Cambridge A-Level Law: Criminal Law — Practice Questions (9084)

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — Cambridge holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or Cambridge’s own resources.

Related: Topic 2 study guide and revision notes.

Section A – scenario-based (Paper 2 style)

Read the following scenario, then answer the questions below.

Dana climbs through an open window into a neighbour’s house, intending to take a laptop she saw through the window. Once inside, she is startled by a dog barking and flees without taking anything. As she runs across the garden, she pushes past the homeowner, causing him to fall, in order to escape.

1. Explain whether Dana can be liable for burglary under s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968, applying the actus reus and mens rea required. [6]

2. Explain whether the fact that Dana took nothing affects her liability for burglary under s9(1)(a). [3]

3. Explain whether pushing past the homeowner to escape could give rise to a separate offence, and identify which one. [4]

Section B – short-answer and essay (Paper 2 style)

4. Distinguish direct intention from indirect (oblique) intention, giving an example of each. [4]

5. “The distinction between adult and young offender sentencing is necessary rather than arbitrary.” Evaluate this statement with reference to the aims of sentencing. [15]

Worked answers

1. Burglary under s9(1)(a) requires (actus reus) entry into a building as a trespasser, and (mens rea) intent at the moment of entry to commit a listed offence (here, theft). Dana entered through the window without permission, satisfying the trespass element of the actus reus; her intention, evidenced by climbing in specifically to take the laptop she had seen, satisfies the mens rea of intent to steal at the point of entry. Both elements are therefore satisfied, and Dana is liable for burglary under s9(1)(a). [6] (2 marks for correctly stating the actus reus element and applying it, 2 marks for correctly stating the mens rea element and applying it, 2 marks for a clear concluding statement of liability.)

2. It does not affect her liability. Burglary under s9(1)(a) is complete on entry with the required intent – it does not require the underlying offence (theft) to actually succeed. Dana’s liability was already established at the moment of entry with intent, regardless of the fact that she was startled and fled empty-handed. [3]

3. Yes – pushing the homeowner to escape, using force against a person, could give rise to liability for an offence involving force, though this falls outside the property offences covered in 2.2 and would need to be considered under a separate area of criminal law (offences against the person) not part of this option’s scope; within Topic 2’s own scope, the relevant point is that this use of force occurred after, not during or immediately before, the theft attempt, so it would not itself convert the incident into robbery under s8, since robbery requires the force to accompany the theft itself, and here no theft was actually completed at all. [4] (Marks for correctly identifying that force used to escape does not satisfy robbery’s timing requirement, and correctly reasoning through the sequence of events.)

4. Direct intention is where the result was the defendant’s actual purpose – for example, a defendant who takes a laptop specifically wanting to keep it for themselves has direct intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. Indirect (oblique) intention is where the result was not the defendant’s main purpose but was a virtually certain consequence of their act, which they foresaw – for example, a defendant who sets fire to a building to claim insurance, foreseeing that a person known to be inside will almost certainly die, has oblique intention as to that death even though causing it was not their primary aim. [4] (2 marks per correctly explained and exemplified type.)

5. A strong evaluation explains that the syllabus’s aims of sentencing – punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection and reparation – are not weighted identically for adult and young offenders, reflecting a deliberate policy judgement that young offenders’ capacity for rehabilitation, and the role of parental responsibility in their circumstances, differ meaningfully from adult offenders’ circumstances. A strong answer argues this distinction is necessary rather than arbitrary because it reflects a genuine difference in the underlying purpose of sentencing for each group – for young offenders, rehabilitation and the involvement of parental responsibility are given comparatively greater weight, reflecting a policy view that young people’s behaviour is more malleable and more influenced by their upbringing and circumstances than adult offenders’ behaviour typically is. A well-evaluated answer might also raise a genuine counter-consideration – for example, that treating age as a bright-line distinction risks under- or over-crediting individual young offenders’ actual maturity or circumstances – before reaching a reasoned overall conclusion that, on balance, the distinction reflects real, defensible differences in sentencing aims rather than an arbitrary administrative split. [15] (Marks distributed across accurate knowledge of the sentencing aims and how they are weighted differently, genuine evaluation including a counter-consideration, and a reasoned, evidenced conclusion.)

Why the scenario question builds across three sub-parts

Questions 1-3 deliberately build on a single connected scenario rather than three unrelated prompts, because Section A’s actual exam format is one compulsory scenario-based question split into parts – exactly the format the study guide describes. Working through elements of a crime first (question 1), then a specific rule about completed offences (question 2), and finally a boundary question about a second potential offence (question 3) mirrors how a real Section A question typically escalates in difficulty across its parts while staying anchored to the same facts.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) syllabus for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028 (Version 2) – official syllabus PDF – the same source cited by the Topic 2 study guide and revision notes.