (6) A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner’s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. (7) For purposes of this section— (a) “conveyance” means any conveyance constructed or adapted for the carriage of a person or persons whether by land, water or air, except that it does not include a conveyance constructed or adapted for use only under the control of a person not carried in or on it, and “drive” shall be construed accordingly; … Section 12A Aggravated vehicle‑taking. (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person is guilty of aggravated taking of a vehicle if— (a) he commits an offence under section 12(1) above (in this section referred to as a “basic offence”) in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle; and (b) it is proved that, at any time after the vehicle was unlawfully taken (whether by him or another) and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven, or injury or damage was caused, in one or more of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) below. (2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(b) above are— (a) that the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place; (b) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person; (c) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which damage was caused to any property, other than the vehicle; (d) that damage was caused to the vehicle. (3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that, as regards any such proven driving, injury or damage as is referred to in subsection (1)(b) above, either— (a) the driving, accident or damage referred to in subsection (2) above occurred before he committed the basic offence; or (b) he was neither in nor on nor in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle when that driving, accident or damage occurred. … (7) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is driven dangerously if— (a) it is driven in a way which falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in that way would be dangerous. …
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Andreas and Carlos 10 in this situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Andreas and Carlos have committed an offence and/or • Reference to s12 Theft Act 1968 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of s12 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: both Andreas and Carlos have committed an offence. Andreas has committed an offence under s12(1) as he took his boss’s motorbike without permission and a motorbike is a conveyance under s12(7)(a). He may make an argument based on s12(6) but it is unlikely this will be believed. Carlos has also committed an offence under s12(1) as he rode on the motorbike with Andreas. 1(b) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Natalie and Roberta 10 in this situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Roberta has not committed an offence but Natalie has and/or • Reference to s12 and/or s12A with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s12 and/or s12A and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Roberta has not committed an offence as under s12A(3)(b) she can prove she was in another country. Natalie has committed an offence under s12(1) as she has taken a conveyance and a car is classed as such under s12(7). She commits an offence under s12A(1)(a) and (b) as she stole the car and caused damage. This is dealt with under s12A(2)(a) as she was driving on the wrong side of the road, (2)(c) as there is damage to the house and (2)(d) as there is damage to the car. Natalie also meets s12A(7)(a) and (b) as she is driving dangerously. Candidates can access Band 5 without s12(1) if they have cited and applied s12A; alternatively they can access Band 5 without each of the categories of s12A(2); alternatively they can access Band 5 without s12A(7)(a) and (b). 1(c) Explain how the Theft Act 1968 will apply to both Bob and Tom in this 10 situation. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Bob and Tom have committed offences and/or • Reference to s12 and s12A Theft Act 1968 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s12 and/or s12A and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Tom commits an offence under s12(5) as he does not have permission to take the pedal cycle. Bob commits an offence under s12(1)(a) and (b) as he stole the car and caused damage. He also commits an offence under s12A as he took the car under (1)(a), injury was caused under (1)(b) and he was driving dangerously under s12A(7)(a) and (b). He is covered by s12A(2)(a) as he was driving on a road and by (2)(b) as injury was caused. 1(d) Describe the factors considered when hearing an application for bail 20 and the conditions which may be imposed. Assess the effectiveness of these factors and conditions in the bail process. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes the factors and conditions in bail and/or assessing their effectiveness in the bail process in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to the factors and conditions in bail, perhaps with a factual approach, and/or some assessment of the effectiveness of the impact they have on the bail process in terms of determining whether a person is suitable to be granted bail and how to make sure that they return for their trial. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good detail of both the factors and conditions in bail and good assessment of their effectiveness, which could include addressing wider issues of policy such as the need to facilitate the criminal justice process balanced against the need to protect the rights of a person who is innocent until proved guilty. To reach higher marks, candidates need to deal with both parts of the question, showing a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2021
Q8 · Joe makes and sells pies 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2021
1 (a) Joe makes and sells pies. He is a finalist in a ‘best pie’ competition but loses when the judge, Michael, says he does not like Joe’s pies. Joe is angry and invites Michael to his shop to taste his pies again. Joe adds a small amount of rat poison to the next pies he makes. Many people buy and eat the pies and several, including Winnie, are ill afterwards. Winnie calls the local food authority to complain. An authorised officer comes to Joe’s shop at 16:00 and seizes all the pies. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (b) Maggie makes cheese from soya milk supplied by Charles. She sells the cheese in packs which are labelled ‘soya cheese’ on her market stall. One day Maggie is making cheese with milk Charles has supplied but it is a slightly different colour than usual. Maggie telephones Charles and he says he has supplied soya milk. Maggie sells the cheese with her usual label. In fact Charles sent goat’s milk to Maggie, thinking it would make no difference. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (c) Stephen makes and sells meat curry which he usually cooks for three hours. One day he is very busy and to save time he cooks his meat curry for just 30 minutes. Stephen tells his friend, Paula, what he has done. She is worried that the shorter cooking time could result in food poisoning and telephones the local food authority at 09:00 the next day. An authorised officer goes straight to Stephen’s shop, issuing an order that he cannot sell the meat curry and must store it in a separate refrigerator. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (d) Describe the process in Parliament by which a Bill becomes an Act. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of this process. [20] Source material for Question 1 Food Safety Act 1990 (amended) Section 1 Meaning of “food”. (1) In this Act “food” means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. Section 3 Presumptions that food intended for human consumption. (1) The following provisions shall apply for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any food commonly used for human consumption shall, if sold or offered, exposed or kept for sale, be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been sold or, as the case may be, to have been or to be intended for sale for human consumption. Section 7 Rendering food injurious to health. (1) Any person who renders any food injurious to health by means of any of the following operations, namely— (a) adding any article or substance to the food; (b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food; (c) abstracting any constituent from the food; and (d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment, with intent that it shall be sold for human consumption, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 9 Inspection and seizure of suspected food. (1) An authorised officer of a food authority may at all reasonable times inspect any food intended for human consumption which— (a) has been sold or is offered or exposed for sale; (2) The following provisions shall also apply where, otherwise than on such an inspection, it appears to an authorised officer of a food authority that any food is likely to cause food poisoning or any disease communicable to human beings. (3) The authorised officer may either— (a) give notice to the person in charge of the food that, until the notice is withdrawn, the food or any specified portion of it— (i) is not to be used for human consumption; and (ii) either is not to be removed or is not to be removed except to some place specified in the notice; or (b) seize the food and remove it in order to have it dealt with by a justice of the peace; and any person who knowingly contravenes the requirements of a notice under paragraph (a) above shall be guilty of an offence. Section 14 Selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded. (1) Any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser shall be guilty of an offence. Section 15 Falsely describing or presenting food. (1) Any person who gives with any food sold by him, or displays with any food offered or exposed by him for sale or in his possession for the purpose of sale, a label, whether or not attached to or printed on the wrapper or container, which— (a) falsely describes the food; or (b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 20 Offences due to fault of another person. Where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the preceding provisions of this Part is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence; and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this section whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Joe commits an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Joe commits an offence. The meat pies are classed as food under s1(1) and under s3(2) they would be presumed to be for human consumption. He commits an offence under s7(1)(a) when he adds rat poison to the pies. The authorised officer is entitled to inspect the pies under s9(1)(a) as he comes during normal opening hours and taking the pies away is covered by s9(3)(b). Candidates can be credited for the fact that Joe also commits an offence under s14 because he intends to sell the pies which contain rat poison but this is not essential for Band 5 or full marks. 1(b) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Charles and Maggie have committed an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s14 and/or s15 and/or s20 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s14 and/or s15 and/or s20 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: both Charles and Maggie have committed an offence. The cheese is food under s1(1) and is presumed to be fit for human consumption under s3(2) as it is being sold on Maggie’s market stall. Maggie commits an offence under s14 as the cheese is not of the nature expected; under s15(1)(a) the wrapper falsely describes the cheese or under (b) the labelling is likely to mislead as to the type of cheese. Charles commits the offence under s20 as he supplies the wrong kind of milk. Candidates can also be credited for the fact that Charles commits an offence under s14 for supplying the wrong milk but this is not essential for Band 5 or full marks. 1(c) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Stephen has committed an offence and the inspector has acted lawfully and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Stephen has committed an offence and the authorised officer has acted lawfully. The meat curry is food under s1(1) and is covered by s3(2) as it is kept for sale. Stephen commits an offence under s7(1)(d) as he does not cook the meat curry correctly and he is going to sell it. The authorised officer acts lawfully under s9(2) after the phone call by Paula as well as under s9(3)(a)(i) by issuing an order that Stephen cannot sell the curry and under (ii) by stating where it is to be stored. 1(d) Describe the process in Parliament by which a Bill becomes an Act. 20 Assess the advantages and disadvantages of this process. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes the process in Parliamentary process and/or assesses its advantages and disadvantages in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to the process in Parliament, perhaps with a factual approach based on the steps in the process and the work done by the House of Commons and the House of Lords with limited use of examples, and/or some assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this process such as democracy in action and transparency as against lack of time and specialist skill to make laws. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good description of all steps of the process in Parliament in both Houses, including the use of relevant examples, and good assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this process including wider policy issues such as political need and the extent to which the process is really democratic as well as whether this process makes for the ‘best’ law-making. To reach higher marks, candidates need to deal with both parts of the question, showing a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2021
Q9 · Joe makes and sells pies 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2021
1 (a) Joe makes and sells pies. He is a finalist in a ‘best pie’ competition but loses when the judge, Michael, says he does not like Joe’s pies. Joe is angry and invites Michael to his shop to taste his pies again. Joe adds a small amount of rat poison to the next pies he makes. Many people buy and eat the pies and several, including Winnie, are ill afterwards. Winnie calls the local food authority to complain. An authorised officer comes to Joe’s shop at 16:00 and seizes all the pies. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (b) Maggie makes cheese from soya milk supplied by Charles. She sells the cheese in packs which are labelled ‘soya cheese’ on her market stall. One day Maggie is making cheese with milk Charles has supplied but it is a slightly different colour than usual. Maggie telephones Charles and he says he has supplied soya milk. Maggie sells the cheese with her usual label. In fact Charles sent goat’s milk to Maggie, thinking it would make no difference. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (c) Stephen makes and sells meat curry which he usually cooks for three hours. One day he is very busy and to save time he cooks his meat curry for just 30 minutes. Stephen tells his friend, Paula, what he has done. She is worried that the shorter cooking time could result in food poisoning and telephones the local food authority at 09:00 the next day. An authorised officer goes straight to Stephen’s shop, issuing an order that he cannot sell the meat curry and must store it in a separate refrigerator. Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. [10] (d) Describe the process in Parliament by which a Bill becomes an Act. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of this process. [20] Source material for Question 1 Food Safety Act 1990 (amended) Section 1 Meaning of “food”. (1) In this Act “food” means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. Section 3 Presumptions that food intended for human consumption. (1) The following provisions shall apply for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any food commonly used for human consumption shall, if sold or offered, exposed or kept for sale, be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been sold or, as the case may be, to have been or to be intended for sale for human consumption. Section 7 Rendering food injurious to health. (1) Any person who renders any food injurious to health by means of any of the following operations, namely— (a) adding any article or substance to the food; (b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food; (c) abstracting any constituent from the food; and (d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment, with intent that it shall be sold for human consumption, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 9 Inspection and seizure of suspected food. (1) An authorised officer of a food authority may at all reasonable times inspect any food intended for human consumption which— (a) has been sold or is offered or exposed for sale; (2) The following provisions shall also apply where, otherwise than on such an inspection, it appears to an authorised officer of a food authority that any food is likely to cause food poisoning or any disease communicable to human beings. (3) The authorised officer may either— (a) give notice to the person in charge of the food that, until the notice is withdrawn, the food or any specified portion of it— (i) is not to be used for human consumption; and (ii) either is not to be removed or is not to be removed except to some place specified in the notice; or (b) seize the food and remove it in order to have it dealt with by a justice of the peace; and any person who knowingly contravenes the requirements of a notice under paragraph (a) above shall be guilty of an offence. Section 14 Selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded. (1) Any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser shall be guilty of an offence. Section 15 Falsely describing or presenting food. (1) Any person who gives with any food sold by him, or displays with any food offered or exposed by him for sale or in his possession for the purpose of sale, a label, whether or not attached to or printed on the wrapper or container, which— (a) falsely describes the food; or (b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 20 Offences due to fault of another person. Where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the preceding provisions of this Part is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence; and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this section whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.
50 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Joe commits an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Joe commits an offence. The meat pies are classed as food under s1(1) and under s3(2) they would be presumed to be for human consumption. He commits an offence under s7(1)(a) when he adds rat poison to the pies. The authorised officer is entitled to inspect the pies under s9(1)(a) as he comes during normal opening hours and taking the pies away is covered by s9(3)(b). Candidates can be credited for the fact that Joe also commits an offence under s14 because he intends to sell the pies which contain rat poison but this is not essential for Band 5 or full marks. 1(b) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that both Charles and Maggie have committed an offence and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s14 and/or s15 and/or s20 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development. Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s14 and/or s15 and/or s20 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: both Charles and Maggie have committed an offence. The cheese is food under s1(1) and is presumed to be fit for human consumption under s3(2) as it is being sold on Maggie’s market stall. Maggie commits an offence under s14 as the cheese is not of the nature expected; under s15(1)(a) the wrapper falsely describes the cheese or under (b) the labelling is likely to mislead as to the type of cheese. Charles commits the offence under s20 as he supplies the wrong kind of milk. Candidates can also be credited for the fact that Charles commits an offence under s14 for supplying the wrong milk but this is not essential for Band 5 or full marks. 1(c) Explain how the Food Safety Act 1990 will apply in this situation. 10 Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2–3 [1–5 marks] A candidate needs to be selective in choosing the correct part of the source material. • Principle without section – understanding that Stephen has committed an offence and the inspector has acted lawfully and/or • Reference to s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 Food Safety Act 1990 with little or no development Band 4 [6–7 marks] Some development of any of s1 and/or s3 and/or s7 and/or s9 and some application. Band 5 [8–10 marks] Full development of the relevant sections. Conclusion: Stephen has committed an offence and the authorised officer has acted lawfully. The meat curry is food under s1(1) and is covered by s3(2) as it is kept for sale. Stephen commits an offence under s7(1)(d) as he does not cook the meat curry correctly and he is going to sell it. The authorised officer acts lawfully under s9(2) after the phone call by Paula as well as under s9(3)(a)(i) by issuing an order that Stephen cannot sell the curry and under (ii) by stating where it is to be stored. 1(d) Describe the process in Parliament by which a Bill becomes an Act. 20 Assess the advantages and disadvantages of this process. Band 1 [0 marks] Irrelevant answer. Band 2 [1–6 marks] Describes the process in Parliamentary process and/or assesses its advantages and disadvantages in very general terms. Band 3 [7–13 marks] Some more detailed references to the process in Parliament, perhaps with a factual approach based on the steps in the process and the work done by the House of Commons and the House of Lords with limited use of examples, and/or some assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this process such as democracy in action and transparency as against lack of time and specialist skill to make laws. Band 4/5 [14–20 marks] Very good description of all steps of the process in Parliament in both Houses, including the use of relevant examples, and good assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this process including wider policy issues such as political need and the extent to which the process is really democratic as well as whether this process makes for the ‘best’ law-making. To reach higher marks, candidates need to deal with both parts of the question, showing a good level of detail and good critical awareness linked to the question.
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2021
Q10 · Describe dishonesty in the mens rea of theft 9084/21 May/June 2023
2 (a) Describe dishonesty in the mens rea of theft. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of robbery. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe dishonesty in the mens rea of theft. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Dishonesty is found in s2 Theft Act 1968. • It is a key element needed to prove a charge of s1 theft. • S2 does not define dishonesty but there are examples of what is not dishonest. • S2(1)(a) – a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe they have a legal right to appropriate the property. • S2(1)(b) – a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe the owner would have consented to the appropriation. • S2(1)(c) a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps to do so. • Relevant cases include R v Robinson (1977), R v Holden (1991) and R v Small (1987). • Juries use a common sense definition of dishonesty. • If they need help the test now is to ask, firstly, what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts and, secondly, was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? If the answer to both questions is yes, the defendant is dishonest – Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), R v Barton and Booth (2020). Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law of robbery. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Robbery is defined in s8 Theft Act 1968. • All elements of theft must be present or there can be no conviction for robbery – R v Zerei (2012), R v Waters (2015). • At the moment the theft is complete there can be a robbery – Corcoran v Anderton (1980). • There must be a use of force or putting or seeking to put a person in fear of force – the amount of force can be small and the victim does not need to be frightened – R v Dawson and James (1976), R v Clouden (1985), P v DPP (2012), B and R v DPP (2007). • The force must be used before or at the time of stealing – this can be as part of an ongoing situation – R v Hale (1979), R v Lockley (1995). • The force must be in order to steal – if a theft is already complete and then force is applied this will not be robbery. • The defendant must possess the same mens rea for theft. • The defendant must also intend to use force in order to steal. • This is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of life. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The use of force is an indicator of blame which helps with sentencing. • The intention to use force leads to a higher sentence and helps to reflect blameworthiness. • Different categories of robbery help to distinguish between types of the offence which is vital for fair labelling and sentencing practicalities – street and less-sophisticated commercial robbery, professionally planned commercial robbery and robbery in a dwelling. • The development of the law shows complexity as the statutory definition has been extended. • This is a serious offence, so juries need to be sure of the elements to be able to convict. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation • Robbery requires a theft to be completed but this has been problematic. • In theft an appropriation occurs at one point in time and if the other elements of theft are also present the offence is complete. However, in robbery the appropriation can be a continuing act. • This has helped juries to convict, particularly where there is more than one defendant, and each plays a different role in the full offence; this may be a necessary development to ensure conviction for a serious offence with a high maximum penalty and a significant stigma. • It could be argued that a robbery could be committed without a completed theft as this would be consistent with the law of burglary. • The level of force required for robbery is very low and ‘force’ is said to be an ordinary word which juries can decide on. • Often there is no problem as the force is clearly significant; however, as the amount of force required is very low, this can lead to inconsistency between juries. • As the force must enable the theft to be committed, accidentally making contact with someone from whom the defendant has just stolen property could be robbery, which might lead to harsh convictions, sentences and stigma. • Uncertainties may have the opposite effect and make juries unwilling to convict as they are not sure robbery is the right offence even though the evidence supports such a conviction. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2023
Q11 · Mikhail and Yuri believe that Freda hides money in a box in her kitchen 9084/22 May/June 2023
1 (a) Mikhail and Yuri believe that Freda hides money in a box in her kitchen. The two of them break into Freda’s house when they think she is out. Mikhail goes into the kitchen and finds the box. As Mikhail is putting money into a bag, Freda appears in the kitchen. Yuri grabs Freda, pushes her into a chair, ties her hands together and shouts at her to stay where she is and not call the police. Mikhail and Yuri run away with the bag of money. Explain how the source material will apply to Mikhail and Yuri. [10] (b) Suki lends Tamsin £100. When Suki asks for the money back Tamsin says she cannot repay it yet. A week later Suki is walking along the street when she sees Tamsin looking in a shop window. Tamsin is holding an expensive new handbag. Suki grabs the handbag from Tamsin without touching her and runs off. When Suki is arrested she tells the police the handbag cost £100, which is the amount of money Tamsin owed her. Explain how the source material will apply to Suki. [10] (c) Carol and Roger make money by stealing mobile phones and selling them. In a busy park they see a woman with her phone in her hand. They walk up to the woman and Roger bumps into her. The woman is knocked off balance and Carol takes her phone. Carol and Roger run away. A few minutes later Roger sees a man taking photographs with his phone. Roger approaches the man from behind and knocks him to the ground. Roger grabs the phone but the man does not let go of it. Roger runs away without the phone. Explain how the source material will apply to Carol and Roger. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Mikhail and Yuri. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S8(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Hale (1978) and R v Lockley (1995). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Mikhail and Yuri have committed robbery under s8(1) as Mikhail has stolen the money from the box and Yuri has used force on Freda. • This will be seen as a continuing series of events as in Hale and Lockley. • Under s8(2) the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Application: • Under s8(1) there is a completed theft as Freda’s money has been stolen. • Force is used on Freda when Yuri grabs her and pushes her into a chair. • Using Hale Mikhail and Yuri might argue Mikhail had completed the theft as he was putting the money in the bag before Freda appeared, but the theft was held to be a continuing act on appeal. • Using Lockley Mikhail and Yuri might argue the idea of a continuing act had been overruled but the court held that force used to escape was still force used to steal so Yuri’s treatment of Freda would be sufficient. • Mikhail and Yuri will be convicted of robbery and sentenced under s8(2). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Suki. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S8(1) is the likely offence. Reference to R v Clouden (1987) and R v Robinson (1977). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Suki has committed the actus reus of a s8(1) offence of robbery as she has stolen the bag from Tamsin by grabbing it. Suki may not have the mens rea of robbery as she claims she was legally entitled to the £100 she had lent Tamsin, which is the value of the bag. Under s8(2) the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Application: Suki has appropriated the bag when she grabs it. Even though Suki did not touch Tamsin the decision in Clouden means that the force used to grab the bag is sufficient. Suki may argue that even though the actus reus is complete she did not have the mens rea for robbery. Using Robinson she may argue that she was not dishonest as she believed she had a legal right to the bag given its value of £100, which is the same as the money she is owed by Tamsin. As a consequence a s8(1) offence will fail in relation to Suki. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Carol and Roger. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S8(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Dawson and James (1976) and Corcoran v Anderton (1980). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Carol has committed an offence under s8(1) as the bump by Roger which enables her to steal the mobile phone will be sufficient for robbery. • Roger commits another offence of robbery under s8(1) when he grabs the second phone even though the theft is not completed. • Under s8(2) the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Application: • Carol has completed a theft as she has stolen the phone. • Using Dawson and James the bump which knocks the woman off balance so Carol can steal the phone will be sufficient to count as force used in order to steal. • When Roger knocks the man to the ground and tries to take the phone this will be force immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal. • Using Corcoran v Anderton the fact that Roger does not actually steal the phone does not prevent a successful charge of robbery. • As a consequence, Carol will be convicted of one offence of robbery and Roger will be convicted of two offences of robbery; they will be sentenced under s8(2). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks Mostly accurate but may Mostly focused and Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant Good knowledge and The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective Effectively supported appropriate legal and well developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks Some accuracy but lacks Some reasoned Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of Some knowledge and The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks Limited accuracy. Limited analysis. Limited evaluation of a Limited knowledge and The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks No creditable content. No creditable content. No creditable content.
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2023
Q12 · Describe the chain of causation as an element of actus reus 9084/22 May/June 2023
2 (a) Describe the chain of causation as an element of actus reus. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of burglary. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the chain of causation as an element of actus reus. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding The chain of causation is the link between the act of the defendant and the consequence. Causation is a matter of fact and law. It is an essential element in proving criminal liability. It must be unbroken in order to create criminal liability. It can be broken by the act of a third party. It can be broken by the victim’s own act. It can be broken by a natural but unpredictable event. If something is to break the chain of causation it must be sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct and sufficiently serious so as to remove responsibility from them. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law of burglary. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding Burglary is defined in s9 Theft Act 1968. There are two different offences – s9(1)(a) and (b) but both have some common elements. There must be entry, and this may be effective even if it is only partial – R v Brown (1985), R v Ryan (1996). Entry must under s9(4) be of a building or part of a building – B and S v Leathley (1979), Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986), R v Rodmell (1994), R v Walkington (1979). There must be entry as a trespasser – this means having no permission to enter or having exceeded any permission given – R v Collins (1972), R v Jones and Smith (1976). The defendant must intend to trespass or be reckless as to whether they are trespassing. An offence under s9(1)(a) requires a defendant to enter with the intent to commit any of the offences contained in s9(2) – theft, GBH or criminal damage. The offence is complete at the point of entry. An offence under s9(1)(b) requires a defendant, having entered, to commit or attempt theft or GBH and they must have the necessary mens rea for the offence. Sentencing is in s9(3) – the maximum penalty in relation to a building is 10 years and 14 years for a dwelling. It is usually a triable either way offence. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Burglary is a serious offence, especially when it involves entering a dwelling, but it is also very common and relatively few offences are prosecuted which may mean the law is not very effective and does not offer enough protection. It is a complex and confusing offence which can make it hard for juries to understand and reach fair verdicts. Key terms are often not clearly defined and have changed over time which may not lead to fair labelling. The concept of trespasser is borrowed from civil law and is not necessarily helpful. It can seem odd to extend liability to those who exceed permission to be in a building or part of a building; the justification is higher sentencing, but a theft conviction would often be adequate. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation The Theft Act 1968 did clarify the law in many ways, but it does not define key elements of the offence of burglary. There is no definition of the common elements and judges have reached different decisions. Entry – given the fact that an entry now need only be partial and can be ineffective but still give rise to liability was this really what Parliament intended? Similar difficulties arise in defining a building can lead to difficulties in cases and inconsistent decisions. There are anomalies between the different ways of committing burglary as for s9(1)(a), there must be mens rea to commit certain offences whilst for s9(1)(b) mens rea need not be proved on entry but there must be mens rea for specific crimes attempted or committed. This means burglary covers a wider range of offenders as the former covers the intentional burglar and the latter the opportunistic burglary, which is good; however, it is not necessarily easy to justify these differences. There is an issue as to whether burglary is focused on protecting people or property. For s9(1)(a) an intention to damage property only needs to be slight but in relation to injuring a person there must be an intention to inflict GBH. This difference appears to put protection of property above the protection of people. However, for s9(1)(b) only theft or inflicting GBH can give rise to an offence and damage to property having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser is not burglary leading to more inconsistency and complexity. The fact that judges have decided a person who is not a trespasser can become one when they go beyond the permission given to them can make it hard for juries to reach fair decisions. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2023
Q13 · Jonathan advertises a horse for sale for £10 000 9084/23 May/June 2023
1 (a) Jonathan advertises a horse for sale for £10 000. The advertisement says that Bob, a horse specialist, has certified the horse to be in excellent health. In fact, Bob has told Jonathan that the horse has a serious heart problem. Liz visits Jonathan and she buys the horse for £10 000. He gives her a certificate, which he says is from Bob, stating that the horse is in excellent health. Liz later discovers that the horse has a serious heart problem along with other major health issues. Explain how the source material will apply to Jonathan. [10] (b) Teresa sees an online advertisement for a science teacher job. She meets all the job requirements but she has been banned by law from working in a school due to a conviction for theft. Teresa submits her online application form and is given an interview. Teresa knows she should disclose her ban. When she is asked at the interview if she is allowed to work in a school she talks about her excellent teaching style instead. Teresa is given the job with a large salary. Two months later she is dismissed when the school discovers her theft conviction. Explain how the source material will apply to Teresa. [10] (c) Wilhelm works for a charity. As part of his role, he often stands outside a shop with a collecting box for the charity. He sees how much money people donate, so he makes his own collecting box, which looks almost identical to the one the charity uses. Wilhelm stands by a shop with his collecting box in silence to see what will happen. In one hour people donate £100. Wilhelm spends the money on clothes. The next day Wilhelm’s boss gives him the charity’s credit card to go out and buy some office equipment. On his way back to the office with the equipment, Wilhelm spends £30 on flowers for his girlfriend using the charity’s credit card. Explain how the source material will apply to Wilhelm. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Jonathan. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 is the likely offence. • Reference to s34 Theft Act 1968. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Jonathan has the actus reus as he knows the representation he is making about the horse is untrue and the mens rea as he is dishonest. • Jonathan intends to make a gain and Liz to suffer a loss under s34. Application: • Under s2(2)(a) the representations Jonathan has made in the advert and to Liz in person are false. • Jonathan meets s2(2)(b) as he knows the representation about the horse’s health is false as the vet has told him about the heart problem. • He makes several representations of fact under s2(3) which are express under s2(4). • Jonathan is dishonest under s2(1)() as he knows the truth about the horse. • He meets s2(1)(b)(i) as he intends to gain £2000 and (ii) as Liz will lose the same amount as defined by s34. • He meets s2(3)(b) as Jonathan misrepresents what Bob as another person has said about the health of the horse. • It seems likely Jonathan will be convicted of an offence under s2. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Teresa. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3 is the likely offence. • Reference to s34 Theft Act 1968. • Reference to R v Blight and Ingram (2019). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Teresa has the actus reus of the offence as she has failed to disclose her ban. • She has the mens rea of the offence as she does this dishonestly. • She meets s34 as she gains two months’ salary to which she is not entitled, and the school loses this money. Application: • Under s3(a) Teresa does not disclose the information legally required as in Blight and Ingram in relation to her ban from teaching when she steers the interview to talk about something else. • She does this dishonestly under s3(a) as she knows she will not get the job if she tells the truth. • Teresa intended to make a gain for herself under s3(b) by getting a job she is not legally entitled to because of her ban. • This will allow her to make a gain under s3(b)(i) as she will get money she did not have before and under (ii) the school will lose money and the expertise of a science teacher. • It seems likely that Teresa will be convicted of an offence under s3. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Wilhelm. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 is the likely offence. • Reference to s34 Theft Act 1968. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Wilhelm has the actus reus and mens rea of an offence under s2 when people donate money to his homemade collecting tin as it looks like a real charity tin. • Wilhelm also has the actus reus and mens rea of an offence under s2 when he uses the charity credit card to buy flowers for his girlfriend. • In both cases there is gain and loss as in s34 Theft Act 1968. Application: • Wilhelm makes a false representation under s2(2)(a) as he knows the collecting tin he has made is not a genuine tin. • He also knows under (2)(b) that might mislead people. • His representation is one of fact under s2(3) relating to the tin. • Hs representation is implied under s2(4) as he is suggesting he is entitled to collect the money. • He is dishonest under s2(1)(a) as the tin is almost identical to a real one. • Under (b)(i) there is gain to Wilhelm as defined in s34 and under (b)(ii) loss to the charity as people believe the collecting tin to be real. • There is also a representation under s2(5) when Wilhelm uses the charity credit card to buy flowers for his girlfriend. • It seems likely Wilhelm will be convicted of two offences under s2. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks Mostly accurate but may Mostly focused and Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant Good knowledge and The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective Effectively supported appropriate legal and well developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks Some accuracy but lacks Some reasoned Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of Some knowledge and The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks Limited accuracy. Limited analysis. Limited evaluation of a Limited knowledge and The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks No creditable content. No creditable content. No creditable content.
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2023
Q14 · Describe omissions in actus reus 9084/23 May/June 2023
2 (a) Describe omissions in actus reus. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on appropriation in theft. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe omissions in actus reus. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Normally an actus reus is found in a positive and voluntary act. • An omission creates liability due to a failure to act in: • An Act of Parliament • A contractual duty to act • A relationship between the victim and the accused • A duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily • A duty due to an official position • A duty to act because a chain of events is set in motion. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law on appropriation in theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Appropriation is found in s3(1) Theft Act 1968. • It is one of the elements that must be proved to prove an offence of theft under s1. • It is part of the actus reus; a simple definition is that ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation’. • Appropriation can be the act of taking something, destroying property, switching price labels on items or giving worthless cheques in payment for goods. • Any or all of the owner’s rights must be assumed for an appropriation – R v Vinall (2011), R v Pitham and Hehl (1977), R v Morris (1983) • There can be an appropriation even when the owner has given their consent – Lawrence v Commissioner MPC (1972), R v Gomez (1993) • There can be an appropriation in relation to a gift even if there is no deception – R v Hinks (2000) • An appropriation occurs at the first point when an owner’s rights are interfered with; if the other elements of theft are present the offence is complete at this point – R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994) • Under s3(1) there is also appropriation if the defendant acquires property without stealing it but decides to keep or deal with the property as an owner – perhaps by keeping property which has been hired but is not returned. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Appropriation is a key element as it is a physical act which can be seen and so helps with allocation of blame and sentencing. • The development of the law on appropriation is complex as statutory and common law definitions are not the same which can cause problems. • Appropriation is only one of the elements needed to prove a complete offence of theft and some of the others are difficult too. • There can be some inconsistency with other offences, such as robbery, which does not lead to fair labelling. • Issues relating to consent and gifts have caused particular difficulty. • Theft is an offence with a serious stigma, so juries need to understand appropriation if they are to be able to convict in the correct cases. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation • Appropriation has been extended since the Theft Act 1968 was passed and there is speculation as to how far the current law fits with Parliament’s intention. However, so many things have changed since the Act was passed; perhaps judges are better placed to keep up with those changes. • As appropriation in theft occurs at one point in time there is a conflict with robbery, and it is a potential problem having two offences in the same Act which define the same word differently. However, this does not seem to lead to huge issues in jury decisions. • Appropriation can occur even though the owner has consented to the act; critics argue that that such changes have made other offences in the Theft Act 1968 redundant which was not what Parliament intended. • The criminal and civil law work differently in relation to gifts – in the criminal law a lot relies on what is in the mind of the defendant which can be difficult to prove to a jury even though there has been an appropriation. • Issues around appropriation lead to a greater reliance on other elements to secure a conviction, such as dishonesty, which has its own problems. • In offences based on shopping the criminal law is not the same as the law of contract. Critics argue that it would often be easier to rely on fraud as this is a more straightforward offence than the modern law of theft. • The law has not been redrafted which perhaps suggests it works well enough even though there are clear inconsistencies. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2023
Q15 · Haroon takes his mother, Connie, to a restaurant for lunch 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2023
1 (a) Haroon takes his mother, Connie, to a restaurant for lunch. The hot food they order is of bad quality and cold when it arrives at the table. Haroon asks the waiter for the bill. The lunch costs £50. Haroon shouts that he will not pay, gets up from the table, puts on his coat and walks towards the door. The manager hears the shouting. He calls the police and rushes to block the door so Haroon cannot leave. The police arrive and Haroon is charged with making off without payment. Explain how the source material will apply to Haroon. [10] (b) Glyn stays at an expensive hotel for a week. When it is time to pay the bill of £2500 he tells the hotel manager that due to a problem with his bank account he cannot pay. Glyn promises he will come back in a week once the problem is resolved. The manager agrees and Glyn leaves his telephone number. On his way home Glyn withdraws money from his bank account and buys his wife a gold bracelet. Glyn does not return to the hotel as promised, so the manager telephones him. The telephone number does not work as Glyn deliberately gave a false number. Glyn is arrested and charged with making off without payment. Explain how the source material will apply to Glyn. [10] (c) Albert and Bryan go to a restaurant. They order lots of expensive food and drink. After two hours Albert says he has an appointment and as he leaves he gives the money to pay his share of the bill to Bryan. The bill arrives and the meal costs £150. When the waiter is not in the room Bryan leaves the restaurant without paying. The waiter calls the police. Bryan is arrested nearby with £200 in his pocket. Explain how the source material will apply to Albert and Bryan. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Haroon. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v McDavitt (1981). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Although Haroon has left the table where the food was ordered and served he has not left the restaurant. • Haroon did intend to leave without paying the £50 bill. Application: • Under s3(1) Haroon does know that he should pay on the spot as he has asked for the bill for the food he has ordered and the service he had had from the waiter and the kitchen. • Haroon would argue that he is not dishonest as the food was of bad quality and cold. • He intends not to pay at all as shown by the fact that he shouts he will not pay, he gets up from the table, puts on his coat and walks to the door. • Using McDavitt, although he has left the table, the restaurant is the spot where payment must be made and Haroon has not left as the manager stopped him. • Haroon has not made off without payment and so will not be convicted of an offence. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Glyn. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Vincent (2001). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Glyn has left the spot at which payment is due. • He would argue he is not dishonest as the manager agreed to wait a week for payment. Application: • Under s3(1) Glyn knows that he should pay before he leaves for the use of the room and the service he has received so he leaves the spot at which payment is due. • Glyn will argue that he has left with the agreement of the manager and has shown good faith by leaving a telephone number. • Glyn is dishonest as what he says to the manager about his bank account is not true and so this can be contrasted with Vincent. • He also intends never to pay as he does not return to pay and the telephone number he leaves is false. • Glyn will be convicted of an offence under s3(1). • Under s4(2) the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Albert and Bryan. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Brooks and Brooks (1983). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Albert has left the restaurant without paying but does not do so dishonestly as he gives money to Bryan to pay his share of the bill. • The fact that Bryan leaves when the waiter is not in the room suggests he is dishonest and intended to commit the offence. Application: • Albert has left the restaurant without paying, but he does not do so dishonestly as he gives money to Bryan and there is nothing to suggest he will not use it to pay the £150 bill. • Using Brooks and Brooks it seems likely Albert does not commit an offence. • Bryan knows that he should pay the bill he has been given and which Albert has given him money towards and he leaves the spot at which payment is due. • By leaving when the waiter is not in the room, Bryan is dishonest. • This action also suggests he intends never to pay. • Bryan will be convicted of an offence under s3(1) and sentenced under s4(3). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but may • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported appropriate legal and well developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, • Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but lacks • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of • Some knowledge and • The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use • Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, • Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use • Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and • Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content. • No creditable content. • No creditable content.
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2023
Q16 · Describe the offence of handling stolen goods 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2023
2 (a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s22 Theft Act 1968. • The goods must already be stolen at the time of handling. • Goods and their proceeds can be handled. • Handling can mean receiving stolen goods, keeping, or removing or realising them for someone else’s benefit or arranging to do any of those things. • The defendant must know or believe the goods are stolen at the time of handling. • The defendant must also be dishonest. • The offence is triable either way. • The maximum sentence is 14 years on indictment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Causation is a vital element in proving the actus reus of an offence as it provides a link between the act of the defendant and the unlawful consequence. • The same act can lead to different offences depending on the consequence which occurs and the defendant’s mens rea. • Causation in fact means the consequence would not have occurred but for the action of the defendant – R v White (1910), R v Pagett (1983). • Causation in law means that the defendant’s act is the operative and substantial cause of the consequence – R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Jordan (1956). • The thin skull rule means that the defendant must take the victim as they find them – R v Blaue (1975). • The chain of causation can be broken the act of a third party – this is often linked to poor medical treatment. • The chain of causation can be broken by the victim’s own act – R v Roberts (1971), R v Williams (1992). • The chain of causation can be broken by a natural but unpredictable event. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Causation plays a key role in establishing an actus reus as without it there cannot be an offence. • It is the starting point for liability as the same act can lead to different offences depending on the level of mens rea as long as the chain of causation is not broken which helps with fair labelling. • Causation is essential to prove as it helps with sentencing. • It can be useful in difficult areas such as poor medical treatment. • Sometimes causation appears too easy to prove and so may not lead to fair and consistent verdicts. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation • Reliance on factual causation can be said to be justifiable as the natural basis of liability but it can be too easy to prove and therefore unfair. • Causation in law can be a helpful test as it adds a tighter layer of responsibility and so can lead to better verdicts and more fair labelling. • However, it is not always easy to prove and policy can play a part, especially in relation to groups like medical staff, police officers and emergency service workers. • There are issues around the chain of causation and when it is broken which make the law complex. • One issue is when an intervening act is sufficiently independent and serious to break the chain of causation. This is not easy to define and explain to a jury which can lead to inconsistent verdicts. • There is also a problem when a victim has a medical condition which makes an injury more serious which the defendant does not know about. This can lead to liability but it could be seen as unjust if it is not something the defendant could have seen before they decided to act. • The breaking of the chain of causation due to the victim’s own acts is not always easy to decide and can lead to unfairness in verdicts. • As causation underpins an actus reus and is vague or uncertain in key areas, this could lead to a defendant being convicted unfairly or for more serious offences than were ever contemplated. • It can be hard to define when a chain of causation exists which is a problem as it is important in allocating blame effectively. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2023
Q17 · Mary is dismissed from her job in England because her employer, Brendan, says she stole… 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2023
1 (a) Mary is dismissed from her job in England because her employer, Brendan, says she stole money from the business. Brendan will not pay Mary the £1500 she is owed in wages because that is the amount of money which was stolen. Mary can prove someone else stole the money. Mary repeatedly tries to tell Brendan the truth but he will not listen to her. Brendan moves to Australia. Mary sends Brendan emails saying she will post on social media and tell newspapers in England what has happened to her unless he pays her £5000. Explain how the source material will apply to Mary. [10] (b) Sanjay is arrested at a protest rally by Sergeant Jones, a female police officer. When Sanjay is interviewed at the police station Sergeant Jones discovers he is a solicitor. She informs Sanjay that he is to be charged with criminal damage. She suggests that Sanjay will be found guilty and lose his job. She tells Sanjay to return to the police station 24 hours later if he wants to avoid being charged. Next day they meet at the police station and she asks what he intends to do. Sanjay gives Sergeant Jones £1000. Sergeant Jones does not charge Sanjay with criminal damage. Explain how the source material will apply to Sergeant Jones. [10] (c) Charles lends Dave £500. He asks for the money back but Dave will not pay. A month later Charles is desperate for the £500 as he is in debt to a drug dealer. The drug dealer has threatened to seriously injure him if he does not pay what he owes. Charles knows Dave has a wealthy aunt. Charles telephones the aunt pretending to be Dave. He says he is being held hostage and that he will be seriously injured if he does not pay £500. The aunt pays Charles £500, thinking she is giving the money to Dave. Charles uses the money to settle the debt with his drug dealer. Explain how the source material will apply to Charles. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Mary. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. Credit can be given for s21(1)(a) or s21(1)(b). • Reference to Treacy v DPP (1971). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Mary has made a demand with menaces and with a view to gain or intent to cause loss. Mary intended to make the demand but may argue it is unwarranted as she had no choice. • It does not matter that the email was sent to Australia as in Treacy. Application: • Under s21(1) Mary has made a demand for the £5000 which includes the £1500 she is owed by Brendan. • The demand is made with menaces as she has threatened to contact newspapers and post on social media. • The offence is committed in England as that is where Mary is when she sends the emails to Brendan in Australia. • She makes the demand intentionally and will gain from the money as well as Brendan losing £1500. • Mary may believe that the demand is not unwarranted and she has reasonable grounds for making it as she can prove she did not steal the money and has no alternative as Brendan will not listen to her but the amount she claims is more than she is owed. • It seems likely that Mary will be convicted of an offence. • Mary can be sentenced for a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Sergeant Jones. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Collister & Warhurst (1955). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Sergeant Jones has made an unwarranted demand with menaces as she has suggested Sanjay has to do something to avoid being charged with an offence which could cost him his job. • Sergeant Jones would appear to have the mens rea for the offence as she makes the demand intentionally and intends to gain from it. Application: • Sergeant Jones may argue that there was no demand as she did not expressly demand money from Sanjay but Collister & Warhurst (1955) makes it clear a demand can be implied. • The demand is made with menaces as Sergeant Jones knows Sanjay will lose his job if he is charged and found guilty of the offence. • As Sergeant Jones knows what will happen to Sanjay she does intend the offence • Sergeant Jones also intends to make a gain as well as Sanjay suffering a loss. • It seems likely Sergeant Jones will be convicted of an offence under s21. • Under s21(3) the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Charles. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Lambert (2009) and R v Harvey (1981). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Charles has made an unwarranted demand with menaces as he has pretended to be Dave to his wealthy aunt. • Charles has the mens rea as he makes the demand intentionally and this would not be reasonable as it is to pay a drug dealer. Application: • Charles has made a demand with menaces and due to Lambert it is does not matter that he is not the one who will carry out the threat. • It also does not matter that Charles is not able to carry out the threat. • Charles has intention as he needs the £500. • He may argue that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand as he was likely to suffer serious injury and he has no other way to get the money; using Harvey a jury would not see his actions as reasonable and necessary. • As a consequence, it seems likely Charles will be convicted under s21. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but may • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported appropriate legal and well developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, • Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but lacks • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of • Some knowledge and • The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use • Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, • Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use • Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and • Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content. • No creditable content. • No creditable content.
This question in 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2023
Q18 · Describe the offence of aggravated burglary 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2023
2 (a) Describe the offence of aggravated burglary. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on omissions in actus reus. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of aggravated burglary. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s10 Theft Act 1968. • There must be a s9(1)(a) or s9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 burglary. • At the time the offender must have with them: • Any firearm or imitation firearm • Any weapon of offence • Any explosive • The maximum sentence on conviction is life imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law on omissions in actus reus. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • An actus reus is normally a voluntary and positive act. • There are some situations in which a failure to act can give rise to criminal liability. • Statutory duty – this is a duty imposed by an Act of Parliament, often as a means of raising standards of behaviour such as failing to provide a specimen of breath under s6 Road Traffic Act 1988. • Contractual duty – this often arises due to employment – R v Pittwood (1902). • Duty due to a relationship – this is a wide duty but can be between a parent and child or between other family members – R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918), R v Evans (2009). • Duty undertaken voluntarily – this covers a wide range of situations but may involve taking on caring for someone vulnerable – R v Stone and Dobinson (1977). • Duty arising from public office – this only applies to a small category of people, such as police officers – R v Dytham (1979). • Duty arising due to a dangerous situation - the defendant has failed to prevent harm as they have allowed a situation to become dangerous – R v Miller (1983), R v Evans (2009). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • An actus reus is a key element as without it there is no need to prove mens rea and there cannot be a criminal offence. • This means it is essential to prove as it is something which can be seen and so helps with sentencing. • The development of the law shows complexity as originally an actus reus had to be both positive and voluntary but this left gaps in the law. • This led to unfairness as those who did not do what they should have done avoided liability. • There can be inconsistency in duties as they do not always take account of whether the person involved is able to discharge it so there is an issue of fair labelling. • Some duties do not take account of the complex relationships those involved have or the pressures individuals can be under. • There is a question whether people have to intervene given the availability of emergency services. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation • The range of duties have been expanded over time to cover gaps in the law, which can make the law more effective. • Most developments have been made by judges suggesting that change is incremental and in step with society’s needs. • Statutory duties show Parliament acting as an agent of social paternalism and making people behave better – this might be in relation to large groups such as drivers, smaller groups such as family members who may be aware of someone else in the family abusing a vulnerable person or particular categories of people such as teachers having inappropriate relationships with students. • Contractual duties make sure that those with responsibility to others discharge them properly which make the law effective. • Duties due to relationships often deal with situations in families – this can be good and can overlap with statutory duties, as between a parent and child. However, it can be hard to define the extent of a relationship; there is a problem if the person to whom the duty is owed does not want it to be fulfilled. • A duty undertaken voluntarily can be good as it enables people to be cared for. However, the duty assumed may be impossible to carry out, the person who assumes it may not have realised its full implications and they may not be able to fulfil it due to their own shortcomings. • A duty arising from public office is good as those who are being paid to protect society should do so. However, there is a problem in how much they are then expected to do. • A duty arising out of a dangerous situation is good as it encourages people to behave better. However, they may not be able to see the dangerousness of the situation which raises questions of fairness. • There is also a problem as there is no Good Samaritan law so there is no obligation to rescue unless there is a duty; critics argue this is morally and legally wrong. • There is a problem that people can be caused to feel fearful or to intervene badly out of a fear of criminal proceedings. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2023
Q19 · Haroon takes his mother, Connie, to a restaurant for lunch 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2023
1 (a) Haroon takes his mother, Connie, to a restaurant for lunch. The hot food they order is of bad quality and cold when it arrives at the table. Haroon asks the waiter for the bill. The lunch costs £50. Haroon shouts that he will not pay, gets up from the table, puts on his coat and walks towards the door. The manager hears the shouting. He calls the police and rushes to block the door so Haroon cannot leave. The police arrive and Haroon is charged with making off without payment. Explain how the source material will apply to Haroon. [10] (b) Glyn stays at an expensive hotel for a week. When it is time to pay the bill of £2500 he tells the hotel manager that due to a problem with his bank account he cannot pay. Glyn promises he will come back in a week once the problem is resolved. The manager agrees and Glyn leaves his telephone number. On his way home Glyn withdraws money from his bank account and buys his wife a gold bracelet. Glyn does not return to the hotel as promised, so the manager telephones him. The telephone number does not work as Glyn deliberately gave a false number. Glyn is arrested and charged with making off without payment. Explain how the source material will apply to Glyn. [10] (c) Albert and Bryan go to a restaurant. They order lots of expensive food and drink. After two hours Albert says he has an appointment and as he leaves he gives the money to pay his share of the bill to Bryan. The bill arrives and the meal costs £150. When the waiter is not in the room Bryan leaves the restaurant without paying. The waiter calls the police. Bryan is arrested nearby with £200 in his pocket. Explain how the source material will apply to Albert and Bryan. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Haroon. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v McDavitt (1981). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Although Haroon has left the table where the food was ordered and served he has not left the restaurant. • Haroon did intend to leave without paying the £50 bill. Application: • Under s3(1) Haroon does know that he should pay on the spot as he has asked for the bill for the food he has ordered and the service he had had from the waiter and the kitchen. • Haroon would argue that he is not dishonest as the food was of bad quality and cold. • He intends not to pay at all as shown by the fact that he shouts he will not pay, he gets up from the table, puts on his coat and walks to the door. • Using McDavitt, although he has left the table, the restaurant is the spot where payment must be made and Haroon has not left as the manager stopped him. • Haroon has not made off without payment and so will not be convicted of an offence. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Glyn. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Vincent (2001). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Glyn has left the spot at which payment is due. • He would argue he is not dishonest as the manager agreed to wait a week for payment. Application: • Under s3(1) Glyn knows that he should pay before he leaves for the use of the room and the service he has received so he leaves the spot at which payment is due. • Glyn will argue that he has left with the agreement of the manager and has shown good faith by leaving a telephone number. • Glyn is dishonest as what he says to the manager about his bank account is not true and so this can be contrasted with Vincent. • He also intends never to pay as he does not return to pay and the telephone number he leaves is false. • Glyn will be convicted of an offence under s3(1). • Under s4(2) the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Albert and Bryan. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S3(1) is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Brooks and Brooks (1983). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Albert has left the restaurant without paying but does not do so dishonestly as he gives money to Bryan to pay his share of the bill. • The fact that Bryan leaves when the waiter is not in the room suggests he is dishonest and intended to commit the offence. Application: • Albert has left the restaurant without paying, but he does not do so dishonestly as he gives money to Bryan and there is nothing to suggest he will not use it to pay the £150 bill. • Using Brooks and Brooks it seems likely Albert does not commit an offence. • Bryan knows that he should pay the bill he has been given and which Albert has given him money towards and he leaves the spot at which payment is due. • By leaving when the waiter is not in the room, Bryan is dishonest. • This action also suggests he intends never to pay. • Bryan will be convicted of an offence under s3(1) and sentenced under s4(3). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but may • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported appropriate legal and well developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, • Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but lacks • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of • Some knowledge and • The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use • Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, • Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use • Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and • Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content. • No creditable content. • No creditable content.
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2023
Q20 · Describe the offence of handling stolen goods 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2023
2 (a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s22 Theft Act 1968. • The goods must already be stolen at the time of handling. • Goods and their proceeds can be handled. • Handling can mean receiving stolen goods, keeping, or removing or realising them for someone else’s benefit or arranging to do any of those things. • The defendant must know or believe the goods are stolen at the time of handling. • The defendant must also be dishonest. • The offence is triable either way. • The maximum sentence is 14 years on indictment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Causation is a vital element in proving the actus reus of an offence as it provides a link between the act of the defendant and the unlawful consequence. • The same act can lead to different offences depending on the consequence which occurs and the defendant’s mens rea. • Causation in fact means the consequence would not have occurred but for the action of the defendant – R v White (1910), R v Pagett (1983). • Causation in law means that the defendant’s act is the operative and substantial cause of the consequence – R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Jordan (1956). • The thin skull rule means that the defendant must take the victim as they find them – R v Blaue (1975). • The chain of causation can be broken the act of a third party – this is often linked to poor medical treatment. • The chain of causation can be broken by the victim’s own act – R v Roberts (1971), R v Williams (1992). • The chain of causation can be broken by a natural but unpredictable event. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Causation plays a key role in establishing an actus reus as without it there cannot be an offence. • It is the starting point for liability as the same act can lead to different offences depending on the level of mens rea as long as the chain of causation is not broken which helps with fair labelling. • Causation is essential to prove as it helps with sentencing. • It can be useful in difficult areas such as poor medical treatment. • Sometimes causation appears too easy to prove and so may not lead to fair and consistent verdicts. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation • Reliance on factual causation can be said to be justifiable as the natural basis of liability but it can be too easy to prove and therefore unfair. • Causation in law can be a helpful test as it adds a tighter layer of responsibility and so can lead to better verdicts and more fair labelling. • However, it is not always easy to prove and policy can play a part, especially in relation to groups like medical staff, police officers and emergency service workers. • There are issues around the chain of causation and when it is broken which make the law complex. • One issue is when an intervening act is sufficiently independent and serious to break the chain of causation. This is not easy to define and explain to a jury which can lead to inconsistent verdicts. • There is also a problem when a victim has a medical condition which makes an injury more serious which the defendant does not know about. This can lead to liability but it could be seen as unjust if it is not something the defendant could have seen before they decided to act. • The breaking of the chain of causation due to the victim’s own acts is not always easy to decide and can lead to unfairness in verdicts. • As causation underpins an actus reus and is vague or uncertain in key areas, this could lead to a defendant being convicted unfairly or for more serious offences than were ever contemplated. • It can be hard to define when a chain of causation exists which is a problem as it is important in allocating blame effectively. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2023
Q21 · Amanda goes for a walk in a forest owned by Bob 9084/21 May/June 2024
1 (a) Amanda goes for a walk in a forest owned by Bob. Bob has planted most of the trees, but there are also some wild apple trees full of fruit. Amanda sees the apples, goes home and returns to the forest with a large bag. She fills the bag with apples. The next day Amanda puts the apples on a table outside her house with a sign saying, ‘apples for sale’. Amanda earns £20 from the sale of the apples. Explain how the source material will apply to Amanda. [10] (b) Charles often helps his neighbour, Priya, by doing her shopping. One day Priya gives Charles a shopping list and a £10 note. At the shop Charles buys the items on the list and gives the shop assistant the £10 note. The shop assistant is busy talking to a friend and gives Charles change for a £20 note. Charles realises what has happened and puts the money in his pocket. On the way back to Priya’s house Charles uses the money he was given in the shop to buy a magazine which costs £5. Explain how the source material will apply to Charles. [10] (c) Maurice is walking along a street and he sees a £5 note on the ground in front of him. There is no one in sight, so he picks up the £5 note and uses it to buy his lunch in a café. Maurice walks past a charity shop. The shop is closed, but there are some bags by the door. Maurice looks in the bags and finds a coat, which he puts on. He goes to the back of the shop where there are bins marked with the charity’s name. Maurice looks in the bin and takes a pair of trousers. Explain how the source material will apply to Maurice. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Amanda. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S3(1), s4(1), s4(3) and/or s5(1) are the appropriate sections. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Amanda meets s3(1) as there has been an appropriation as she assumes the rights of the owner when she picks the apples. She meets s4(1) as the apples and the tree are property. She meets s5(1) as the forest and the apples do not belong to her. Application: Amanda assumes the rights of the owner by treating them as her own when she takes them home and when she sells them. Amanda does not commit an offence under s4(3) when she picks the apples as the trees are wild. Amanda meets s4(3) when she advertises the apples for sale. Amanda also meets s4(3) when she sells the apples and gains £20. Amanda meets s5(1) as Bob owns the forest. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Charles. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S3(1), s4(1), s5(1), s5(3) and/or s5(4) are the appropriate sections. Reference to A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) (1985). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Charles meets s3(1) as there has been an appropriation when he is given too much change. He meets s4(1) as the money given by Priya and the excess change are property. Charles meets s5(4) as he keeps what is given to him by mistake. Application: Charles assumes the rights of the owner when he puts the money in his pocket. He treats the excess change as his own when he buys the magazine. The money Priya gives Charles for shopping belongs to her under s5(1). Charles meets s5(3) as he is obliged to use the £10 Priya gives him for shopping and that is what he does. A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985) suggests that Charles has a legal obligation to return the excess change but he buys a magazine. A-G Ref (No 1 0f 1983)(1985) also suggests that it is sufficient for Charles just to keep the money-he does not need to spend any of it. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Maurice. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S3(1), s4(1) and/or s5(1) are the appropriate sections. Reference to Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates (2011). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Maurice meets s3(1) as there is more than one appropriation. He meets s4(1) as the money and clothes are property. He meets s5(1) as the money and clothes belong to another. Application: Maurice appropriates the £5 note as although he comes by it innocently he assumes the rights of the owner and treats it as his own when he spends it on his lunch. Maurice also appropriates the coat and trousers as he assumes the rights of the owner by taking them. He meets s5(1) for the £5 note even though the owner is unknown. He meets s5(1) in relation to the trousers as they are in the marked bin at the back of the shop and so are still possessed by the charity shop as suggested in Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates (2011). Maurice meets s5(1) in relation to the coat as it has been left in the charity shop doorway and so still belongs to the original owner. Candidates can be credited for the argument that Maurice cannot establish ownership of the £5 note as there is no one in sight and so he does not appropriate property belonging to another. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks Mostly accurate but Mostly focused and Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant Good knowledge and The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks Some accuracy but Some reasoned Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. The analysis is some of the relevant Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks Limited accuracy. Limited analysis. Limited evaluation of a Limited knowledge and The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks No creditable content No creditable content No creditable content
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2024
Q22 · Describe two elements of s10(1) Theft Act 1968 9084/21 May/June 2024
2 (a) Describe two elements of s10(1) Theft Act 1968. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of handling stolen goods. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe two elements of s10(1) Theft Act 1968. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding S10(1) is the offence of aggravated burglary. There must be a burglary within the meaning of s 9(1)(a) or s 9(1)(b). At the time – this means when the offence is committed. Has with him – this means physical carrying of a weapon but can go further, such as a remote detonator. Any firearm or imitation firearm - this includes an airgun or air pistol and anything which appears to be a firearm even if it cannot be discharged. Any weapon of offence – this means any article made or adapted to cause injury to or incapacitate a person or intended for such use. Any explosive - any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion or intended for that purpose. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law of handling stolen goods. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding The offence is found in s22 Theft Act 1968. The goods must already be stolen at the time of the handling so if a person handling goods believes them to be stolen but in fact they are not they could be guilty of attempted handling - Haughton v Smith (1975). The offence includes goods stolen outside the UK if stealing was an offence where it took place as well as goods obtained by blackmail or by fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. Money or other goods received by the thief or handler from the sale of stolen goods are also stolen. Handling can mean receiving stolen goods – taking possession or control of the stolen property. Handling can mean arranging to receive – the arrangements are no more than merely preparatory but for goods which are in fact stolen Handling can mean undertaking or arranging to undertake in their retention, removal or realisation by another person or for the benefit of another person - R v Bloxham (1983). Handling can be achieved by retention of the goods (keeping possession of them, continuing to have them and not losing possession of them as in R v Pitchley (1972) and R v Kanwar (1982)); removal of the goods (carrying or transporting stolen goods; disposal of the goods (including transforming destroying or throwing or giving away stolen goods)); realisation of the goods (selling or exchanging them for something else of value). The defendant must either know or believe the goods are stolen at the time they carry out the actus reus; this test is subjective - R v Moys (1984). They must also be dishonest – this has the same meaning as for theft. This is a triable either way offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. 2(b) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: The range of possible elements in this offence reflects the need to cover lots of different types of actus reus. There is also a link to other Theft Act 1968 offences, especially in the meaning of ‘stolen’ and the requirement for dishonesty. The maximum penalty suggests the seriousness of the offence and the need to extend liability beyond just the original thief. The range of elements allows for fair labelling across a range of activities which helps with sentencing practicalities. The development of the law through the cases shows complexity as the statutory definition has been unpicked. As a triable either way offence this can lead to juries having to be sure of a lot of different elements to be able to convict. AO3 Evaluation Handling of stolen goods is closely linked to other dishonesty-based offences but because it can be committed in such a variety of ways it can be seen as something of a catch-all offence; this can make it very effective in extending liability. As the offence is usually committed by someone receiving stolen goods to use or to sell them it could be said to be effective as there will be less thieves if the offence works well. To be guilty of the offence of handling stolen goods, the defendant must either know the goods are stolen or believe them to be stolen at the time of handling and they will be taken to know this if the thief tells them that which can make the law effective. However, if the defendant doesn’t know for certain that the goods were stolen, but there was no other reasonable conclusion in the circumstances, the jury might assume they knew; this can make the law less effective if juries don’t convict for lack of certainty or do convict when the evidence is unclear. Evidence that a defendant has been involved in or convicted of handling stolen goods can be used to prove whether they knew or believed the goods to be stolen; this is not normally admissible under the law of evidence so it can be unfair to the accused and make the law ineffective. Cases tried in Crown Court can be very complex for juries which can impact on their decision making and the effectiveness of the law. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2024
Q23 · Describe the offence of obtaining services dishonestly 9084/21 May/June 2024
3 (a) Describe the offence of obtaining services dishonestly. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on omissions in actus reus. [25] Source material for Section A Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 3 ‘Appropriates’. (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. Section 4 ‘Property’. (1) ‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. (2) … (3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. For purposes of this subsection ‘mushroom’ includes any fungus, and ‘plant’ includes any shrub or tree. Section 5 ‘Belonging to another’. (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest). (2) … (3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. (4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983) (1985) The defendant, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The Attorney General referred a question to the Court of Appeal. Held: It was possible for a theft conviction to arise where the defendant had not withdrawn the money. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake. Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates’ Court (2010) The appellant took six bags containing used clothing and other items from outside charity shops owned by Oxfam and the British Heart Foundation (BHF). He intended to sell the items at a car boot sale. The bags from Oxfam were taken from a bin outside the shop in which people could leave donated items. The bags from BHF were simply placed outside the door to the shop. Held: The bags taken from the bins outside Oxfam could be taken to be in Oxfam’s possession at the time he appropriated them. However, with regard to the bags taken from outside BHF, no possession or proprietary interest could be taken to arise from them simply being left in the vicinity. However, it didn’t follow that the items had been abandoned. The donor intended the items to be a gift to the BHF, they had attempted delivery of the gift, and the gift would be complete once BHF took possession of the items. The items still belonged to the donor until BHF took possession.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the offence of obtaining services dishonestly. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding The offence is found in s11 Fraud Act 2006. It requires an act and cannot be committed by omission. The services must be actually obtained. Services are not defined but can include using false credit card details to obtain services on the internet or climbing over a wall and watching a football match without paying the entrance fee. The defendant must pay nothing or not pay in full for the service. The defendant has to obtain the service dishonestly, but it is not necessary to show they have deceived anyone. The defendant must know the services are, or might be, available only on the basis that payment has been or will be made for them. The defendant must intend not to pay or not to pay in full for the services. The offence is triable either way; the maximum penalty at the Crown Court is five years’ imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on omissions in actus reus. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding An actus reus is normally a voluntary and positive act. In some situations, a failure to act can give rise to criminal liability. Statutory duty – a duty imposed by an Act of Parliament, often to raise standards of behaviour; for example: failing to provide a specimen of breath under s6 Road Traffic Act 1988. Contractual duty – this often arises due to employment – R v Pittwood (1902). Duty due to a relationship – this is widely defined but can be between a parent and child or between other family members - R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918), R v Evans (2009). Duty undertaken voluntarily – this is widely defined but may involve taking on caring for someone vulnerable – R v Stone and Dobinson (1977). Duty arising from public office – this applies to a small category of people, such as police officers - R v Dytham (1979). Duty arising due to a dangerous situation - the defendant fails to prevent harm as they allow a situation to become dangerous - R v Miller (1983), R v Evans (2009). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: An actus reus is a key element; without it there is no need to prove mens rea and there cannot be a criminal offence. This means it is essential to prove as it is something which can be seen and so helps with sentencing. The development of the law shows complexity as originally an actus reus had be both positive and voluntary but this left gaps in the law. This led to unfairness as those who did not do what they should have done avoided liability. There can be inconsistency in duties as they do not always take account of whether the person involved is able to discharge it so there is an issue of fair labelling. Some duties do not take account of the complex relationships those involved have or the pressures individuals can be under. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation The range of duties has been expanded over time to cover gaps in the law, which can make the law fairer. Most developments have been made by judges suggesting that change is incremental and in step with society’s needs. Statutory duties show Parliament acting as an agent of social paternalism and making people behave better – this might be in relation to large groups such as drivers, smaller groups such as family members who may be aware of someone else in the family abusing a vulnerable person or particular categories of people such as teachers having inappropriate relationships with students which can help with fairness. Contractual duties make sure that those with responsibility to others discharge them properly which makes the law fair. Duties due to relationships often deal with situations in families – this can be good and can overlap with statutory duties, as between a parent and child. However, it can be hard to define the extent of a relationship; there is a problem if the person to whom the duty is owed does not want it to be fulfilled. A duty undertaken voluntarily can be good as it enables people to be cared for. However, the duty assumed may be impossible to carry out, the person who assumes it may not have realised its full implications and they may not be able to fulfil it due to their own shortcomings. A duty arising from public office is good as those who are being paid to protect society should do so. However, there is a problem in how much they are then expected to do. A duty arising out of a dangerous situation is good as it encourages people to behave better. However, they may not be able to see the dangerousness of the situation which raises questions of fairness. There is also a problem as there is no Good Samaritan law so there is no obligation to rescue unless there is a duty; critics argue this is morally and legally wrong and raises questions of fairness. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2024
Q24 · Describe the actus reus of the offence of making off without payment 9084/22 May/June 2024
2 (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of making off without payment. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding S3 Theft Act 1978 The defendant leaves the place where payment is expected; this is a question of fact. Goods have been supplied or a service has been done – if this has not happened there is no offence. Payment is required on the spot – this happens when the goods or services have been provided and it must be proved that payment on the spot was required or expected. The defendant has not paid as required – this is a question of fact and must be of the amount due. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S1(1) is the basic criminal damage offence – the actus reus is to destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse. Destruction or damage is not defined by the Act; it is a matter of fact and degree based on common sense and can include temporary or permanent physical damage and/or impairment of value or usefulness - Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset (1986), Morphitis v Salmon (1990), R v Fiak (2005). Property is defined in s10(1) – it must be tangible and can be real or personal. It includes wild creatures tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, and other wild creatures or their carcasses only if they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being so reduced. It does not include mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. The property must belong to another – this is similar to s5 Theft Act 1968 but requires custody and control of property not possession or control. Lawful excuses are set out in s5 and are based on a subjective belief honestly held. The mens rea is intention or recklessness, the latter is defined subjectively – R v Cunningham (1957), R v G (2004). S1(2) is the aggravated offence – the elements are similar to the basic offence but there must be an intention or recklessness to endanger life and there is no defence of lawful excuse. S1(3) is Arson – the elements are the same as in the basic offence, but the damage must be caused by fire and the defence of lawful excuse is available – R v Denton (1982). Basic criminal damage (other than by fire) of a value less than £5000 is a summary offence with a maximum penalty fine and/or three months’ imprisonment; if the value is over £5000 the offence is triable either way with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; arson is triable either way and the maximum summary sentence is six months’ and on indictment the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson are triable on indictment and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. 2(b) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Criminal damage is a necessary but varied offence which can make it complex. A lot depends on choosing the right offence to reflect the facts and the number of elements which have to be satisfied can make it hard for juries to understand and so reach fair verdicts. Key terms are not always clearly defined which does not necessarily lead to fair labelling. Some key concepts such as recklessness have changed their meaning. Sentencing can also be complex and can lead to inconsistency. AO3 Evaluation The Criminal Damage Act 1971 has clarified the law in many ways and has tried to create a useful range of offences but there can be complex overlaps. Some fundamental key terms lack a clear definition which can lead to inconsistency and difficulties for juries. For example, the meaning of ‘destroy’ or ‘damage’ is vague and does not necessarily fit with common sense which can impact on the law’s effectiveness. Where a jury trial is concerned, juries can struggle to decide whether damage was done to protect from immediate danger, and this can lead to perverse verdicts which could make the law ineffective. The range of offences can make the law very effective as it reflects different ways criminal damage can occur and its increasing seriousness as well as potential danger to the wider public helps with this. In offences where the mens rea includes recklessness based on a subjective test this means the defendant is at fault and should be punished, helping to make the law effective. As a result, a defendant has to take responsibility when they are aware of the risk of a consequence occurring; this is fair and aids the effectiveness of the offences. However, if can be ineffective if a defendant says they did not see a risk but damage is caused. Sentencing is graded within the offences which helps with effectiveness if the correct offence is charged and can provide an effective deterrent message for potential offenders. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2024
Q25 · Describe the law on direct intention in criminal law 9084/22 May/June 2024
3 (a) Describe the law on direct intention in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of fraud. [25] Source material for Section A Question 1 Sentencing Council Guidelines – Aggravated burglary – Section 10 Theft Act 1968 (adapted) Step 1 – Determining the offence category Category 1 – Greater harm and higher culpability Category 2 – Greater harm and lower culpability or lesser harm and higher culpability Category 3 – Lesser harm and lower culpability Factors indicating greater harm • Theft of/damage to property causing a significant degree of loss to the victim (whether economic, commercial, sentimental or personal value) • Soiling of property and/or extensive damage or disturbance to property • Victim at home or on the premises (or returns) while offender present • Significant physical or psychological injury or other significant trauma to the victim • Violence used or threatened against victim, particularly involving a weapon Factors indicating lesser harm • No physical or psychological injury or other significant trauma to the victim • No violence used or threatened, and a weapon is not produced Factors indicating higher culpability • A significant degree of planning or organisation • Equipped for burglary (for example, implements carried and/or use of vehicle) • Weapon present on entry • Member of a group or gang Factors indicating lower culpability • Offender exploited by others • Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the commission of the offence Step 2 – Starting point and category range Starting point Category range Offence category (applicable to all offenders) (applicable to all offenders) Category 1 10 years’ custody 9–13 years’ custody Category 2 6 years’ custody 4–9 years’ custody Category 3 2 years’ custody 1–4 years’ custody Factors increasing seriousness (aggravating factors) • Previous convictions • Offence committed whilst on bail • Offence committed at night • Abuse of power and/or position of trust Factors reducing seriousness (mitigating factors) • Subordinate role in a group or gang • Nothing stolen or only property of very low value to the victim (whether economic, commercial, sentimental or personal) • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions • Remorse • Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the law on direct intention in criminal law. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Intention is the highest level of mens rea • It is only required for a very small number of offences. • It is defined in common law, not statute. • Direct intent is defined a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power the prohibited consequence whether they desired the consequence or not. • The leading case is R v Mohan (1975). • The defendant’s motive or reason for doing the act is irrelevant. • It is the clearest form of intention but is not always evident. • It is not seen very often. • Direct intent is distinguished from indirect/oblique intent. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of fraud. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by false representation. The actus reus is that the defendant must make a representation which is false. A representation can be express or implied and made to a person or a machine. There do not need to be any consequences due to the representation - R v Hamilton (2008). For the mens rea there must be dishonesty using the test in theft, knowledge or a belief that the representation is untrue or misleading and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss - R v Barton and Booth (2020), R v Kapitene (2010), s34 Fraud Act 2006. • S3 Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by failing to disclose information. The actus reus is that the defendant must fail to disclose information where a legal duty to do so exists even if they do not know the duty exists and there are no consequences due to failing to disclose information - R v D (2019). The mens rea is the same dishonesty test as for theft and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss. • S4 Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by abuse of position. The actus reus is that the defendant was in a position in which they were expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person and that they abused that position, often where there is a legal fiduciary duty - R v Valujevs (2014), R v Marshall (2009), R v Gayle (2008). The mens rea is the same as for a s3 offence. 3(b) • S11 Fraud Act 2006 – obtaining services dishonestly. The actus reus is that there must be an act and the defendant obtains services that are not paid for or not paid for in full. The mens rea is the same dishonesty test as for theft as well as knowledge that the services are, or might be, being made available on the basis that payment has been or will be made for them and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss. • All fraud offences are triable either way and have a maximum penalty of 10 years’ except S11 the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The Fraud Act 2006 is complex and lengthy, although in effect it only deals with one offence. • The terms in the Act are quite specific but not all are defined which can lead to difficulties of interpretation and therefore consistency. As an example, the meaning of an ‘implied false representation by conduct’ is not specifically given in the Act although there is an example in the explanatory notes. • Fraud cases often include a charge of theft and there is a clear overlap in the element of dishonesty – as in R v Barton and Booth (2020). The dishonesty test has been subject to change in theft, and it is not certain that the current interpretation will stand in the long term. • Some parts of the Act are very general which means that possibly the wrong sort of conduct is being criminalised; however, some moral complexities are overlooked so trivial disputes can end up as crimes. • s2 is capable of very wide use because it is the broadest and so can lead to unforeseen consequences; in 2(5), a representation can arise very early and as long as there is an intention to gain at some point the offence is complete. • In s2(2), a statement is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading but this can make someone guilty too easily. AO3 Evaluation Evaluation: • As the Fraud Act 2006 is complex and lengthy in an attempt to cover lots of different varieties of one offence this can lead to inconsistency and can make charging decisions difficult; this can impact on effectiveness. • The lack of clear definitions of all terms might be deliberate in an effort to allow the law to grow; this can make it effective as it is adaptable but can also increase ineffectiveness if there is a lack of clarity. • The overlap with theft, especially in relation to the key element of dishonesty; this is often the hardest element to prove and recent developments in the law of theft appear to make conviction easier. The current law may not be a clear expression of what parliament intended; this may impact on effectiveness by convicting more people, but they are not ‘truly’ criminal. The meaning of dishonesty could also change again. • As some definitions are not clear the wrong sort of conduct can be criminalised and trivial disputes can end up as crimes, reducing the effectiveness of the law and its deterrent effect. • The breadth of the law can lead to unforeseen consequences in terms of convictions which are too easy and so reduces its effectiveness. 3(b) • However, the range of offences and the looseness of some definitions may well make the law more effective as there are more categories which offenders can come within. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2024
Q26 · Simon has a van which he uses to steal a large amount of cheese 9084/23 May/June 2024
1 (a) Simon has a van which he uses to steal a large amount of cheese. He drives the van to the house of his brother, Ben. He tells Ben the cheese is stolen and asks him to hide it. Ben agrees and stores the cheese in his freezer. A week later Simon asks Ben to deliver the cheese to a friend who will sell it, which Ben does. Explain how the source material will apply to Ben. [10] (b) Chris visits his mother, Danielle. He arrives riding an expensive motorbike which he has stolen. Danielle asks about the motorbike as she knows Chris does not have much money. He says it belongs to a friend and asks if he can leave it at her house for a few days. Danielle agrees. Later that day she sees a news story about a stolen motorbike which matches the one at her house. The next day a police officer phones Danielle asking about the stolen motorbike, but she says she has not seen it. A week later the police come to Danielle’s house and find the stolen motorbike. Explain how the source material will apply to Danielle. [10] (c) Salman buys a van on a shopping website for £5000, for what he thinks is a suspiciously cheap price. He pays £3000 and the other £2000 when the seller says he has posted the registration document. The registration document does not arrive, confirming Salman’s suspicion that the van is stolen. Salman paints the van a different colour and gives it to Tabitha, who runs a charity which delivers food to people in need. She offers to pay for the van, but Salman says it is free as he wants to help the charity. Explain how the source material will apply to Salman. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Ben. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S22 is the likely offence. • Reference to s2 Theft Act 1968 and R v Barton and Booth (2020). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Ben has the actus reus of an offence under s22 as the cheese is stolen and he handles it when he receives and stores it. Ben has the mens rea as he knows the cheese is stolen and he is dishonest by the test in R v Barton and Booth (2020). Application: The cheese Simon stole will be classed as goods. Ben has handled stolen goods as he has received property by taking possession of the stolen cheese. He retains the stolen goods as he keeps the stolen cheese until Simon tells him to deliver it to the person who will sell it. Ben retains the stolen goods for Simon’s benefit as he will make a profit when the cheese is sold. He has knowledge and belief that the goods are stolen as Simon tells him this when he asks Ben to hide the cheese and Ben agrees. Ben is also dishonest as he does not fit any of the s2(1) exceptions. Applying the test in R v Barton and Booth (2020) an ordinary person knowing what Ben knows would see his conduct as dishonest. It seems likely Ben will be convicted of an offence under s22(2). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Danielle. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding S22 is the likely offence. Reference to R v Kanwar (1982) and R v Barton and Booth (2020). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Danielle has the actus reus of an offence under s22 as she has handled stolen goods by retaining them when she discovers they are stolen. She has the mens rea of the offence as she knows Chris cannot afford an expensive motorbike and she lies to the police after she discovers the motorbike is stolen so she is dishonest. Application: Under s22(1) the motorbike has been stolen by Chris. As the goods have been stolen Danielle receives them when she agrees to have the motorbike at her house although at that point, she does not know it is stolen. She then retains as she lies to the police about having the motorbike which means there is a delay in them recovering it as in R v Kanwar (1982). She retains the motorbike for the benefit of her son. Danielle has the mens rea of knowledge and belief once she sees the news story which shows the stolen motorbike and then she lies to the police. She does not fit the s2(1) exceptions and she is clearly dishonest when she lies to the police, so she meets the test in R v Barton and Booth (2020). It seems likely that Danielle will be convicted of an offence under s22(2). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Salman. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S22 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Bloxham (1983) and R v Barton and Booth (2020). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Salman has the actus reus of an offence under s22 as he receives stolen goods, and he disposes them of them by changing the van’s identity although this is not done for the benefit of another. Salman also has mens rea once he realises the van is stolen and although he does sell for a cheaper price, he is dishonest in what he tells Tabitha. Application: Under s22(1) Salman received stolen goods once he realised the van did not have a valid registration document. However, he has not undertaken or arranged to undertake in their retention, removal or realisation by another as he has not sold the van for Tabitha’s benefit as in R v Bloxham (1983). That said he has disposed of stolen goods as he has changed the van’s identity with the different colour. Salman has mens rea as he is suspicious of the price which means he at least believes the van might be stolen. Although he does not meet any of the s2(1) exceptions using the test in R v Barton and Booth (2020) a jury might decide Salman is not dishonest as he has given the van to a charity. It seems likely Salman will not be convicted of an offence under s22 but candidates who argue in the alternative can be credited depending on their reasoning. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 2(b) and 3(b). Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks Mostly accurate but may Mostly focused and Mostly focused and not be detailed in some reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant Good knowledge and The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective Effectively supported appropriate legal and well-developed use by relevant material. concepts, principles and of legal concepts, Coherent argument. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, key and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or and legal terminology. statutory authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks Some accuracy but lacks Some reasoned Some evaluation, detail in relevant areas. analysis. reasoned at times, of Some knowledge and The analysis is some of the relevant understanding of mostly supported by some issues. appropriate legal partially developed use Supported by some concepts, principles and of legal concepts, relevant material. rules, examples, cases principles and rules, Some coherent and/or statutory authority, examples, cases and/or argument. and legal terminology. statutory authority. 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks Limited accuracy. Limited analysis. Limited evaluation of a Limited knowledge and The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited use Limited or no use of concepts, principles and or makes no use of legal relevant material. rules, examples, cases concepts, principles and Limited or no and/or statutory authority, rules, examples, cases argument. and legal terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks No creditable content. No creditable content. No creditable content.
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2024
Q27 · Describe the law on an intention to permanently deprive in theft 9084/23 May/June 2024
2 (a) Describe the law on an intention to permanently deprive in theft. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of blackmail. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the law on an intention to permanently deprive in theft. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding An intention to permanently deprive is found in s6 Theft Act 1968. It can mean to keep property forever. It can also occur even when there is an intention to return property later. It can also mean an intention to treat something as their own to dispose of, regardless of anyone else’s rights. Borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period of time and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. Conditional intent is not sufficient. The way the property is disposed of may be enough to satisfy s6. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the law of blackmail. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding Blackmail is found in s21 Theft Act 1968. The actus reus is that there must be a demand – R v Collister and Warhurst (1955), Treacy v DPP (1971), R v Pogmore (2017) and R v Lambert (2009). The demand must be unwarranted – R v Harvey (1981). The demand must also be made with menaces – R v Lawrence and Pomroy (1971), R v Harry (1974). The mens rea is an intention, direct or oblique, to make an unwarranted demand with menaces. This must be done with a view to gain for oneself or another or with intent to cause loss to another – R v Bevans (1988). Gain and loss are defined in s34 Theft Act 1968. There is no need for dishonesty. It is a question of fact as to believing if a person has reasonable grounds for making the demand. It is a question of fact as to believing whether using menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. Blackmail is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: Blackmail is an important addition to the range of property offences as the pressure applied to people which forces them to commit the offence needs to be sanctioned and indicates blameworthiness through sentencing. The use of statute law is intended to provide clarity, but the law remains complex in places, as is demonstrated by the cases, which can cause problems. Blackmail can be seen as a ‘hidden offence’ which can make charging and conviction challenging. The offence has lots of elements and proving all of them can be difficult which impacts on conviction rates. Blackmail is an offence with a significant maximum penalty and a serious stigma, so juries need to be clear on the law if they are to convict in the correct cases. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation Blackmail is an offence known at a popular level and so juries need to be sure they understand the legal requirements if they are to convict properly and make the law effective. There is no requirement to show that a demand has been made expressly; although an implied demand is enough to lead to conviction this can make proof and conviction difficult. A demand by post is made when it is posted. This fits with the law of contract but means the demand is made before the victim is aware of it having been made and it is a continuing demand until it is withdrawn. This can raise problems of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea and so impacts on effectiveness in gaining convictions in the right circumstances. It is not necessary to show that the person making the demand is the one carrying out the menaces or that the person making the demand can carry it out which could make it too easy to convict and so impacts on fair labelling. Menaces may be interpreted differently by those who do not meet the ‘average firmness’ test which can have an impact on conviction rates. It can be difficult for a defendant to prove they meet the defence of reasonable grounds; their belief is what is important and their entitlement to the money or property demanded is irrelevant which can also impact on effectiveness. S34 Theft Act 1968 explains ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ just in terms of money or other property of economic value rather than something intangible but actual gain or loss is not essential which can link to effectiveness. Blackmail is often a ‘hidden offence’ in situations based on dominance and subordination which can impact on effectiveness as a victim may be frightened to report and fearful of how it will impact on their reputation. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2024
Q28 · Describe the actus reus of robbery 9084/23 May/June 2024
3 (a) Describe the actus reus of robbery. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of making off without payment. [25] Source material for Section A Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 22 Handling stolen goods (1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Section 2 ‘Dishonestly’ (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or (c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. R v Kanwar (1982) Mr Kanwar brought stolen goods into the family home while his wife was in hospital. After she returned from hospital, the police searched the house looking for stolen goods. Mrs Kanwar told the police that nothing in the house was stolen and that two items in particular that the police believed were stolen had been bought by her. This was untrue. Held: Mrs Kanwar was convicted of handling stolen goods, as her statements to the police had enabled the retention of the stolen goods by making it more difficult for the police to identify them. R v Bloxham (1983) Bloxham bought a car for £1200, paying £500 immediately and the remainder when he received the registration document. He later realised that the car was stolen, as the seller failed to give him the registration document. He then sold the car to someone else for £200 as there was no registration document. Held: While Bloxham had clearly disposed of stolen goods, he had not done so for the benefit of another. The buyer may have benefited, but he had not sold the car for the buyer’s benefit. R v Barton and Booth (2020) Barton ran a luxury nursing home and Booth was the general manager. They abused their position to befriend, manipulate and isolate residents at the home in order to profit from them. Held: The Court of Appeal decided the correct test to follow was that from Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), where the Supreme Court stated that the new test for dishonesty is simply whether an ordinary, honest person, armed with the same factual knowledge and beliefs as the defendant, would consider the conduct dishonest. It is no longer necessary to prove that the defendant was aware that others would consider his conduct dishonest.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the actus reus of robbery. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding Robbery is defined in s8 Theft Act 1968. There must be a completed theft. Robbery occurs at the moment theft is completed with relevant force. Force or threat of force is based on the ordinary meaning of the word. It can include pulling a bag from a victim’s hand. The force can be against any person, not just the victim of the theft. The force or threat of force must be used immediately before or at the time of the theft. The force must be used in order to steal. Theft can be a continuing act so using force to escape can be enough. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the law of making off without payment. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding The offence is found in s3 Theft Act 1978. For the actus reus the defendant must make off; this means leaving the place where payment is due or expected – R v McDavitt (1981), R v Brookes and Brookes (1983). Goods must have been supplied or a service must have been done and there is no offence until the contract is completed – Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987). Payment is required on the spot but does not become due until the goods or services have been provided – R v Wilkinson (2018), R v Vincent (2001). The defendant has not paid as required; this means the full payment. The defendant must be dishonest, and this is the same as for theft. There must be knowledge that payment on the spot is required. There must be an intention never to pay – R v Allen (1985). The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: This offence was created to deal with a gap in the Theft Act 1968 which means it fits particular situations, often relating to self-service shopping. The use of the dishonesty test from theft has added some complexities to the law. It is now a relatively easy offence to use and gain convictions. The maximum penalty is relatively small, a conviction does not carry a significant stigma and the law is not so complex now, so juries do not find it hard to convict. The courts have extended and clarified the law to make it work better. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation The offence was created 10 years after the Theft Act 1968 in response to changing times and so it is good that Parliament acted. However, the law has needed clarification through the cases so critics might argue whether the law matches the intention of Parliament. There is still a gap in the law as the offence only applies to payments which are lawfully required. Issues in dishonesty did cause problems although the current test now makes it easier to convict than was previous the case. This can be seen as good although critics might argue it is now too easy to convict. There is not always clarity as to the difference between an intention to permanently avoid payment and simply deferring payment. If this is not clear it is not possible to convince for fraud instead as making off without payment does not require a deception as is needed for fraud. If a defendant agrees beforehand that they will pay later there cannot be an offence of making off without payment although if they always intended never to pay this can be fraud – this can cause a problem in conviction rates if the right charge is not used in the first place. The offence can still be problematic in relation to the duties between taxi drivers and their passengers. As the maximum penalty is low, as is the stigma of conviction, juries might convict too easily which is not good for fair labelling. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2024
Q29 · Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2024
2 (a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s4 Fraud Act 2006. • The defendant is in a position in which they are expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person. • They abuse that position by a positive act or an omission. • They do so dishonestly. • They intended by the abuse to make a gain or cause a loss. • The offence is triable wither way. • The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 Theft Act 1968 deals with dishonesty. • The statute does not define dishonesty although in s1(2) it is clear that a defendant’s motive is not relevant to whether they are dishonest. • S2 creates a negative definition by specifying three situations in which a defendant is not dishonest. • S2(1)(a) an honest belief in a legal right to the property – R v Robinson (1977), R v Holden (1991). • S2(1)(b) an honest belief in the owner’s consent. • S2(1)(c) an honest belief that the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps to do so – R v Small (1987). • If none of these exceptions apply the jury use their common sense to decide if the defendant is dishonest. • If they need help they use a two stage test: 1. What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. Was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? – Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (2017), R v Barton and Booth (2020). 2(b) • S6 deals with the intention to permanently deprive. • This can mean taking property for ever, destroying property, dealing with property in a way which goes against the rights of the owner or borrowing property for a period of time or in such a way that the value is changed to the extent that all or most of the goodness has gone out if it – R v Velumyl (1989), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Lloyd (1985). • It covers conditional intent where a defendant takes property and then replaces it as there is nothing worth stealing – R v Easom (1971). • It also covers the situation where the defendant appropriates property and then conceals it rather than taking it away – CC Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Smith (1984). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The mens rea of theft is an important element of theft as it is the key indicator of blame. • Due to its hidden nature, it can be hard to prove. • The statutory wording has needed development, leading to complexity and there have been significant changes. • Case law developments can mean the law is different to what was intended in the statute. • Terms are not always clearly defined which does not necessarily lead to fair labelling. • Issues with actus reus elements means a great deal rests on the mens rea so if this is not clear it can lead to inconsistency. AO3 Evaluation • The purpose of the Theft Act 1968 was to clarify and codify the law of theft so it was more effective – issues surrounding key terms have made this harder • As the actus reus has broadened, especially in relation to appropriation, more importance has been placed on the mens rea elements and the negative statutory definition of dishonesty can be said to lead to potential ineffectiveness. • Most of the time juries know if a defendant is dishonest by using their common sense which means the law is effective. • The test for juries has changed in recent years in an effort to make it more effective. • A big change came in Ivey; as this was a civil case, its application to criminal law was technically limited. However, it was used in DPP v Patterson (2017) and confirmed as the test to use in criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth (2020). This means a defendant’s beliefs as to their honesty are less important as an objective test is applied to the beliefs they actually hold, increasing convictions and therefore effectiveness. • However, this may not match the regular meaning of a word in regular use this can affect decisions and effectiveness. 2(b) • In s6 the meaning of permanently deprive has been stretched; this could mean the law is ineffective and no longer gives effect to the intention of Parliament. • However, it is now easier to fulfil s6 as it covers a range of situations perhaps not foreseen when the Theft Act was drafted which can make conviction easier and arguably the law more effective. • The law may be ineffective in situation relating to ‘borrowing’ as all the other elements of theft are met and something may be taken, such as potential profits in Lloyd. • If s6 was a temporary rather than a permanent deprivation then it would also cover situations where a defendant appropriates property with the intention to take anything worth stealing; this would make the law more effective, especially as this is the case in s9(1)(a) burglary. • As theft is an offence with a significant social stigma which can have wide ranging repercussions on conviction the law needs to be clear and certain if it is to be truly effective and also provide an effective deterrent message for potential offenders. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2024
Q30 · Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2024
3 (a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. [25] Source material for Section A Question 1 Sentencing Council Guidelines – Arson – Section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Step 1 Determining the offence category A – High culpability • High degree of planning or premeditation • Revenge attack • Use of accelerant (a substance used to aid the spread of fire) • Intention to cause very serious damage to property • Intention to create a high risk of injury to persons B – Medium culpability • Some planning • Recklessness as to whether very serious damage caused to property • Recklessness as to whether serious injury caused to persons C – Lesser culpability • Little or no planning; offence committed on impulse • Recklessness as to whether some damage to property caused • Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability Harm: Category 1 • Serious physical and/or psychological harm caused • Serious consequential economic or social impact of offence • High value of damage caused Harm: Category 2 • Harm that falls between categories 1 and 3 Harm: Category 3 • No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused • Low value of damage caused Step 2 – Starting point (SP) and category range (R) Harm Culpability A Culpability B Culpability C Category 1 SP: 4 years’ custody SP: 1 year 6 months’ custody SP: 9 months’ custody R: 2 – 8 years’ custody R: 9 months – 3 years’ custody R: 6 – 18 months’ custody Category 2 SP: 2 years’ custody SP: 9 months’ custody SP: High community order R: 1 – 4 years’ custody R: 6 – 18 months’ custody R: Medium community order – 9 months’ custody Category 3 SP: 1 years’ custody SP: High level community SP: Low community order R: 6 months – 2 years’ order R: Discharge – High level custody R: Medium level community community order order – 9 months’ custody Factors increasing seriousness (aggravating factors) • Previous convictions • Offence committed for financial gain • Fire set in or near a public amenity • Significant impact on emergency services or resources Factors reducing seriousness (mitigating factors) • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions • Steps taken to minimise the effect of the fire or summon assistance • Remorse • Good character and/or exemplary conduct
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Recklessness is an element of mens rea. • Recklessness is a lower level of mens rea. • It is the most common level of mens rea. • There are very few offences where it is not sufficient. • A simple definition is that it is unjustified risk taking. • This fits with the idea that people take risks. • The test is subjective – this means that a defendant must have seen the risk and decided to take it. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Burglary is defined in s9 Theft Act 1968. • There are two offences – s9(1)(a) and (b). • Both have some common elements. • There must be entry and this may be effective even if it is only partial – R v Brown (1985), R v Ryan (1996). • Entry must under s9(4) be of a building or part of a building – B and S v Leathley (1979), Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986), R v Rodmell (1994), R v Walkington (1979) • There must be entry as a trespasser – this means having no permission to enter or having exceeded any permission given – R v Collins (1972), R v Jones and Smith (1976) • The defendant must intend to trespass or be reckless as to whether they are trespassing. • An offence under s9(1)(a) requires a defendant to enter with the intent to commit any of the offences contained in s9(2) – theft, GBH or criminal damage. The offence is complete at the point of entry. • An offence under s9(1)(b) requires a defendant, having entered, to commit or attempt theft or GBH and they must have the necessary mens rea for the offence. • Sentencing is in s9(3) – the maximum penalty in relation to a building is 10 years and 14 years for a dwelling. It is usually a triable either way offence. 3(b) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Burglary is a serious offence, especially when it involves entering a dwelling, but it is also very common and relatively few offences are prosecuted which may mean the law is not very effective. • It is a complex and confusing offence; this can make it hard for juries to understand and reach fair verdicts which can be bad for effectiveness. • Key terms are often not clearly defined and have changed over time which may not lead to fair labelling. • Mixing civil and criminal law concepts, as in the meaning of a trespasser, can impair consistency and effectiveness. • It seems odd to extend liability to those who exceed permission to be in a building or part of a building; the justification is higher sentencing but a theft conviction would often be adequate which can affect effectiveness. AO3 Evaluation • The Theft Act 1968 did clarify the law in many ways but it does not define key elements of the offence of burglary. There is no definition of the common elements; judges have reached different decisions which means the jury’s job is harder and this can make the law less effective. • As an entry now needs to be only partial and does not need to be effective it is not certain the law matches the intention of Parliament. • Similar issues arise in defining a building; this can lead to difficulties in cases and inconsistent decisions which impairs effectiveness. • There are anomalies between the different ways of committing burglary as for s9(1)(a), there must be mens rea to commit certain offences whilst for s9(1)(b) mens rea need not be proved on entry but there must be mens rea for specific crimes attempted or committed. This means burglary covers a wider range of offenders as the former covers the intentional burglar and the latter the opportunistic burglary. This can make the law more effective; but it is not necessarily easy to justify the differences. • There is an issue as to whether burglary is focused on protecting people or property. For s9(1)(a) an intention to damage property only needs to be slight but in relation to injuring a person there must be an intention to inflict GBH. This difference appears to put protection of property above the protection of people. However, for s9(1)(b) only theft or inflicting GBH can give rise to an offence and damage to property having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser is not burglary. This leads to inconsistency and complexity which can impact on effectiveness. • The fact that judges have decided a person who is not a trespasser can become one if they exceed permission given to them can make it hard for juries to reach fair decisions and so the law may not be effective. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2024
Q31 · Colin lives in a caravan on a permanent site 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
1 (a) Colin lives in a caravan on a permanent site. His caravan is connected to the water and electricity provided at the site. Whilst Colin is out, Derek wanders onto the caravan site and looks through the window of Colin’s caravan. Derek sees a mobile phone on a table just inside the window. He breaks the window, reaches in and steals the phone, which he sells for £100. At his trial for burglary, Derek is convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison. Explain how the source material will apply to Derek. [10] (b) Pietro sees a pair of shoes in a shop window. He wants the shoes but cannot afford to buy them. The next day he goes into the shop wearing a backpack, in which he plans to hide the shoes. Pietro sees the shoes, but there are lots of customers nearby. He walks around the shop, and as he goes back to the shoes, he realises the security guard is following him. Pietro leaves the shop without the shoes. Outside the shop, the security guard grabs hold of him and calls the police. At his trial for burglary, Pietro is convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Explain how the source material will apply to Pietro. [10] (c) Mary is homeless. She finds what she believes is an empty house and decides to spend the night there. Mary looks in a shed in the garden, about 30 metres from the house. The shed contains tools worth £200. Mary takes the tools and goes into the house. She decides not to stay the night in the house. As she is leaving, Graham, the owner who was asleep upstairs, grabs her. Mary kicks Graham so hard he falls over and breaks his leg. She runs away, but her image is recorded on a security camera, and she is arrested. At her trial for burglary, Mary is convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Explain how the source material will apply to Mary. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Derek. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(a) is the likely offence. • Reference to s9(2), s9(3)(a), s9(4), R v Brown (1985) and Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Derek has effectively entered as a trespasser and committed theft. • Colin’s caravan is a building as it is an inhabited vehicle. • Application: • Derek has entered in an effective way even if his entry is not substantial as he stands outside, reaches in and is able to steal – R v Brown (1985). • He is a trespasser as there is no suggestion he has permission to enter. • Under s9(4) an inhabited vehicle such as a caravan can be classed as a building unlike Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986). • It makes no difference that Colin is out at the time when Derek steals. • Derek has committed a s9(1)(a) offence as he intended to steal the mobile phone before he entered. • The sentencing for burglary of a building which is a dwelling has a maximum penalty of 14 years under s9(3)(a) so Derek’s sentence is within the set limits. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Pietro. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(a) is the likely offence. • Reference to s9(2), s9(3)(b). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Pietro has effectively entered as a trespasser with an intention to steal. • He has entered a building in the form of a shop. Application: • Pietro has made an effective and substantial entry as he has gone into the shop. • The shop is a building although not a domestic dwelling. • He is a trespasser as the shop only consents to valid customers entering and Pietro has exceeded that consent. • Pietro enters with an intention to steal as he has a bag in which he plans to hide the shoes. • The fact that he does not steal the shoes is immaterial as a s9(1)(a) offence is complete on entry if all the elements are satisfied. • Under s9(3)(b) the maximum penalty for a building which is not a dwelling is 10 years so although Pietro’s conviction is valid under s9(1)(a) the sentence is not valid. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Mary. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(b) is the likely offence. • Reference to s9(3)(a), s9(3)(b), R v Rodmell (1994). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Mary has committed theft under s9(1)(b) in relation to the tools in the shed. • She has committed a further s9(1)(b) offence in relation to Graham. • Application: • Mary has made an effective and substantial entry into the shed. • She is a trespasser because she has no consent to enter. • Using R v Rodmell taking tools from the shed worth £200 is theft as the shed is seen as part of Graham’s home. • Mary has also made an effective and substantial entry into the house. • She is a trespasser because it is not her home and she is intending to stay the night. • When Mary hits Graham so hard he breaks his leg she has inflicted GBH and this is sufficient for s9(1)(b). • Under R v Rodmell the sentencing for burglary under s9(3)(a) from the shed may not be seen so serious as from a domestic dwelling but Mary’s sentencing for both theft and GBH is within s9(4) for a dwelling and the shed is an extension of this. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported appropriate legal and well-developed by relevant material. concepts, principles use of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of partially developed use • Supported by some mostly appropriate of legal concepts, relevant material. legal concepts, principles and rules, • Some coherent principles and rules, examples, cases argument. examples, cases and/or statutory and/or statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no cases and/or statutory principles and rules, argument. authority, and legal examples, cases terminology. and/or statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
Q32 · Describe the offence of fraud by false representation 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
2 (a) Describe the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of robbery. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of fraud by false representation. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s2 Fraud Act 2006. • The defendant must make a representation which is false. • Representations may be express or implied and may be made to a machine. • Actual gain or loss does not need to be proved. • The representation must be made dishonestly. • There must be knowledge or belief that the representation is false or untrue. • There must be an intention to make a gain or cause a loss. • The offence is triable either way. • The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of robbery. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Robbery is in s8 Theft Act 1968. • All elements of theft must be present or there can be no conviction for robbery – R v Zerei (2012), R v Waters (2015). • At the moment the theft is complete there can be a robbery – Corcoran v Anderton (1980). • There must be a use of force or putting or seeking to put a person in fear of force – the amount of force can be small and the victim does not need to be frightened – R v Dawson and James (1976), R v Clouden (1985), P v DPP (2012), B and R v DPP (2007). • The force must be used before or at the time of stealing – this can be as part of an ongoing situation – R v Hale (1979), R v Lockley (1995). • The force must be in order to steal – if theft is already complete and then force is applied this will not be robbery. • The defendant must possess the same mens rea as for theft. • The defendant must also intend to use force in order to steal. • This is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of life. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The use of force is an indicator of blame which helps with sentencing. • The intention to use force leads to a higher sentence and helps to reflect blameworthiness which can be a deterrent. • Different categories of robbery help to distinguish between types of the offence; this is vital for fair labelling and sentencing practicalities between, for example a street or less-sophisticated commercial robbery, a professionally planned commercial robbery and robbery in a dwelling. • The development of the law shows complexity as the statutory definition has been extended and potentially become uncertain. • This is a serious offence so juries need to be sure of the elements to be able to convict and this can be an issue. AO3 Evaluation • Robbery requires a theft to be completed but this has been problematic. In theft an appropriation occurs at one point in time and if the other elements of theft are also present the offence is complete. However, in robbery the appropriation can be a continuing act and this disparity can have an impact on effectiveness. 2(b) • This helps juries to convict, particularly where there is more than one defendant and each plays a different role in the full offence; this may be a necessary development to ensure conviction for a serious offence with a high maximum penalty and a significant stigma, helping with effectiveness. • It may be argued that robbery could be committed without a completed theft as this would be consistent with the law of burglary. • The level of force required for robbery is very low and ‘force’ is said to be an ordinary word which juries can decide on which should improve effectiveness. • Often there is no problem as the force is clearly significant; however, when the level of force is low it can lead to inconsistency between juries making the law less effective. • As the force must enable the theft to be committed, accidentally making contact with someone from whom the defendant has just stolen property could be robbery; this can lead to harsh convictions, sentences and stigma affecting effectiveness. • Uncertainties around definitions can make juries unwilling to convict as they are not sure robbery is the right offence even though the evidence supports such a conviction which can impact effectiveness. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
Q33 · Describe the actus reus of the offence of handling stolen goods 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
3 (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the actus reus of theft. [25] Source material for Question 1 Section 9 Theft Act 1968 (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. (3) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding— (a) where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, 14 years; (b) in any other case, 10 years. (4) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is. R v Brown (1985) Brown appealed against his conviction for burglary. He or another with him had smashed the window of a shop. He had leaned in and taken goods. Brown argued that an entry into a building had to be substantial and effective and as his feet were still on the pavement outside the building, there was no substantial entry. Held: His conviction was upheld. The entry need not be substantial provided it is effective. Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986) Two lorry trailers were being used as storage space in a supermarket during refurbishment. They had been in place for about a year and were still on wheels. Held: These did not amount to a building. R v Rodmell (1994) The defendant was convicted of burglary of a garden shed and the theft of power tools in it. The shed stood in the large grounds of a house and was about 50 metres from the property. Held: A garden shed is part of a person’s home. Burglary of outbuildings is just as much burglary of domestic premises as breaking into the front door, although it can be said to be not quite as serious as breaking into the place where people live.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of handling stolen goods. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s22 Theft Act 1968. • The goods must already be stolen at the time of the handling including those obtained by blackmail or fraud. • A thief or handler cannot wash away the taint of goods being stolen by simply selling on the goods. • Handling can be receiving stolen goods. • Handling can also be any of undertaking the retention, removal or realisation of goods by another person or for the benefit of another person. • Handling can be arranging to do any of types listed above. • The offence is indictable. • The maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the actus reus of theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Appropriation is found in s3(1) Theft Act 1968 and means any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. • It can be taking something, destroying property, switching price labels on items or giving worthless cheques in payment for goods. • Any or all of the owner’s rights must be assumed for an appropriation – R v Vinall (2011), R v Pitham and Hehl (1977), R v Morris (1983). • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has given their consent – Lawrence v Commissioner MPC (1972), R v Gomez (1993). • There can be an appropriation in relation to a gift even if there is no deception – R v Hinks (2000). • An appropriation occurs early, at the first point when an owner’s rights are interfered with – R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994). • Under s3(1) there is an appropriation if the defendant acquires property without stealing it but then keeps or deal with it as an owner. • Property is found in s4Theft Act 1968. • Under s4(1) almost anything can be stolen. • Money can be stolen as can land in very specific situations. • Personal property covers all moveable items such as books, jewellery, clothes and cars. It can cover dead bodies and body parts – R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998), hair – R v Herbert (1961), blood – R v Rothery (1976) and urine – R v Welsh (1974). • Things in action can be stolen such as a bank account but information cannot be stolen – Oxford v Moss (1979). • Under s4(3) and s4(4) protected wild plants and cultivated plants can be stolen; other wild plants can only be stolen if for sale or reward or other commercial purpose. Domestic animals can be stolen but not wild animals unless they are in captivity, • Belonging to another is found in s5 Theft Act 1968 and s5(1) defines it as possession, control or any proprietary interest in the property – R v Turner (1971), R v Woodman (1974), R v Webster (2006), Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010). • S5(2) makes trustees liable for theft from a trust. • S5(3) covers the situation where property has been given with an obligation to use it in a specific way – R v Hall (1972), R V Klineberg and Marsden (1999), Davidge v Bunnett (1984). • S5(4) covers the situation when property is handed over by mistake but there is a legal obligation to return it – AG Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985), R v Gilks (1972). 3(b) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Appropriation is a key element as it is a physical act which can be seen and so helps with allocation of blame and sentencing. • The development of the law on appropriation is complex; statutory and common law definitions are not the same which can cause problems. • The breadth of appropriation puts more emphasis on the difficult element of dishonesty. • Appropriation does not mean the same in robbery, which does not lead to fair labelling. • Issues relating to consent and gifts have caused particular difficulty. • S4 has a very broad definition; many cases are quite unique and so are decided on their facts. • S5(1) is very wide which can add to the complexities thrown up by the breadth of appropriation. • Sections 5(3) and 5(4) were enacted at a time when it was not known how broadly the courts would interpret appropriation. AO3 Evaluation • Appropriation has been extended since the Theft Act 1968 so it is not clear how far it fits with Parliament’s intention but judicial developments perhaps make the law more effective. • Appropriation is defined differently in theft and robbery which could make the law less effective but there does not seem to be a big effect on juries. • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has consented to the act; critics argue that that such changes have made other offences in the Theft Act 1968 redundant which was not what Parliament intended – this impacts on effectiveness of the Act as a whole. • Issues around appropriation lead to a greater reliance on other elements such as dishonesty which can impact on effectiveness. • In shopping offences theft often seems less appropriate than fraud offences and so could make the law less effective. • Appropriation has not been redrafted which suggests it is effective. • S4 is very broad but this can make the law more effective as it covers a very wide range of types of property. • S5(1) helps to make the law effective as there is no need to prove legal ownership which means more situations are covered. Its breadth also reduces the occasions when other subsections need to be applied which can improve effectiveness. • S5(3) is helpful in making the law effective when property has been given over for a specific purpose, but it can be hard for juries to establish if this is the case. • S5(4) is wide ranging in theory but in practice the returning of property has be realistic which can help with effectiveness. To reach the top level available for each Assessment Objective candidates must deal with each of s3, s4 and s5. Accept all valid responses. 3(b) AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 Oct/Nov 2024
Q34 · Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2024
2 (a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s4 Fraud Act 2006. • The defendant is in a position in which they are expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person. • They abuse that position by a positive act or an omission. • They do so dishonestly. • They intended by the abuse to make a gain or cause a loss. • The offence is triable wither way. • The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 Theft Act 1968 deals with dishonesty. • The statute does not define dishonesty although in s1(2) it is clear that a defendant’s motive is not relevant to whether they are dishonest. • S2 creates a negative definition by specifying three situations in which a defendant is not dishonest. • S2(1)(a) an honest belief in a legal right to the property – R v Robinson (1977), R v Holden (1991). • S2(1)(b) an honest belief in the owner’s consent. • S2(1)(c) an honest belief that the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps to do so – R v Small (1987). • If none of these exceptions apply the jury use their common sense to decide if the defendant is dishonest. • If they need help they use a two stage test: 1. What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. Was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? – Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (2017), R v Barton and Booth (2020). 2(b) • S6 deals with the intention to permanently deprive. • This can mean taking property for ever, destroying property, dealing with property in a way which goes against the rights of the owner or borrowing property for a period of time or in such a way that the value is changed to the extent that all or most of the goodness has gone out if it – R v Velumyl (1989), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Lloyd (1985). • It covers conditional intent where a defendant takes property and then replaces it as there is nothing worth stealing – R v Easom (1971). • It also covers the situation where the defendant appropriates property and then conceals it rather than taking it away – CC Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Smith (1984). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The mens rea of theft is an important element of theft as it is the key indicator of blame. • Due to its hidden nature, it can be hard to prove. • The statutory wording has needed development, leading to complexity and there have been significant changes. • Case law developments can mean the law is different to what was intended in the statute. • Terms are not always clearly defined which does not necessarily lead to fair labelling. • Issues with actus reus elements means a great deal rests on the mens rea so if this is not clear it can lead to inconsistency. AO3 Evaluation • The purpose of the Theft Act 1968 was to clarify and codify the law of theft so it was more effective – issues surrounding key terms have made this harder • As the actus reus has broadened, especially in relation to appropriation, more importance has been placed on the mens rea elements and the negative statutory definition of dishonesty can be said to lead to potential ineffectiveness. • Most of the time juries know if a defendant is dishonest by using their common sense which means the law is effective. • The test for juries has changed in recent years in an effort to make it more effective. • A big change came in Ivey; as this was a civil case, its application to criminal law was technically limited. However, it was used in DPP v Patterson (2017) and confirmed as the test to use in criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth (2020). This means a defendant’s beliefs as to their honesty are less important as an objective test is applied to the beliefs they actually hold, increasing convictions and therefore effectiveness. • However, this may not match the regular meaning of a word in regular use this can affect decisions and effectiveness. 2(b) • In s6 the meaning of permanently deprive has been stretched; this could mean the law is ineffective and no longer gives effect to the intention of Parliament. • However, it is now easier to fulfil s6 as it covers a range of situations perhaps not foreseen when the Theft Act was drafted which can make conviction easier and arguably the law more effective. • The law may be ineffective in situation relating to ‘borrowing’ as all the other elements of theft are met and something may be taken, such as potential profits in Lloyd. • If s6 was a temporary rather than a permanent deprivation then it would also cover situations where a defendant appropriates property with the intention to take anything worth stealing; this would make the law more effective, especially as this is the case in s9(1)(a) burglary. • As theft is an offence with a significant social stigma which can have wide ranging repercussions on conviction the law needs to be clear and certain if it is to be truly effective and also provide an effective deterrent message for potential offenders. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2024
Q35 · Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2024
3 (a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. [25] Source material for Section A Question 1 Sentencing Council Guidelines – Arson – Section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Step 1 Determining the offence category A – High culpability • High degree of planning or premeditation • Revenge attack • Use of accelerant (a substance used to aid the spread of fire) • Intention to cause very serious damage to property • Intention to create a high risk of injury to persons B – Medium culpability • Some planning • Recklessness as to whether very serious damage caused to property • Recklessness as to whether serious injury caused to persons C – Lesser culpability • Little or no planning; offence committed on impulse • Recklessness as to whether some damage to property caused • Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability Harm: Category 1 • Serious physical and/or psychological harm caused • Serious consequential economic or social impact of offence • High value of damage caused Harm: Category 2 • Harm that falls between categories 1 and 3 Harm: Category 3 • No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused • Low value of damage caused Step 2 – Starting point (SP) and category range (R) Harm Culpability A Culpability B Culpability C Category 1 SP: 4 years’ custody SP: 1 year 6 months’ custody SP: 9 months’ custody R: 2 – 8 years’ custody R: 9 months – 3 years’ custody R: 6 – 18 months’ custody Category 2 SP: 2 years’ custody SP: 9 months’ custody SP: High community order R: 1 – 4 years’ custody R: 6 – 18 months’ custody R: Medium community order – 9 months’ custody Category 3 SP: 1 years’ custody SP: High level community SP: Low community order R: 6 months – 2 years’ order R: Discharge – High level custody R: Medium level community community order order – 9 months’ custody Factors increasing seriousness (aggravating factors) • Previous convictions • Offence committed for financial gain • Fire set in or near a public amenity • Significant impact on emergency services or resources Factors reducing seriousness (mitigating factors) • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions • Steps taken to minimise the effect of the fire or summon assistance • Remorse • Good character and/or exemplary conduct
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Recklessness is an element of mens rea. • Recklessness is a lower level of mens rea. • It is the most common level of mens rea. • There are very few offences where it is not sufficient. • A simple definition is that it is unjustified risk taking. • This fits with the idea that people take risks. • The test is subjective – this means that a defendant must have seen the risk and decided to take it. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Burglary is defined in s9 Theft Act 1968. • There are two offences – s9(1)(a) and (b). • Both have some common elements. • There must be entry and this may be effective even if it is only partial – R v Brown (1985), R v Ryan (1996). • Entry must under s9(4) be of a building or part of a building – B and S v Leathley (1979), Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986), R v Rodmell (1994), R v Walkington (1979) • There must be entry as a trespasser – this means having no permission to enter or having exceeded any permission given – R v Collins (1972), R v Jones and Smith (1976) • The defendant must intend to trespass or be reckless as to whether they are trespassing. • An offence under s9(1)(a) requires a defendant to enter with the intent to commit any of the offences contained in s9(2) – theft, GBH or criminal damage. The offence is complete at the point of entry. • An offence under s9(1)(b) requires a defendant, having entered, to commit or attempt theft or GBH and they must have the necessary mens rea for the offence. • Sentencing is in s9(3) – the maximum penalty in relation to a building is 10 years and 14 years for a dwelling. It is usually a triable either way offence. 3(b) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Burglary is a serious offence, especially when it involves entering a dwelling, but it is also very common and relatively few offences are prosecuted which may mean the law is not very effective. • It is a complex and confusing offence; this can make it hard for juries to understand and reach fair verdicts which can be bad for effectiveness. • Key terms are often not clearly defined and have changed over time which may not lead to fair labelling. • Mixing civil and criminal law concepts, as in the meaning of a trespasser, can impair consistency and effectiveness. • It seems odd to extend liability to those who exceed permission to be in a building or part of a building; the justification is higher sentencing but a theft conviction would often be adequate which can affect effectiveness. AO3 Evaluation • The Theft Act 1968 did clarify the law in many ways but it does not define key elements of the offence of burglary. There is no definition of the common elements; judges have reached different decisions which means the jury’s job is harder and this can make the law less effective. • As an entry now needs to be only partial and does not need to be effective it is not certain the law matches the intention of Parliament. • Similar issues arise in defining a building; this can lead to difficulties in cases and inconsistent decisions which impairs effectiveness. • There are anomalies between the different ways of committing burglary as for s9(1)(a), there must be mens rea to commit certain offences whilst for s9(1)(b) mens rea need not be proved on entry but there must be mens rea for specific crimes attempted or committed. This means burglary covers a wider range of offenders as the former covers the intentional burglar and the latter the opportunistic burglary. This can make the law more effective; but it is not necessarily easy to justify the differences. • There is an issue as to whether burglary is focused on protecting people or property. For s9(1)(a) an intention to damage property only needs to be slight but in relation to injuring a person there must be an intention to inflict GBH. This difference appears to put protection of property above the protection of people. However, for s9(1)(b) only theft or inflicting GBH can give rise to an offence and damage to property having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser is not burglary. This leads to inconsistency and complexity which can impact on effectiveness. • The fact that judges have decided a person who is not a trespasser can become one if they exceed permission given to them can make it hard for juries to reach fair decisions and so the law may not be effective. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2024
Q36 · Arthur is part of a criminal gang who plans to steal valuable machinery from a large… 9084/21 May/June 2025
1 (a) Arthur is part of a criminal gang who plans to steal valuable machinery from a large container next to a factory. The container does not have wheels and has been used for five years for storage. Electric cables run from the factory to the container. The door of the container is locked, so Arthur climbs through a window in the container which has been left open. Once inside, Arthur is caught by the factory security guard, who has followed him. Arthur is searched, and explosives are found in a bag he is carrying. Arthur says he was going to use the explosives to force open the container door. Explain how the source material will apply to Arthur. [10] (b) Diane often walks past a house which she thinks is unoccupied. One day, Diane decides to go and look inside. She takes a small iron bar with her in case she needs to break a window. Diane tries the door of the house and it opens, so she goes inside. She sees a silver vase and, as she picks it up, Hugh, the owner of the house, appears. Hugh tries to grab Diane, so she hits him with the iron bar and runs out of the house with the silver vase. Explain how the source material will apply to Diane. [10] (c) Sajid lives in his father’s house. He has his own key to the door, and he is allowed to use all the rooms except his father’s home office. Sajid is £500 in debt. He goes into the house, intending to ask his father to lend him the money, but his father is not at home. He goes into his father’s home office as he knows some money is kept there. Sajid finds £100, which he takes. He is angry that there is not enough money to pay his debt, so he smashes a laptop and leaves. Explain how the source material will apply to Sajid. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Arthur. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(a) is the likely offence leading to s10(1)(c). • Reference to s9(1)(a), s9(2) and B & S v Leathley (1979). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Arthur has effectively entered as a trespasser with an intention to steal. • He has entered with explosives. • Application: • Arthur has entered in an effective way as he climbs in through a window. • The container can be classed as a building – B & S v Leathley (1979). • Arthur is a trespasser as he has no permission to enter. • Arthur enters with an intention to steal the valuable machinery. • Arthur has committed burglary under s9(1)(a). • Arthur has explosives with him which he intended to use to open the door of the container. • Arthur has committed aggravated burglary under s10(1)(c). • Arthur can receive a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Diane. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(b) is the likely offence leading to s10(1)(b). • Reference to s9(1)(b), s10(1)(b) and R v Kelly (1993) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Diane has effectively entered as a trespasser and then steals. • She uses a weapon of offence to commit GBH. Application: • Diane has made an effective entry as she has gone into the house. • She is a trespasser even though she does not break in as the house is not hers. • The house is a building and a dwelling. • Diane commits theft as she picks up the silver vase inside the house so she has committed burglary under s9(1)(b). • Diane commits GBH when she hits Hugh with the iron bar so this is also burglary under s9(1)(b). • Diane uses the iron bar as a weapon of offence when she is surprised by Hugh and she hits him which meets s10(1)(b) – R v Kelly (1993). • Diane has committed aggravated burglary under s10(1)(b). • Diane can receive a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Sajid. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(b) is the likely offence. • Reference to s9(3)(a), R v Jones and Smith (1976). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Sajid has committed burglary under s9(1)(b) in relation to the theft of the £100. • He has not committed a further s9(1)(b) offence in relation to the smashed laptop. Application: • Sajid has made an effective entry into the house using his key. • He becomes a trespasser when he goes into his father’s home office as he knows he has no consent to enter – R v Jones and Smith (1976). • The house is a domestic building and so a dwelling. • The home office is a part of the building as it is one room in the house. • When Sajid takes £100 from the home office this is a completed theft. • When Sajid smashes the laptop this is criminal damage which is not covered by s9(1)(b). • Sajid could receive a maximum sentence of 14 years as the home office is inside his father’s house. • Candidates can be credited for a s9(1)(a) offence in relation to the theft of £100 as Sajid entered his father’s home office, which is part of a building, as a trespasser and he had an intention to steal money he knew his father kept there. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use • Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, • Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2025
Q37 · Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment 9084/21 May/June 2025
3 (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 Theft Act 1968 in the actus reus of theft. [25] Source material for Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 9 Burglary. (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. (3) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding— (a) where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, 14 years; (b) in any other case, 10 years. (4) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is. Section 10 Aggravated burglary. (1) A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose— (a) ‘firearm’ includes an airgun or air pistol, and ‘imitation firearm’ means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and (b) ‘weapon of offence’ means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use; and (c) ‘explosive’ means any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion, or intended by the person having it with him for that purpose. (2) A person guilty of aggravated burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life. R v Jones and Smith (1976) The two appellants went to the home of one of their parents and stole two television sets. The father gave evidence stating that his son had permission to be in his house. Held: The appellants had exceeded their permission by stealing and were thus trespassers. B and S v Leathley (1979) A lorry container was resting on sleepers and used as refrigeration storage. It was connected to the electricity supply and had been in the same place for two to three years. Held: The container did constitute a building for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. R v Kelly (1993) K used a screwdriver, which he had taken with him in order to break into a property, to assault the occupant who had surprised him during the burglary. Held: K was guilty of aggravated burglary because the screwdriver taken into the house became a weapon of offence.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s3 Theft Act 1978. • Dishonesty – the test is as for theft – s2 Theft Act 1968 and the common law test. • Knowledge that payment on the spot is required. • Intention to avoid payment – the Act refers to ‘with intent to avoid payment of the amount due’. • This has been clarified to mean an intent permanently to avoid payment. • The maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 in the actus reus of theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Appropriation is in s3(1) Theft Act 1968 – it means any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. • It can be taking something, destroying property, switching price labels on items or giving worthless cheques in payment for goods. • Any or all of the owner’s rights must be assumed for an appropriation – R v Vinall (2011), R v Pitham and Hehl (1977), R v Morris (1983). • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has given their consent – Lawrence v Commissioner MPC (1972), R v Gomez (1993). • There can be an appropriation in relation to a gift even if there is no deception – R v Hinks (2000). • An appropriation occurs early, at the first point when an owner’s rights are interfered with – R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994). • Under s3(1) there is an appropriation if the defendant acquires property without stealing it but then keeps or deal with it as an owner. • Belonging to another is found in s5 Theft Act 1968 and s5(1) defines it as possession, control or any proprietary interest in the property – R v Turner (1971), R v Woodman (1974), R v Webster (2006), Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010). • S5(2) makes trustees liable for theft from a trust. • S5(3) covers the situation where property has been given with an obligation to use it in a specific way – R v Hall (1972), R V Klineberg and Marsden (1999), Davidge v Bunnett(1984). • S5(4) covers the situation when property is handed over by mistake but there is a legal obligation to return it – AG Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985), R v Gilks (1972). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Appropriation is a vital element; it is a physical act which can be seen and so helps with allocation of blame and sentencing. • The development of the law on appropriation is complex; statutory and common law definitions are not the same which can cause problems. • The breadth of appropriation puts more emphasis on the difficult element of dishonesty. • Appropriation does not mean the same in robbery, which does not lead to fair labelling. • Issues relating to consent and gifts have caused particular difficulty. • S5(1) is very wide which can add to the complexities thrown up by the breadth of appropriation. • Sections 5(3) and 5(4) were enacted at a time when it was not known how broadly the courts would interpret appropriation. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation • Appropriation has been extended since the Theft Act 1968 so it is not clear how far it fits with Parliament’s intention but judicial developments perhaps make the law fairer. • Appropriation is defined differently in theft and robbery which could lead to unfairness but this has not been evidenced in jury decisions. • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has consented to the act and critics argue this has made other offences in the Theft Act 1968 redundant. This was presumably not what Parliament intended and could suggest the law is unfair. • Issues around appropriation lead to a greater reliance on other elements such as dishonesty which can impact on fairness as these elements are often not straightforward. • In shopping situation fraud offences can seem more suitable making the use of theft unfair as it can have a higher sentence and a larger stigma. • S5(1) helps with fairness as more situations are covered. • S5(3) makes the law effective if property is given over for a specific purpose but this can be hard for juries to discover. • S5(4) is wide ranging in its theory but its practical application does make the law fairer. To reach level 4 for each Assessment Objectives candidates must deal with both s3 and s5. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 May/June 2025
Q38 · Gerald notices that a car has been parked on the street outside his house for a month 9084/22 May/June 2025
1 (a) Gerald notices that a car has been parked on the street outside his house for a month. He sees that the keys are in the ignition, so, thinking it has been abandoned, he tries the car door, and it opens. The car has a full tank of fuel, and Gerald starts driving it to work. Two weeks later, Gerald replaces the fuel he has used, parks the car in the same place he found it, and leaves the keys in the ignition. Later that day, Gerald is arrested for theft. At his trial, he admits that he has appropriated property belonging to another. Explain how the source material will apply to Gerald. [10] (b) Carla works in a shop which sells tools. She is building some shelves in her home and needs to use a drill. One Friday, when she is in the shop, Carla puts a box containing a drill in her bag and takes it home. Over the weekend, Carla uses the drill to build her shelves. She cleans the drill and puts it back in the box. On Monday, Carla takes the box containing the drill back to the shop. Unknown to Carla, the manager has seen her take and return the box. Carla is arrested for theft. At her trial, she admits to appropriating property belonging to another. Explain how the source material will apply to Carla. [10] (c) Walter starts work as a chef in a kitchen. He signs his employment contract without reading it in detail. The contract states that unused food must be disposed of at work. In previous jobs, Walter has always been allowed to take unused food home. On his first day, he sees other chefs in the kitchen taking unused food home when they leave work. The next day, he puts some unused food in his bag and takes it home. The kitchen has a CCTV camera, and Walter’s boss sees him take the food. The police are called, and Walter is arrested for theft. At his trial, he admits to appropriating property belonging to another. Explain how the source material will apply to Walter. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Gerald. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2(1)(c) is the relevant section which could lead to a s1 conviction. • Reference to s6, R v Lloyd (1985) and/or R v Small (1987). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Gerald may fall within s2(1)(c) and so may not be dishonest. • Driving the car may or may not be equivalent to an outright taking. • Application: • Gerald decided to use a car which is not his. • As Gerald believes the car has been abandoned he is not dishonest as long as his belief is genuine – R v Small (1987). • There is no requirement for his belief to be reasonable and he has taken reasonable steps by waiting one month from when he notices the car to when he drives it. • Although Gerald put the car back and he replaces the fuel he has treated it as his own. • This can amount to an outright taking and so he has a s6 intention to permanently deprive. OR • Gerald may say that as he put the car back after two weeks and replaced the fuel there was no outright taking • This means he does not have a s6 intention to permanently deprive. • Gerald is or is not guilty of theft. Accept all valid responses – candidates can apply s6 in either of two ways but to gain marks the reasoning must be logical and for maximum marks a conclusion reached. Candidates can be credited for reasoning based on not being bale to return the car in its original state due to it being driven for two weeks. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Carla. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2 is the relevant section which could lead to a s1 conviction. • Reference to s6, R v Lloyd (1985) and R v Barton and Booth (2020). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Carla may be dishonest as she does not fit within s2. • However, she may or may not have an intention to permanently deprive under s6. Application: • Carla took a drill home which is not hers and used it; although she put the drill back she does not fall within any of the s2 exceptions. • A jury is likely to see her conduct as objectively dishonest using the test in R v Barton and Booth (2020) as a reasonable person would not help themselves to tools from work and then return them after use. • Carla did put the drill back but she treated it as her own. • However, it could also be argued that the value of the drill has been diminished as a customer would believe they were buying a new drill but in fact this one has been used. • This can be equivalent to an outright taking and she has a s6 intention to permanently deprive. OR • Using R v Lloyd (1985) the drill can still be used. • Carla does not intend to treat the drill as her own as she cleans it and puts it back in the box. • This means there is no outright taking and so Carla does not have a s6 intention to permanently deprive. • Carla is or is not guilty of theft. Accept all valid responses – candidates can apply s6 in either of two ways but to gain marks the reasoning must be logical and for maximum marks a conclusion reached. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Walter. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S2(1)(a) is the relevant section which could lead to a s1 conviction. • Reference to s6 and/or R v Holden (1991). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Walter may not be dishonest as he does fit within s2(1)(a). • He does have an intention to permanently deprive under s6. Application: • Even though Walter’s employment contract says he should not take home he may not be dishonest as he believes he is entitled to do so. • He may be covered by s2(1)(a) as he genuinely believed this was acceptable based on his previous experience. • His belief was also honest based on what he saw other chefs do – R v Holden (1991). • Walter took the food home and did not return it. • This is an outright taking and so he has s6 intention to permanently deprive. • He did intend to permanently deprive the kitchen of the unused food. • Walter is unlikely to be guilty of theft based on s2(1)(a). Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use • Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, • Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2025
Q39 · Describe the mens rea of the offence of handling stolen goods 9084/22 May/June 2025
2 (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate to what extent deterrence is the most effective aim when sentencing young offenders. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of handling stolen goods. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s22 Theft Act 1968. • The defendant must subjectively know or believe that the goods are stolen at the time of handling them. • If the offence is receiving or arranging to receive, knowledge or belief must be present when the defendant receives the goods or makes the arrangement. • If the offence is undertaking or assisting in the prohibited acts, the defendant is liable when they learn the truth and continue undertaking or assisting. • A mere suspicion is not enough. • It is not enough to prove that any reasonable person would have realised the goods were stolen. • The defendant does not need to know the details of the actual goods stolen. • Dishonesty is as for theft – s2 Theft Act 1968 and the common law test. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate to what extent deterrence is the most effective aim when 25 sentencing young offenders. Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S142A Criminal Justice Act 2003 has deterrence by preventing offending or reoffending as its primary aim for those under 18. • Deterrence can be individual (focused on the defendant), general (focused on potential offenders) or educative (aiming to educate wider society). • A sentence for a young offender also takes into account their welfare as well as the purposes of punishment, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public and reparation. • Courts can use custodial or community sentences to deter reoffending. • Custodial sentences for young offenders should be a last resort. • Community sentences can deter by improving education and delivering training to avoid a reliance on criminality. • Community sentences can also deter by helping with drug and alcohol issues which can lead to criminality. • Community sentences can be in conjunction with services that help with mental health issues. • Sentences can also involve parents to improve family bonds and help to deter future offending. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Deterrence helps to prevent a cycle of criminality by improving self-worth and showing a young offender that they can be successful without crime. • It is forward looking to help a young offender be a valuable member of society. • A wide range of sentences for young offenders means deterrence can be achieved through fairer and more effective individualised sentencing. • Conflict can arise if society wants to see deterrence through punishment to prevent reoffending. • Competing aims can make sentencing hard in terms of fair labelling and in striking the correct balance. 2(b) AO3 Evaluation 25 • Effective deterrence relies on fair and proportionate sentencing for the offence committed whilst giving hope for the future – this is a hard balance. • Custodial sentences may be essential for punishment and public protection but they offer little in the way of hope. • For young offenders moved to an adult prison the chances of deterring reoffending are very much reduced. • Effective deterrence requires alternatives through education and training are offered; this provision is not always good, making the aim ineffective. • Custodial sentences can also ingrain institutional behaviour at a young age which makes it hard to manage in the community after release. • Community sentences can be much more focused on the needs of the offender which should make them more effective as a deterrent. • To be effective a sentence should not be too long but long enough to effect change – especially in relation to education and training or dealing with substance abuse and mental health issues. • Deterrence is hard for young offenders who live in communities where criminality is the norm. • Although society may favour harsh punishment evidence does not suggest this necessarily deters effectively. • Deterrence depends on a young offender’s ability or willingness to change; this can be a barrier to effectiveness. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2025
Q40 · Describe the mens rea of the offence of blackmail 9084/22 May/June 2025
3 (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of blackmail. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law of making off without payment. [25] Source material for Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 2 ‘Dishonestly’ (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or (c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. Section 6 ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’. (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. R v Lloyd (1985) L worked at a cinema as chief projectionist. He took out movie tapes for hours at a time for the other two defendants to copy and sell. L was convicted of theft under s1(1). Held: L’s conviction was quashed as there was no intention to permanently deprive. Borrowing can amount to the intention to permanently deprive only if the intention was to return it in a changed state where it had lost its goodness, virtue, or practical value. There was no such loss as the films could still be screened. R v Barton and Booth (2020) Barton ran a luxury nursing home and Booth was the general manager. Over the years, the pair abused their position in order to profit from the residents. A jury convicted the defendants of various dishonesty offences. They appealed on the correct test to be used for dishonesty. Held: The Court of Appeal held that the correct test to follow was the Ivey v Genting Casinos test: whether an ordinary, honest person, armed with the same factual knowledge and beliefs as the defendant, would consider the conduct dishonest. R v Holden (1991) H worked for Kwik Fit. He took some used tyres and was convicted of theft. He said he was not dishonest since other workers did it and he believed that he was allowed to do the same. However, his contract of employment contained a clause forbidding the taking of used items. Held: H’s conviction was quashed as dishonesty under the exceptions in s2(1) Theft Act 1968 is judged entirely subjectively. It is the defendant’s belief alone that counts, not what he was actually permitted or forbidden from doing. R v Small (1987) S took a car which he believed had been abandoned. It had been left in the same place for two weeks with the keys in the ignition. Held: S’s conviction for theft was quashed as he believed the owner could not be found. There is no requirement that the defendant’s belief is reasonable, so it was immaterial that a reasonable person
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of blackmail. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Blackmail is defined in s21 Theft Act 1968. • There must be an intention to make an unwarranted demand with menaces – this intention can be direct or oblique. • This must be done with a view to gain for oneself or another or with intent to cause loss to another as defined in s34(2) Theft Act 1968 and there is no need for dishonesty. • There must not be a honest belief in reasonable grounds for making the demand. • There must not be an honest belief that using menaces is a proper way to reinforce the demand – this is a question of fact. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the fairness of the law of making off without payment. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s3 Theft Act 1978. • For the actus reus the defendant must make off; this means leaving the place where payment is due or expected – R v McDavitt (1981). • Goods must have been have been supplied or a service must have been done; there is no offence until the contract is completed – Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987). • Payment is required on the spot but does not become due until the goods or services have been provided – R v Wilkinson (2018), R v Vincent (2001). • The defendant has not paid as required; this means the full payment. • The defendant must be dishonest and this is the same as for theft. • There must be knowledge that payment on the spot is required • There must be an intention never to pay – R v Allen (1985). • The offence is triable wither way. • The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment. 3(b) AO2 Analysis and application 25 Analysis: • This offence was created to deal with a gap in the Theft Act 1968 to cover particular situations such as self-service shopping. • The use of the dishonesty test from theft has made the law more complex. • It is a relatively easy offence to use and gain convictions which may provide and also counter fairness. • The maximum penalty is relatively small, a conviction does not carry a significant stigma and the law is relatively straightforward so juries can find it easy to make decisions. • The courts have extended and clarified the law to make it work better but this may affect fairness from different perspectives. AO3 Evaluation • The offence was created 10 years after the Theft Act 1968 in response to changing times and so it is good that Parliament acted in a way which has proved to be fair in raising conviction rates. • However, a lot of clarification has been needed so the law may not meet the intention of Parliament or be fair. • The offence only applies to payments which are lawfully required and so is not fully fair. • As dishonesty is now easier to prove the law may be fair in leading to more convictions but not be fair as a realistic deterrent. • The line between an intention to permanently avoid payment and simply deferring payment, and so between fraud and making off, is not always clear which can lead to unfairness if the correct offence is not charged in the first place. • The offence can still be problematic in relation to the duties between taxi drivers and their passengers which impacts on fairness. • As the maximum penalty is low, as is the stigma of conviction, juries might convict too easily which is not good for fairness. • As the maximum penalty is low and there is little stigma from conviction this may not deter offending and render the law less fair. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/22 May/June 2025
Q41 · Arthur is part of a criminal gang who plans to steal valuable machinery from a large… 9084/23 May/June 2025
1 (a) Arthur is part of a criminal gang who plans to steal valuable machinery from a large container next to a factory. The container does not have wheels and has been used for five years for storage. Electric cables run from the factory to the container. The door of the container is locked, so Arthur climbs through a window in the container which has been left open. Once inside, Arthur is caught by the factory security guard, who has followed him. Arthur is searched, and explosives are found in a bag he is carrying. Arthur says he was going to use the explosives to force open the container door. Explain how the source material will apply to Arthur. [10] (b) Diane often walks past a house which she thinks is unoccupied. One day, Diane decides to go and look inside. She takes a small iron bar with her in case she needs to break a window. Diane tries the door of the house and it opens, so she goes inside. She sees a silver vase and, as she picks it up, Hugh, the owner of the house, appears. Hugh tries to grab Diane, so she hits him with the iron bar and runs out of the house with the silver vase. Explain how the source material will apply to Diane. [10] (c) Sajid lives in his father’s house. He has his own key to the door, and he is allowed to use all the rooms except his father’s home office. Sajid is £500 in debt. He goes into the house, intending to ask his father to lend him the money, but his father is not at home. He goes into his father’s home office as he knows some money is kept there. Sajid finds £100, which he takes. He is angry that there is not enough money to pay his debt, so he smashes a laptop and leaves. Explain how the source material will apply to Sajid. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Arthur. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(a) is the likely offence leading to s10(1)(c). • Reference to s9(1)(a), s9(2) and B & S v Leathley (1979). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Arthur has effectively entered as a trespasser with an intention to steal. • He has entered with explosives. • Application: • Arthur has entered in an effective way as he climbs in through a window. • The container can be classed as a building – B & S v Leathley (1979). • Arthur is a trespasser as he has no permission to enter. • Arthur enters with an intention to steal the valuable machinery. • Arthur has committed burglary under s9(1)(a). • Arthur has explosives with him which he intended to use to open the door of the container. • Arthur has committed aggravated burglary under s10(1)(c). • Arthur can receive a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Diane. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(b) is the likely offence leading to s10(1)(b). • Reference to s9(1)(b), s10(1)(b) and R v Kelly (1993) AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Diane has effectively entered as a trespasser and then steals. • She uses a weapon of offence to commit GBH. Application: • Diane has made an effective entry as she has gone into the house. • She is a trespasser even though she does not break in as the house is not hers. • The house is a building and a dwelling. • Diane commits theft as she picks up the silver vase inside the house so she has committed burglary under s9(1)(b). • Diane commits GBH when she hits Hugh with the iron bar so this is also burglary under s9(1)(b). • Diane uses the iron bar as a weapon of offence when she is surprised by Hugh and she hits him which meets s10(1)(b) – R v Kelly (1993). • Diane has committed aggravated burglary under s10(1)(b). • Diane can receive a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Sajid. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S9(1)(b) is the likely offence. • Reference to s9(3)(a), R v Jones and Smith (1976). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Sajid has committed burglary under s9(1)(b) in relation to the theft of the £100. • He has not committed a further s9(1)(b) offence in relation to the smashed laptop. Application: • Sajid has made an effective entry into the house using his key. • He becomes a trespasser when he goes into his father’s home office as he knows he has no consent to enter – R v Jones and Smith (1976). • The house is a domestic building and so a dwelling. • The home office is a part of the building as it is one room in the house. • When Sajid takes £100 from the home office this is a completed theft. • When Sajid smashes the laptop this is criminal damage which is not covered by s9(1)(b). • Sajid could receive a maximum sentence of 14 years as the home office is inside his father’s house. • Candidates can be credited for a s9(1)(a) offence in relation to the theft of £100 as Sajid entered his father’s home office, which is part of a building, as a trespasser and he had an intention to steal money he knew his father kept there. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use • Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, • Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 2 marks 8 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2025
Q42 · Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment 9084/23 May/June 2025
3 (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 Theft Act 1968 in the actus reus of theft. [25] Source material for Question 1 Theft Act 1968 Section 9 Burglary. (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. (3) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding— (a) where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, 14 years; (b) in any other case, 10 years. (4) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is. Section 10 Aggravated burglary. (1) A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose— (a) ‘firearm’ includes an airgun or air pistol, and ‘imitation firearm’ means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and (b) ‘weapon of offence’ means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use; and (c) ‘explosive’ means any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion, or intended by the person having it with him for that purpose. (2) A person guilty of aggravated burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life. R v Jones and Smith (1976) The two appellants went to the home of one of their parents and stole two television sets. The father gave evidence stating that his son had permission to be in his house. Held: The appellants had exceeded their permission by stealing and were thus trespassers. B and S v Leathley (1979) A lorry container was resting on sleepers and used as refrigeration storage. It was connected to the electricity supply and had been in the same place for two to three years. Held: The container did constitute a building for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. R v Kelly (1993) K used a screwdriver, which he had taken with him in order to break into a property, to assault the occupant who had surprised him during the burglary. Held: K was guilty of aggravated burglary because the screwdriver taken into the house became a weapon of offence.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s3 Theft Act 1978. • Dishonesty – the test is as for theft – s2 Theft Act 1968 and the common law test. • Knowledge that payment on the spot is required. • Intention to avoid payment – the Act refers to ‘with intent to avoid payment of the amount due’. • This has been clarified to mean an intent permanently to avoid payment. • The maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 3(b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 in the actus reus of theft. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • Appropriation is in s3(1) Theft Act 1968 – it means any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. • It can be taking something, destroying property, switching price labels on items or giving worthless cheques in payment for goods. • Any or all of the owner’s rights must be assumed for an appropriation – R v Vinall (2011), R v Pitham and Hehl (1977), R v Morris (1983). • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has given their consent – Lawrence v Commissioner MPC (1972), R v Gomez (1993). • There can be an appropriation in relation to a gift even if there is no deception – R v Hinks (2000). • An appropriation occurs early, at the first point when an owner’s rights are interfered with – R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994). • Under s3(1) there is an appropriation if the defendant acquires property without stealing it but then keeps or deal with it as an owner. • Belonging to another is found in s5 Theft Act 1968 and s5(1) defines it as possession, control or any proprietary interest in the property – R v Turner (1971), R v Woodman (1974), R v Webster (2006), Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010). • S5(2) makes trustees liable for theft from a trust. • S5(3) covers the situation where property has been given with an obligation to use it in a specific way – R v Hall (1972), R V Klineberg and Marsden (1999), Davidge v Bunnett(1984). • S5(4) covers the situation when property is handed over by mistake but there is a legal obligation to return it – AG Ref (No 1 of 1983)(1985), R v Gilks (1972). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Appropriation is a vital element; it is a physical act which can be seen and so helps with allocation of blame and sentencing. • The development of the law on appropriation is complex; statutory and common law definitions are not the same which can cause problems. • The breadth of appropriation puts more emphasis on the difficult element of dishonesty. • Appropriation does not mean the same in robbery, which does not lead to fair labelling. • Issues relating to consent and gifts have caused particular difficulty. • S5(1) is very wide which can add to the complexities thrown up by the breadth of appropriation. • Sections 5(3) and 5(4) were enacted at a time when it was not known how broadly the courts would interpret appropriation. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation • Appropriation has been extended since the Theft Act 1968 so it is not clear how far it fits with Parliament’s intention but judicial developments perhaps make the law fairer. • Appropriation is defined differently in theft and robbery which could lead to unfairness but this has not been evidenced in jury decisions. • Appropriation can occur even when the owner has consented to the act and critics argue this has made other offences in the Theft Act 1968 redundant. This was presumably not what Parliament intended and could suggest the law is unfair. • Issues around appropriation lead to a greater reliance on other elements such as dishonesty which can impact on fairness as these elements are often not straightforward. • In shopping situation fraud offences can seem more suitable making the use of theft unfair as it can have a higher sentence and a larger stigma. • S5(1) helps with fairness as more situations are covered. • S5(3) makes the law effective if property is given over for a specific purpose but this can be hard for juries to discover. • S5(4) is wide ranging in its theory but its practical application does make the law fairer. To reach level 4 for each Assessment Objectives candidates must deal with both s3 and s5. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 May/June 2025
Q43 · Shaima has severe back pain 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
1 (a) Shaima has severe back pain. She is prescribed medication by Doctor Brown. He says if it does not work, he will give her an injection. The medication makes no difference, so Shaima asks to see Doctor Brown again. She is told there are no appointments for a month. A week later, Shaima goes to Doctor Brown’s office, pulls a knife from her bag, and demands an injection. Doctor Brown gives Shaima an injection. She leaves, and Doctor Brown calls the police. Shaima is charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Shaima. [10] (b) Michael buys a necklace from Lawrence, a well-known shopkeeper in the local town, for £5000. Michael then discovers the necklace is only worth £50. He emails Lawrence asking for his £5000 back and £1000 compensation. Lawrence refuses to pay. Michael sends several more emails, but Lawrence does not reply. Michael then emails Lawrence saying, ‘Unless you pay all the money you owe me, an article will be published in the local newspaper tomorrow. It will say that you owe me money and that you are a cheat.’ Lawrence contacts the police, and Michael is charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Michael. [10] (c) Penny, a police officer, has a debt of £1000. She tells her brother Ted, who is a local criminal, about the debt. He says she will hear from him soon. Ted is already blackmailing a wealthy businessman, Khalid. Ted meets and threatens Khalid. As Khalid will not pay any money, Ted attacks him and takes him to an empty flat. He calls Khalid’s wife and demands £50 000 for his return. Ted tells Penny that Khalid’s wife will be coming to her house with £50 000. Khalid’s wife brings the £50 000 to Penny’s house. Penny keeps £1000 and gives the rest of the money to Ted. Ted and Penny are charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Ted and Penny. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Shaima. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Bevans (1988). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Shaima has made a demand with menaces with a view to gain in the form of pain relief. • Shaima may argue her demand is warranted as she was in so much pain. Application: • Under s21(1) Shaima has made a demand for an injection. • The demand is made with menaces as Shaima has pulled a knife from her bag. • Shaima makes the demand with a view to gain as she wants pain relief. • Shaima makes a gain as she gets the injection. • Shaima intends to cause Doctor Brown a loss. • Doctor Brown suffers a loss as he gives the injection. • Shaima may argue that the injection is not a gain but the injection and extra medication are property, as in R v Bevans. • Shaima may argue under s21(1)(a) that she has reasonable grounds for making the demand as Doctor Brown said he would give her the injection if the medication did not work. • Shaima may argue under s21(1)(b) that the use of menaces is a proper way to enforce her demand as she is in pain but using a knife is unacceptable. • Shaima will be convicted of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Michael. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Harvey (1981). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Michael has made a demand with menaces as he has threatened to harm Lawrence’s reputation. • Michael has a view to gain for himself and believes his demand is warranted as the necklace is worth less than he has paid and Lawrence does not engage with his emails. Application: • There is a demand as Michael wants his money back from Lawrence and compensation. • The demand is made with menaces as Michael knows a story in the local newspaper could be bad for Lawrence’s business. • Michael has a view to gain as he wants the return of the £5 000 he paid plus £1 000 compensation. • Michael intends to cause Lawrence a financial loss through compensation above the amount he paid for the necklace as well as a potential economic loss through negative impact on Lawrence’s business in the local community. • Michael will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Alternatively: • Under s21(1)(a) Michael may argue that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand as the necklace is worth less than he paid for it. • Under s21(1)(b) Michael may argue that the use of menaces is a proper means to reinforce his demand as he has sent Lawrence several emails asking for his money back but had no response. • Following R v Harvey, a jury may decide Michael’s demand is not unwarranted. • Michael will not be guilty of a s21 offence. Accept all valid responses. Candidates can be credited for either conclusion as long as their reasoning is clear and logical. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Ted and Penny. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Harvey (1981), R v Hester (2007). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Ted has made an unwarranted demand of a large sum of money used menaces as he has threatened and attacked Khalid. • Ted has a view to gain £50 000. • Penny has a view to gain £1 000. Application: • Ted has made a demand of £50 000 from Khalid’s wife. • Ted’s demand is made with menaces as he threatens, attacks and abducts Khalid. • Ted has a view to gain £50 000 when he contacts Khalid’s wife. • Ted intends Khalid will suffer a loss by paying the money. • Ted’s demand is unwarranted because he has committed a serious criminal offence in his treatment of Khalid. • Under s21(1)(a) Ted does not have reasonable grounds for his demand. • Under s21(1)(b) using menaces is not a proper way to enforce Ted’s demand. • Ted will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. • Penny may argue that the offence was complete before she became involved by receiving the money but using R v Hester the offence is continuing until payment is made and that is made to Penny. • Penny commits a offence because she receives £50 000 and keeps £1 000. • Penny will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. Candidates need to deal with Ted and Penny to reach maximum marks. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use • Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, • Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
Q44 · Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
2 (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s2 Fraud Act 2006. • A false representation as to fact covers situations where someone uses a false identity, states they own property when they don’t or makes a statement about property which is untrue. • A false representation as to law is where the defendant states the law knowing that what they say is not true. • A false representation as to state of mind is where a customer says they will pay their bill when they have no intention of doing so. • S2(4) - a representation may be express or implied. • s2(5) - representation can be made to a person or to a machine. • There is no limit on the way in which the representation is expressed • The representation does not need to be believed or have any effect on any other person. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the basic offence–the actus reus is to destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse. • Destruction or damage is not defined by the Act; it is a matter of fact and degree based on common sense and can include temporary or permanent physical damage and/or impairment of value or usefulness - Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset (1986), Morphitis v Salmon (1990), R v Fiak (2005). • Property is defined in s10(1)–it must be tangible and can be real or personal. It includes wild creatures tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, and other wild creatures or their carcasses only if they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being so reduced. It does not include mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. • The property must belong to another–this is similar to s5 Theft Act 1968 but requires custody and control of property not possession or control. • Lawful excuses are in s5 based on a subjective belief honestly held. • The mens rea is intention or recklessness, the latter is defined subjectively–R v Cunningham (1957), R v G (2004). • S1(2) is the aggravated offence–the elements are similar to the basic offence but there must be an intention or recklessness to endanger life and there is no defence of lawful excuse. • S1(3) is arson–the elements are as in the basic offence but damage must be caused by fire; lawful excuse is a defence–R v Denton (1982). • Basic criminal damage of a value less than £5000 is a summary offence with a maximum penalty fine and/or three months’ imprisonment; a value over £5000 is triable either way with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; arson is triable either way and the maximum summary sentence is six months’ and on indictment the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson are triable on indictment and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Criminal damage is a necessary but varied offence which can make it complex and potentially unfair. • A lot depends on choosing the right offence to reflect the facts; the number of elements which have to be satisfied can make it hard for juries to understand and so deliver fair verdicts. • Key terms are not always clearly defined which does not necessarily lead to fair labelling. • Some key concepts such as recklessness have changed their meaning which can impact on fairness. • Sentencing can also be complex and can lead to unfairness. AO3 Evaluation • The CDA 1971 has clarified the law in many ways and tried to create a useful range of offences complex overlaps can give rise to unfairness. • Some fundamental key terms lack a clear definition which can lead to difficulties for juries. For example, the meaning of ‘destroy’ or ‘damage’ is vague and does not necessarily fit with common sense which can impact on the law’s fairness. • Juries can struggle to decide whether damage was done to protect from immediate danger and this can lead to perverse and unfair verdicts. • The range of offences helps with fairness as it reflects different ways damage can occur and its increasing seriousness as well as potential danger to the public. • In offences where the mens rea includes recklessness this is a subjective test based on the defendant’s fault and so it is fair they should be punished as they have to take responsibility for their actions. • However if can lead to unfairness if a defendant escapes conviction by saying that damage is caused but they say they did not see a risk. • The grading of sentencing helps with fairness as well as providing a useful deterrent and giving public confidence. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
Q45 · Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
3 (a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. [25] Source material for Question 1 Section 21 Theft Act 1968 (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. (3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R v Harvey (1981) The three defendants had given £20 000 to the complainant for a consignment of cannabis. The consignment, however, turned out to be worthless. In response, the defendants kidnapped the complainant’s wife and child and threatened to seriously harm them unless he returned their money. The trial judge directed the jury that threats to commit serious criminal offences could never be regarded as ‘proper’. The jury convicted them of blackmail, and they appealed on the grounds of a misdirection. Held: The convictions were upheld. The trial judge was wrong not to leave the question of belief that the demand was proper to the jury. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that a jury properly directed would have inevitably convicted. R v Bevans (1988) B forced a doctor at gunpoint to provide him with an injection of morphine for pain relief. B argued that his demand was made in order to relieve his pain, not to make a gain for himself. Held: The conviction was upheld. The doctor injected B with morphine, so property had been gained. Therefore, it fell within the offence of blackmail. R v Hester (2007) H was a police officer who had become involved with a criminal enterprise involving blackmail of two wealthy businessmen, S and P. H’s co-defendant, M, had contacted S and arranged a business meeting in a pub. When S turned up, he was attacked by a gang who were waiting for him and falsely imprisoned in an upstairs room of the pub. P was contacted by M who demanded £72 000 for the release of S. M directed P to pay the money to H. H was then contacted and informed of the situation and told to receive the money. H was convicted of blackmail and appealed contending that by the time he was involved in the criminal enterprise the demand for money had already been made and therefore he could not be liable for making a demand with menaces. Held: The conviction for blackmail was upheld. The demand amounts to a continuing act and does not cease until the threat ceases. The demand in this case did not cease until payment. The threat was not withdrawn until the payment had been made.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • A conditional discharge is when a court discharges an offender on condition that they do not reoffend during a set period of up to three years. • A conditional discharge is used where it is thought that punishment is not necessary. • If an offender reoffends within the time limit, a sentence can be imposed in place of the conditional discharge, and a penalty for the new offence. • Conditional discharges are widely used by Magistrates’ Courts for first- time minor offenders. • An absolute discharge means there is a conviction but no penalty is imposed. • This is often when an offender is technically guilty but morally blameless. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. Both types of discharge need to be dealt with to reach maximum marks. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S8 Theft Act 1968 is the offence of robbery. • All elements of theft must be present or there can be no conviction for robbery–R v Zerei (2012), R v Waters (2015). • At the moment the theft is complete there can be a robbery–Corcoran v Anderton (1980). • There must be a use of force or putting or seeking to put a person in fear of force–the amount of force can be small and the victim does not need to be frightened–R v Dawson and James (1976), R v Clouden (1985), P v DPP (2012), B and R v DPP (2007). • The force must be used before or at the time of stealing–this can be as part of an ongoing situation–R v Hale (1979), R v Lockley (1995). • The force must be in order to steal–if a theft is already complete and then force is applied this is not robbery. • The defendant must possess the same mens rea as for theft. • The defendant must also intend to use force or the threat of force in order to steal. • Robbery is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of life. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The use of force is an indicator of blame which helps with effective sentencing. • The intention to use force leads to a higher sentence and helps to reflect blameworthiness as well as being an effective deterrent and a way in which the public can be kept safe. • Different categories of robbery help with effectiveness by providing fair labelling and appropriate sentencing - street and less-sophisticated commercial robbery, professionally planned commercial robbery and robbery in a dwelling. • The development of the law shows complexity as the statutory definition has been extended which can impact on effectiveness. • This is a serious offence so juries need to be sure of the elements so they can perform their role effectively and convict appropriately. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation • Robbery requires a theft to be completed but this has been problematic in terms of delivering effectiveness as appropriation in theft occurs at one point in time but in robbery it can be a continuing act. • This helps with effectiveness as it allows juries to convict, particularly where there is more than one defendant and each plays a different role in the full offence; this can ensure conviction for a serious offence with a high maximum penalty and a significant stigma which helps with effective public protection. • It could be argued that there is ineffectiveness as robbery requires a completed theft but this is not necessarily consistent with the law of burglary. • The level of force required for robbery is very low and ‘force’ is said to be an ordinary word which juries can decide on but this can lead to arbitrary decisions which in turn impact on effectiveness. • Often there is no problem as the force is clearly significant; however, as the amount of force required is very low, this can lead to inconsistency between juries. • As the force must enable the theft to be committed accidentally making contact with someone from whom the defendant has just stolen property could be robbery, which might lead to harsh convictions, sentences and stigma; this can make the law ineffective. • Uncertainties may have the opposite effect and make juries unwilling to convict as they are not sure robbery is the right offence even though the evidence supports such a conviction which also makes the law ineffective. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/21 Oct/Nov 2025
Q46 · Shaima has severe back pain 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
1 (a) Shaima has severe back pain. She is prescribed medication by Doctor Brown. He says if it does not work, he will give her an injection. The medication makes no difference, so Shaima asks to see Doctor Brown again. She is told there are no appointments for a month. A week later, Shaima goes to Doctor Brown’s office, pulls a knife from her bag, and demands an injection. Doctor Brown gives Shaima an injection. She leaves, and Doctor Brown calls the police. Shaima is charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Shaima. [10] (b) Michael buys a necklace from Lawrence, a well-known shopkeeper in the local town, for £5000. Michael then discovers the necklace is only worth £50. He emails Lawrence asking for his £5000 back and £1000 compensation. Lawrence refuses to pay. Michael sends several more emails, but Lawrence does not reply. Michael then emails Lawrence saying, ‘Unless you pay all the money you owe me, an article will be published in the local newspaper tomorrow. It will say that you owe me money and that you are a cheat.’ Lawrence contacts the police, and Michael is charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Michael. [10] (c) Penny, a police officer, has a debt of £1000. She tells her brother Ted, who is a local criminal, about the debt. He says she will hear from him soon. Ted is already blackmailing a wealthy businessman, Khalid. Ted meets and threatens Khalid. As Khalid will not pay any money, Ted attacks him and takes him to an empty flat. He calls Khalid’s wife and demands £50 000 for his return. Ted tells Penny that Khalid’s wife will be coming to her house with £50 000. Khalid’s wife brings the £50 000 to Penny’s house. Penny keeps £1000 and gives the rest of the money to Ted. Ted and Penny are charged with blackmail. Explain how the source material will apply to Ted and Penny. [10]
30 marks
Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain how the source material will apply to Shaima. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Bevans (1988). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Shaima has made a demand with menaces with a view to gain in the form of pain relief. • Shaima may argue her demand is warranted as she was in so much pain. Application: • Under s21(1) Shaima has made a demand for an injection. • The demand is made with menaces as Shaima has pulled a knife from her bag. • Shaima makes the demand with a view to gain as she wants pain relief. • Shaima makes a gain as she gets the injection. • Shaima intends to cause Doctor Brown a loss. • Doctor Brown suffers a loss as he gives the injection. • Shaima may argue that the injection is not a gain but the injection and extra medication are property, as in R v Bevans. • Shaima may argue under s21(1)(a) that she has reasonable grounds for making the demand as Doctor Brown said he would give her the injection if the medication did not work. • Shaima may argue under s21(1)(b) that the use of menaces is a proper way to enforce her demand as she is in pain but using a knife is unacceptable. • Shaima will be convicted of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(b) Explain how the source material will apply to Michael. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Harvey (1981). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Michael has made a demand with menaces as he has threatened to harm Lawrence’s reputation. • Michael has a view to gain for himself and believes his demand is warranted as the necklace is worth less than he has paid and Lawrence does not engage with his emails. Application: • There is a demand as Michael wants his money back from Lawrence and compensation. • The demand is made with menaces as Michael knows a story in the local newspaper could be bad for Lawrence’s business. • Michael has a view to gain as he wants the return of the £5 000 he paid plus £1 000 compensation. • Michael intends to cause Lawrence a financial loss through compensation above the amount he paid for the necklace as well as a potential economic loss through negative impact on Lawrence’s business in the local community. • Michael will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Alternatively: • Under s21(1)(a) Michael may argue that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand as the necklace is worth less than he paid for it. • Under s21(1)(b) Michael may argue that the use of menaces is a proper means to reinforce his demand as he has sent Lawrence several emails asking for his money back but had no response. • Following R v Harvey, a jury may decide Michael’s demand is not unwarranted. • Michael will not be guilty of a s21 offence. Accept all valid responses. Candidates can be credited for either conclusion as long as their reasoning is clear and logical. AO1 2 AO2 8 1(c) Explain how the source material will apply to Ted and Penny. 10 Use Table A to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 2 marks. AO2 out of 8 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S21 is the likely offence. • Reference to R v Harvey (1981), R v Hester (2007). AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Ted has made an unwarranted demand of a large sum of money used menaces as he has threatened and attacked Khalid. • Ted has a view to gain £50 000. • Penny has a view to gain £1 000. Application: • Ted has made a demand of £50 000 from Khalid’s wife. • Ted’s demand is made with menaces as he threatens, attacks and abducts Khalid. • Ted has a view to gain £50 000 when he contacts Khalid’s wife. • Ted intends Khalid will suffer a loss by paying the money. • Ted’s demand is unwarranted because he has committed a serious criminal offence in his treatment of Khalid. • Under s21(1)(a) Ted does not have reasonable grounds for his demand. • Under s21(1)(b) using menaces is not a proper way to enforce Ted’s demand. • Ted will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. • Penny may argue that the offence was complete before she became involved by receiving the money but using R v Hester the offence is continuing until payment is made and that is made to Penny. • Penny commits a offence because she receives £50 000 and keeps £1 000. • Penny will be guilty of a s21 offence. • Under s21(3) the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Accept all valid responses. Candidates need to deal with Ted and Penny to reach maximum marks. AO1 2 AO2 8 Section B Table B Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Question 2(b) and 3(b) Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 4 9–10 marks • Accurate and detailed in most relevant areas. • Thorough knowledge and understanding of the most appropriate legal concepts, principles and rules, key examples, cases and/or statutory authority, and legal terminology. 3 6–8 marks 5–6 marks 7–9 marks • Mostly accurate but • Mostly focused and • Mostly focused and may not be detailed in reasoned analysis reasoned evaluation of some relevant areas. throughout. most of the relevant • Good knowledge and • The analysis is issues. understanding of supported by effective • Effectively supported by appropriate legal and well-developed use relevant material. concepts, principles of legal concepts, • Coherent argument and rules, examples, principles and rules, cases and/or statutory key examples, cases authority, and legal and/or statutory terminology. authority. 2 3–5 marks 3–4 marks 4–6 marks • Some accuracy but • Some reasoned • Some evaluation, lacks detail in relevant analysis. reasoned at times, of areas. • The analysis is some of the relevant • Some knowledge and supported by some issues. understanding of mostly partially developed use • Supported by some appropriate legal of legal concepts, relevant material. concepts, principles principles and rules, • Some coherent and rules, examples, examples, cases and/or argument. cases and/or statutory statutory authority. authority, and legal terminology Level AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Analysis and AO3 Evaluation understanding application 9 marks 10 marks 6 marks Description Description Description 1 1–2 marks 1–2 marks 1–3 marks • Limited accuracy. • Limited analysis. • Limited evaluation of a • Limited knowledge and • The analysis is relevant issue. understanding of legal supported by limited • Limited or no use of concepts, principles use or makes no use of relevant material. and rules, examples, legal concepts, • Limited or no argument. cases and/or statutory principles and rules, authority, and legal examples, cases and/or terminology. statutory authority. 0 0 marks 0 marks 0 marks • No creditable content • No creditable content • No creditable content
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
Q47 · Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
2 (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. [25] OR
30 marks
Mark scheme: 2(a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • The offence is found in s2 Fraud Act 2006. • A false representation as to fact covers situations where someone uses a false identity, states they own property when they don’t or makes a statement about property which is untrue. • A false representation as to law is where the defendant states the law knowing that what they say is not true. • A false representation as to state of mind is where a customer says they will pay their bill when they have no intention of doing so. • S2(4) - a representation may be express or implied. • s2(5) - representation can be made to a person or to a machine. • There is no limit on the way in which the representation is expressed • The representation does not need to be believed or have any effect on any other person. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. 2(b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the basic offence–the actus reus is to destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse. • Destruction or damage is not defined by the Act; it is a matter of fact and degree based on common sense and can include temporary or permanent physical damage and/or impairment of value or usefulness - Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset (1986), Morphitis v Salmon (1990), R v Fiak (2005). • Property is defined in s10(1)–it must be tangible and can be real or personal. It includes wild creatures tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, and other wild creatures or their carcasses only if they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being so reduced. It does not include mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. • The property must belong to another–this is similar to s5 Theft Act 1968 but requires custody and control of property not possession or control. • Lawful excuses are in s5 based on a subjective belief honestly held. • The mens rea is intention or recklessness, the latter is defined subjectively–R v Cunningham (1957), R v G (2004). • S1(2) is the aggravated offence–the elements are similar to the basic offence but there must be an intention or recklessness to endanger life and there is no defence of lawful excuse. • S1(3) is arson–the elements are as in the basic offence but damage must be caused by fire; lawful excuse is a defence–R v Denton (1982). • Basic criminal damage of a value less than £5000 is a summary offence with a maximum penalty fine and/or three months’ imprisonment; a value over £5000 is triable either way with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; arson is triable either way and the maximum summary sentence is six months’ and on indictment the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson are triable on indictment and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • Criminal damage is a necessary but varied offence which can make it complex and potentially unfair. • A lot depends on choosing the right offence to reflect the facts; the number of elements which have to be satisfied can make it hard for juries to understand and so deliver fair verdicts. • Key terms are not always clearly defined which does not necessarily lead to fair labelling. • Some key concepts such as recklessness have changed their meaning which can impact on fairness. • Sentencing can also be complex and can lead to unfairness. AO3 Evaluation • The CDA 1971 has clarified the law in many ways and tried to create a useful range of offences complex overlaps can give rise to unfairness. • Some fundamental key terms lack a clear definition which can lead to difficulties for juries. For example, the meaning of ‘destroy’ or ‘damage’ is vague and does not necessarily fit with common sense which can impact on the law’s fairness. • Juries can struggle to decide whether damage was done to protect from immediate danger and this can lead to perverse and unfair verdicts. • The range of offences helps with fairness as it reflects different ways damage can occur and its increasing seriousness as well as potential danger to the public. • In offences where the mens rea includes recklessness this is a subjective test based on the defendant’s fault and so it is fair they should be punished as they have to take responsibility for their actions. • However if can lead to unfairness if a defendant escapes conviction by saying that damage is caused but they say they did not see a risk. • The grading of sentencing helps with fairness as well as providing a useful deterrent and giving public confidence. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
Q48 · Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
3 (a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. [25] Source material for Question 1 Section 21 Theft Act 1968 (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. (3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R v Harvey (1981) The three defendants had given £20 000 to the complainant for a consignment of cannabis. The consignment, however, turned out to be worthless. In response, the defendants kidnapped the complainant’s wife and child and threatened to seriously harm them unless he returned their money. The trial judge directed the jury that threats to commit serious criminal offences could never be regarded as ‘proper’. The jury convicted them of blackmail, and they appealed on the grounds of a misdirection. Held: The convictions were upheld. The trial judge was wrong not to leave the question of belief that the demand was proper to the jury. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that a jury properly directed would have inevitably convicted. R v Bevans (1988) B forced a doctor at gunpoint to provide him with an injection of morphine for pain relief. B argued that his demand was made in order to relieve his pain, not to make a gain for himself. Held: The conviction was upheld. The doctor injected B with morphine, so property had been gained. Therefore, it fell within the offence of blackmail. R v Hester (2007) H was a police officer who had become involved with a criminal enterprise involving blackmail of two wealthy businessmen, S and P. H’s co-defendant, M, had contacted S and arranged a business meeting in a pub. When S turned up, he was attacked by a gang who were waiting for him and falsely imprisoned in an upstairs room of the pub. P was contacted by M who demanded £72 000 for the release of S. M directed P to pay the money to H. H was then contacted and informed of the situation and told to receive the money. H was convicted of blackmail and appealed contending that by the time he was involved in the criminal enterprise the demand for money had already been made and therefore he could not be liable for making a demand with menaces. Held: The conviction for blackmail was upheld. The demand amounts to a continuing act and does not cease until the threat ceases. The demand in this case did not cease until payment. The threat was not withdrawn until the payment had been made.
30 marks
Mark scheme: 3(a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. 5 AO1 Knowledge and understanding • A conditional discharge is when a court discharges an offender on condition that they do not reoffend during a set period of up to three years. • A conditional discharge is used where it is thought that punishment is not necessary. • If an offender reoffends within the time limit, a sentence can be imposed in place of the conditional discharge, and a penalty for the new offence. • Conditional discharges are widely used by Magistrates’ Courts for first- time minor offenders. • An absolute discharge means there is a conviction but no penalty is imposed. • This is often when an offender is technically guilty but morally blameless. Each point made is worth 1 mark up to a maximum of 5. Both types of discharge need to be dealt with to reach maximum marks. 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. 25 Use Table B to mark candidate responses to this question. AO1 out of 10 marks. AO2 out of 6 marks. AO3 out of 9 marks. Indicative content Responses may include: AO1 Knowledge and understanding • S8 Theft Act 1968 is the offence of robbery. • All elements of theft must be present or there can be no conviction for robbery–R v Zerei (2012), R v Waters (2015). • At the moment the theft is complete there can be a robbery–Corcoran v Anderton (1980). • There must be a use of force or putting or seeking to put a person in fear of force–the amount of force can be small and the victim does not need to be frightened–R v Dawson and James (1976), R v Clouden (1985), P v DPP (2012), B and R v DPP (2007). • The force must be used before or at the time of stealing–this can be as part of an ongoing situation–R v Hale (1979), R v Lockley (1995). • The force must be in order to steal–if a theft is already complete and then force is applied this is not robbery. • The defendant must possess the same mens rea as for theft. • The defendant must also intend to use force or the threat of force in order to steal. • Robbery is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of life. AO2 Analysis and application Analysis: • The use of force is an indicator of blame which helps with effective sentencing. • The intention to use force leads to a higher sentence and helps to reflect blameworthiness as well as being an effective deterrent and a way in which the public can be kept safe. • Different categories of robbery help with effectiveness by providing fair labelling and appropriate sentencing - street and less-sophisticated commercial robbery, professionally planned commercial robbery and robbery in a dwelling. • The development of the law shows complexity as the statutory definition has been extended which can impact on effectiveness. • This is a serious offence so juries need to be sure of the elements so they can perform their role effectively and convict appropriately. 3(b) AO3 Evaluation • Robbery requires a theft to be completed but this has been problematic in terms of delivering effectiveness as appropriation in theft occurs at one point in time but in robbery it can be a continuing act. • This helps with effectiveness as it allows juries to convict, particularly where there is more than one defendant and each plays a different role in the full offence; this can ensure conviction for a serious offence with a high maximum penalty and a significant stigma which helps with effective public protection. • It could be argued that there is ineffectiveness as robbery requires a completed theft but this is not necessarily consistent with the law of burglary. • The level of force required for robbery is very low and ‘force’ is said to be an ordinary word which juries can decide on but this can lead to arbitrary decisions which in turn impact on effectiveness. • Often there is no problem as the force is clearly significant; however, as the amount of force required is very low, this can lead to inconsistency between juries. • As the force must enable the theft to be committed accidentally making contact with someone from whom the defendant has just stolen property could be robbery, which might lead to harsh convictions, sentences and stigma; this can make the law ineffective. • Uncertainties may have the opposite effect and make juries unwilling to convict as they are not sure robbery is the right offence even though the evidence supports such a conviction which also makes the law ineffective. Accept all valid responses. AO1 10 AO2 6 AO3 9
This question in 9084/23 Oct/Nov 2025
![Question 10: (a) Describe dishonesty in the mens rea of theft. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of robbery. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/21345f84-e3a4-44db-8820-59979c78777b/q2.webp)
13 / 39
![Question 12: (a) Describe the chain of causation as an element of actus reus. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of burglary. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/5aacc016-1d05-4a17-b79a-58f86927af75/q2.webp)
14 / 39
![Question 14: (a) Describe omissions in actus reus. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on appropriation in theft. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/bee26cab-7a78-4ec5-81b4-6fc4fc002a8c/q2.webp)
15 / 39
![Question 16: (a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/b75bf2b0-bb72-499b-834d-d9ea3072a504/q2.webp)
16 / 39
![Question 18: (a) Describe the offence of aggravated burglary. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on omissions in actus reus. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/f8be1518-8455-4542-a9b5-f533599c1f9b/q2.webp)
17 / 39
![Question 20: (a) Describe the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the law on causation in actus reus. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/8ac62cc5-2ee8-48f7-ae51-446003056ed1/q2.webp)
18 / 39
![Question 22: (a) Describe two elements of s10(1) Theft Act 1968. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of handling stolen goods. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/54863a47-7948-4f7b-810b-c5ce3d35ff7d/q2.webp)
19 / 39![Question 23: (a) Describe the offence of obtaining services dishonestly. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on omissions in actus reus. [25] Sourc…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/54863a47-7948-4f7b-810b-c5ce3d35ff7d/q3.webp)
20 / 39![Question 24: (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s1 Criminal Dama…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/e4b56bac-a168-4bba-b743-3f8b87bed074/q2.webp)
21 / 39![Question 25: (a) Describe the law on direct intention in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of fraud. [25] Source material for …](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/e4b56bac-a168-4bba-b743-3f8b87bed074/q3.webp)
22 / 39
![Question 27: (a) Describe the law on an intention to permanently deprive in theft. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of blackmail. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/bdd5d2cd-a17b-48d2-92f9-a75722889bfb/q2.webp)
23 / 39![Question 28: (a) Describe the actus reus of robbery. [5] (b) Evaluate the law of making off without payment. [25] Source material for Section A Question…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/bdd5d2cd-a17b-48d2-92f9-a75722889bfb/q3.webp)
24 / 39![Question 29: (a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. [2…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/95d55862-2c4c-45d0-9d68-efc3e9df5761/q2.webp)
25 / 39![Question 30: (a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. [25] Source material for S…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/95d55862-2c4c-45d0-9d68-efc3e9df5761/q3.webp)
26 / 39
![Question 32: (a) Describe the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of robbery. [25] OR](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/3f45adb0-73c7-4666-b722-65b26d2c87fe/q2.webp)
27 / 39![Question 33: (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the actus reus of theft. [25] So…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/3f45adb0-73c7-4666-b722-65b26d2c87fe/q3.webp)
![Question 34: (a) Describe the offence of fraud by abuse of position. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law relating to the mens rea of theft. [2…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/f27c4ac9-b013-4755-a1ba-a321467461e0/q2.webp)
28 / 39![Question 35: (a) Describe the law on recklessness in criminal law. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law of burglary. [25] Source material for S…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/f27c4ac9-b013-4755-a1ba-a321467461e0/q3.webp)
29 / 39
30 / 39![Question 37: (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 Theft Act 1968 in the ac…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/3651a27d-8c66-4818-baaa-c99658539b85/q3.webp)
31 / 39
![Question 39: (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of handling stolen goods. [5] (b) Evaluate to what extent deterrence is the most effective aim whe…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/f312c274-adf0-464e-a566-a0554c28cba9/q2.webp)
32 / 39![Question 40: (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of blackmail. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law of making off without payment. [25] Source …](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/f312c274-adf0-464e-a566-a0554c28cba9/q3.webp)
33 / 39
34 / 39![Question 42: (a) Describe the mens rea of the offence of making off without payment. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of s3 and s5 Theft Act 1968 in the ac…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/130f1202-216e-42fd-9a5e-8010d105ece5/q3.webp)
35 / 39
![Question 44: (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. […](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/1581113d-fc2c-41df-b2e5-e5370c1d6676/q2.webp)
36 / 39![Question 45: (a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. [25] Source…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/1581113d-fc2c-41df-b2e5-e5370c1d6676/q3.webp)
37 / 39
![Question 47: (a) Describe the actus reus of the offence of fraud by false representation. [5] (b) Evaluate the fairness of the law on criminal damage. […](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/c996463f-53db-42c1-bd4a-0266b4990407/q2.webp)
38 / 39![Question 48: (a) Describe the two types of discharges used as sentences. [5] (b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in s8 Theft Act 1968. [25] Source…](https://img.pastlit.com/crops/c996463f-53db-42c1-bd4a-0266b4990407/q3.webp)
39 / 39
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30