We know the secret of your success
PAPER TITLE: PUBLIC AND CRIMINAL LAW
DATE: Thursday, 8 June 2017
PART 1
PUBLIC LAW
SOLUTION
(a) Sewel convention
(b) Education convention
(c) Salisbury convention
(d) Future monarch convention
(e) Prime Ministerial convention
Answer- B
(Purchase full paper to get all the solution)
2. What, according to Elliott, is the central concern arising from R. (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 (SC)?
(a) Whether the Attorney General’s grounds for exercising the executive override power under s53 Freedom of Information Act 2000 were reasonable
(b) Whether Prince Charles acted unlawfully in sending letters to Government Ministers on matters of public policy
(c) Whether the Upper Tribunal acted unlawfully in overturning the Information Commissioner’s decision
(d) Whether a judicial review court could legitimately strike down the Government Minister’s exercise of the executive override power under s53 Freedom of Information Act 2000
(e) Whether Rob Evans had sufficient interest in the matter to bring a judicial review claim
3. According to Elliott, what standard did Lord Mance state the Government’s grounds had to meet in order to be established in relation to the weighing of competing public interests?
(a) The clearest possible justification
(b) Substantial reasons
(c) Properly explained and accompanied by solid reasons
(d) Adequate engagement with the Upper Tribunal
(e) Not obviously illogical.
4. What, according to Elliott, is at the root of the notion of reasonableness adopted by Lord Mance in his Evans judgment?
(a) Wednesbury unreasonableness/irrationality
(b) Parliament’s intention in drafting the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(c) The literal meaning of the term ‘reasonable’
(d) The anxious scrutiny model adopted by the courts in human rights cases
(e) The ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus
5. According to Elliott, why can Lord Neuberger’s judicial activism be reconciled with parliamentary sovereignty?
(a) Because Lord Neuberger’s judgment was not the judgment of the court so it has no constitutional significance
(b) Because parliamentary sovereignty is always subject to the rule of law
(c) Because the separation of powers means that the judiciary always has the power to interpret legislation as it wishes
(d) Because parliament has the option of amending s53 Freedom of Information Act 2000 using clearer wording to enable the executive override power to be used more broadly
(e) Because parliament did not intend for the executive override power to be used as it was by the Government in this case.
QUESTION 6
‘The untidiness of the [UK] constitutional order … may be inherently unappealing. But such untidiness is inevitable in a system in which the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament each rightly assert their fundamentality, but in which (for the time being, at least) ultimate priority is conceded to the latter’. (Elliott, 2015, p550)
Using examples and legal authority, explain and analyse the challenges to parliamentary sovereignty that arise from other constitutional principles in the UK constitution.
QUESTION 7
Explain and evaluate the distinction between ‘a bottom-up, administrative law approach’ and ‘a top-down, constitutional law approach’, made by Mark Elliott in his article. In your view, which approach best describes the role of judicial review in the UK constitution?
You should explain what the author means by each approach and make an argument about whether you think the role of judicial review in the UK constitution is a separate, administrative law role, or a broader constitutional role.
PART 2
CRIMINAL LAW
8. What is the sole ground of appeal in R v Mohammed Said Barre [2016] EWCA Crim 216?
(a) The present distinction between manslaughter and murder is inappropriate.
(b) The judge should have left manslaughter as an alternative to the jury.
(c) There was new and relevant evidence which rendered the conviction unsafe.
(d) The definition of murder used in the case was inappropriate.
(e) The defence case was poorly argued.
9. What was the basis of the defence case, at trial?
(a) The defence accepted the prosecution evidence that the DNA of the accused was on the knife that killed the deceased.
(b) The defence accepted that the accused had been armed with a knife at the time of the attack.
(c) The defence accepted that the knife used in the fatal attack had been deposited beside the River Crane.
(d) The defence argued that all the accused had anticipated was that there would be a fist fight with the accused, the stabbing was the act of a co-defendant.
(e) That the accused intentionally stabbed the deceased, in a fit of temper once the fight became violent.
10. Which of the following most accurately describes the arguments on appeal by the defence in relation to manslaughter by an unlawful act?
(a) That the defendant had not intended to stab the deceased.
(b) That the defendant had intended really serious harm.
(c) That the defence asserted at trial that the defendant did not stab the accused. Even if the trial judge had felt that there was evidence of an intentional killing, there was also sufficient evidence of unlawful act manslaughter to be left to the jury in the alternative.
(d) That a knife had been brought to the scene and taken out during the confrontation.
(e) That the Crown’s arguments were speculative.
11. To establish the offence of unlawful act manslaughter which of the following is the most accurate description of the relevant offence elements that need to be established to justify a charge.
(a) The unlawful act was intentional and it was an act that was dangerous and caused death.
(b) The unlawful act was intended, the unlawful act was a crime and that it caused death.
(c) The unlawful act was a criminal act, the actus reus and mens rea of the crime are satisfied and it caused some harm.
(d) The unlawful act of the accused on the facts of the case was a crime, the act was an intentional act as opposed to a dangerous act and resulted in death.
(e) The unlawful act was an intentional act, it was a crime, it was both unlawful and dangerous and it caused the death of the victim.
12. In what case did the courts define grievous bodily harm in relation to the offence of murder as follows: - “Bodily harm needs no explanation, and ‘grievous means no more and no less than ‘really serious’”.
(a) R v Woollin [1999] AC 82.
(b) R v Moloney [1985] AC 905.
(c) DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290.
(d) R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025.
(e) R v G [2008] UKHL 37.
13. Consider the offence(s) committed by Jin. Select the most appropriate offence with which he might be charged and consider Jin’s liability and assess whether he has a defence to the offence you have selected.
14. Is the inclusion of intention to cause serious bodily harm in the mens rea of murder appropriate; or does it inappropriately include within those accused of murder, those who ought to be charged with manslaughter?
Briefly outline the case against the inclusion of intention to cause serious bodily harm, as an offence element within the offence of murder, analysing the consequences of its removal.
[END OF QUESTION PAPER]
Purchase full paper by adding to cart
Last updated: Sep 02, 2021 10:47 AM
Your one-stop website for academic resources, tutoring, writing, editing, study abroad application, cv writing & proofreading needs.
