Paper 1 EXAM Structures

NFOAP

1. Identify the conduct of D

2. Identify the injury / harm to V

3. Identify potential offence

4. AR AO1 - identify and define the AR of the crime (with cases)

5. AR AO2 - Apply to facts & conclude if D committed AR

6. MR AO1 - Identify and define the MR of the crime (with cases)

7. MR AO2 - Apply to facts & conclude if D had MR at time of AR

8. Reach a conclusion - If yes to 5 & 7 then D will be G

Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNMSL)

1. DOC - Did D owe V a duty of care

2. Breach - Identify D’s conduct that may breach DOC (either act or omission)

3. Seriousness of the Breach - Did it create a serious and obvious risk of death

4. Breach Caused Death (Causation)

5. Gross - Was breach gross

6. Conclude

Unlawful Act Manslaughter (ULAM)

1. Identify lesser criminal offence (AR & MR)

2. Was D’s conduct Objectively Dangerous

3. Causation

4. Conclusion on ULAM

Murder with LOC

1. AR of Murder

   • State law on AR in full with cases

   • Apply AR to facts & conclude on AR

2. MR (AO1 & AO2) of murder

   • State law on MR in full with cases

   • Apply to facts and conclude on MR

3. Consider LOC - State law on each element and apply each element to facts as you go

   • The killing resulted from D’s LOC

   • The loss of self-control had a QT

     • Fear of serious violence

     • Things done/said of extremely grave character which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

   • An ordinary person might have reacted as D did

4. Conclude overall

Murder with DR

1. AR of Murder

   • State law on AR in full with cases

   • Apply AR to facts & conclude on AR

2. MR (AO1 & AO2) of murder

   • State law on MR in full with cases

   • Apply to facts and conclude on MR

3. Consider DR - State law on each element and apply each element to facts as you go

   • AMF - Abnormality of mental functioning

   • RMC - Recognised medical condition

   • SIA - Substantial impairment

   • EXP - Explanation for killing

4. Conclude overall

Duress

1. Did the threat involve death or serious physical injury

2. Did the threat relate to D or person who D was close to / felt responsible for. (Conway)

3. • Did D genuinely and reasonably believe in the effectiveness of the threats (Graham)

   • Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D’s characteristics have acted as D did

4. Was there a causal connection between the threat and the type of offence D committed (Cole)

5. Imminence - Did D have an opportunity to evade threat (Heath)

6. Did D expose himself to threats - Voluntary member of a violent gang (Sharp)

7. Conclude

Self Defence

1. The Trigger - Did D believe it was necessary to use force

2. The Response - Was the Force used Reasonable

Theft

AR

• Appropriation

• Property

• Belonging to another

MR

• Dishonesty

• Intention to permanently deprive

Robbery

AR

• Appropriation

• Property

• Belonging to another

MR

• Dishonesty

• Intention to permanently deprive

Robbery AR

• Use / threat of force

• Immediately before/at time of theft

• In order to steal

Robbery MR

• Intention to use / threaten force in order to steal

Automatism

1. Total loss of voluntary control

2. Involuntary conduct caused by external factor

3. Self induced?

Insanity

1. Defect of reason

2. Disease of the Mind

3. D did not know:

   • Nature and Quality of Act

     OR

   • His act was legally wrong

Intoxication

1. D is intoxicated and commits AR

2. Does D have MR for offence

3. Was D vol. or invol. intoxicated

4. Type of crime (Specific or basic)

Law and Fault Theory Q9

1. Define fault.

2. Analyse extent / importance of fault - Where fault may be found

3. Analyse where fault may not be found.

Paragraph 4 & 5 focusing on one specified area of criminal law.

Law and Justice Theory Q9

1. • Outline a definition of what Justice means

   • Consider aims of Criminal Justice and Civil system

2. What to include

   • Different types of justice: Formal / corrective / substantive / distributive

   • Support with examples / area of law

   • Examine how this achieves or doesn’t achieve this form of justice

3. Explain and then examine at 3 different Justice Theorists

4. Comment whether the theory of justice does work / is possible within a legal system

5. Link to areas of law (substantive or non-substantive)

6. Summarise the theorists

Crime Theory - Harm as basis of criminalising conduct

1. Harm to others definition - simple meaning

2. Extended meaning of harm - Harm to self and

3. Harm to others

Crime Theory - Autonomy, Fault & Individual Responsibility

1. Autonomy

2. Fault & Individual Responsibility