AQA A-Level Law: Criminal Offences and Defences — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Criminal Offences and Defences study guide | Criminal Offences and Defences revision notes

These questions test the offences and defences in AQA A-level Law (7162) section 3.2: fatal and non-fatal offences against the person, theft and robbery, attempt, the capacity defences and the necessity defences, with one question on criminal law theory. Answers follow the rule, authority, application and conclusion structure that Paper 1 rewards.

---

Section A

1. State the mens rea of murder, giving an authority. [2]

2. Identify the two qualifying triggers for the defence of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. [2]

3. Explain the difference between the mens rea of s20 and s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. [4]

4. Explain what is meant by an act “more than merely preparatory” in the law of attempt, using one case. [3]

Section B

5. Rami grabs the handbag of Sofia, who holds on until Rami tugs it free and runs off. Sofia’s arm is bruised. Advise whether Rami has committed robbery. [8]

6. Jess, a diabetic, takes her insulin but skips lunch. Feeling dizzy, she strikes a colleague, breaking his nose. Advise Jess on whether any capacity defence is available. [6]

7. Theo is told by a gang that his brother will be shot unless Theo delivers a package of drugs that afternoon. Theo had joined the gang some months earlier knowing it used violence. Advise Theo on duress. [6]

8. Explain the principle of correspondence and evaluate whether the law on non-fatal offences complies with it. [10]

9. Amir is woken at night by a stranger in his kitchen. Believing the stranger is armed, Amir strikes him with a heavy pan, killing him. The stranger was in fact unarmed. Discuss Amir’s possible criminal liability for murder and any defence. [12]

---

Answers

1. Malice aforethought: an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm [1], authority R v Vickers (1957) for implied malice, or Woollin (1998) for oblique intention [1].

2. Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person [1]; things said or done that constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s55) [1].

3. s20 requires intention or recklessness as to causing some harm, not necessarily serious harm (R v Mowatt, 1968; R v Parmenter, 1991) [1] [1]. s18 is a specific intent offence requiring an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (or to resist arrest); recklessness is not enough (R v Belfon, 1976) [1] [1].

4. The defendant must have gone beyond preparation and embarked on the crime proper (R v Gullefer, 1990) [1] [1]. For example, in R v Campbell (1991) a man with an imitation gun outside a post office had not yet attempted robbery because he had not entered [1] (credit Geddes, Jones or Tosti used correctly).

5. Robbery under s8 Theft Act 1968 requires a theft plus force on a person, immediately before or at the time of stealing, in order to steal [1]. Theft: taking the bag is an appropriation (s3) of property (s4) belonging to Sofia (s5) [1]; running off with it shows intention to permanently deprive (s6) [1]; nothing suggests a belief in a legal right, so he is dishonest under s2 and the Ivey test [1]. Force: force on the bag, which transfers to Sofia’s resisting arm, can be force on a person (R v Clouden, 1987) [1]; the amount need not be great, as “force” is an ordinary word for the jury (R v Dawson and James, 1976) [1]. Timing and purpose: the tug happened at the time of stealing and to get the bag [1]. Conclusion: Rami is likely to be guilty of robbery [1]. (Credit discussion of the bruising as possible ABH under s47 as an alternative charge.)

6. Jess’s loss of control was caused by hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) from taking insulin without food — an external factor [1]. This is non-insane automatism (R v Quick, 1973), not insanity, which requires an internal cause (R v Hennessy, 1989) [1] [1]. The defence requires a total loss of voluntary control (A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 1992)) [1]. Because the automatism is self-induced, it is no defence to a basic intent offence such as s47 or s20 if she was reckless, for example knowing that skipping meals after insulin could make her aggressive or unpredictable (R v Bailey, 1983) [1]. If she did not know of that risk, she may be acquitted (Bailey; R v Hardie, 1984) [1].

7. A threat to kill Theo’s brother is a threat of death to a person for whom he reasonably feels responsible (R v Hasan, 2005) [1], and it is linked to the offence he is told to commit (R v Cole, 1994) [1]. Under the Graham test (approved in Howe), the jury asks whether he reasonably believed the threat and whether a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing his characteristics would have acted the same [1]. The threat must be immediate or almost immediate with no evasive action reasonably open; with hours to go he could have gone to the police, which weakens the defence [1]. Most importantly, Theo voluntarily joined a gang he knew used violence, so he ought reasonably to have foreseen being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence, and the defence is lost (Hasan) [1] [1].

8. Levels-based. Correspondence means the mens rea of an offence should match its actus reus, so a defendant is liable only for the consequences he intended or foresaw [1] [1]. Complies: assault and battery require intention or recklessness as to exactly the conduct in the actus reus [1]; s18 requires intention to cause the very harm caused, GBH [1]. Breaks: s47 requires only the mens rea of the assault or battery, with no foresight of the actual bodily harm (R v Savage, 1991; R v Roberts, 1971) [1] [1]; s20 requires foresight of only some harm although the actus reus is serious harm or a wound (Mowatt; Parmenter) [1] [1]. Evaluation: supporters argue that a person who chooses to use unlawful violence should take the risk of worse consequences; critics argue this offends fault and fair labelling, and the Law Commission has proposed replacing the 1861 Act with offences that match fault to harm [1]. A reasoned conclusion that the law partly complies [1].

9. Levels-based. Murder: Amir caused death [1]; striking an intruder with a heavy pan suggests at least an intention to cause GBH, which is malice aforethought (Vickers) [1]. Self-defence: under s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, necessity of force is judged on the facts as Amir honestly believed them, so his mistaken belief that the man was armed counts even if unreasonable (R v Williams (Gladstone), 1984; Beckford v R, 1988) [1] [1]. Whether the force was reasonable is judged in the circumstances as he believed them [1]; a person acting in an emergency cannot weigh the exact force needed (Palmer v R, 1971; s76(7)) [1]. As a householder case, the force is unreasonable only if it was grossly disproportionate (s76(5A)) [1] [1]. If the defence succeeds he is acquitted; if the force was excessive the defence fails completely and he is guilty of murder, as in R v Martin (Anthony) (2001) and R v Clegg (1995) [1] [1]. Alternative: loss of control based on fear of serious violence (s55(3)) could reduce murder to manslaughter [1]. A reasoned conclusion on the facts [1].

---

Frequently asked questions

How do I structure a criminal law problem answer? Identify the most serious offence the facts support, then state each element with an authority, apply it to the facts and conclude. Only then consider defences, and finish with an overall conclusion on liability.

Is self-defence a partial defence to murder? No. Self-defence is a complete defence: it either succeeds and the defendant is acquitted, or fails and the defendant is guilty. Loss of control and diminished responsibility are the partial defences.

What is the difference between assault and battery? Assault is causing someone to apprehend immediate unlawful force; battery is actually applying unlawful force. A punch the victim sees coming is both.

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Stating offence elements without a supporting case.
• Forgetting that robbery requires a completed theft.
• Treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia the same way.
• Missing the voluntary association point in duress.
• Applying a “reasonable belief” test to self-defence instead of an honest belief.