100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Criminal Law - GDL EXAM SCRIPT (85%, DISTINCTION) CA$10.97   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. GDL
  4.  
  5. GDL
  6.  
  7. GDL

Exam (elaborations)

Criminal Law - GDL EXAM SCRIPT (85%, DISTINCTION)
 211 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • GDL
  • Institution
  • GDL

This document is my exam script for the Criminal Law paper on the GDL at The University of Law, which gained a mark of 85% (High Distinction). I found that the main barrier to doing well in GDL exams was not knowing how to write in the exams, so I hope this helps :) Each exam was three hours ...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 16  pages

Document information

  • September 5, 2023
  • 16
  • 2021/2022
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • gdl
  • pgdl
  • law
  • criminal law
  • theft
  • fraud
  • murder
  • manslaughter
  • loss of control
  • robbery

Written for

  • GDL
  • GDL
  • GDL
All documents for this subject (73)

Seller

avatar-seller
lawnotes08

Reviews received

Content preview

Criminal Law – GDL EXAM SCRIPT (Questions & Answers)

QUESTION 1:

In July 20XX, Ted, who is currently unemployed, decides to take his son, Frankie aged
5, to the Ruby Fairground run by Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd. He takes a £20 note from his
girlfriend’s purse intending to replace it later when he picks up his welfare benefits. They
have been arguing a lot about money recently, so he doesn’t ask her if he can take the
money, in case she says no.

The Ruby Fairground charges an entrance fee for adults and children aged 6 and over
which covers the cost of the rides. Children of 5 and under go free. Realising he doesn’t
have enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, he decides to try to get into the
Ruby Fairground without paying the entrance fee. The Ruby Fairground is in a field
which has been fenced off with a wooden fence. He finds a section of the fence which is
slightly loose. He pulls away two of the fence panels and squeezes through the hole
with Frankie.

Ted and Frankie go on some rides together. Then Frankie wants to go on the chair
swing ride on his own. The ride attendant and employee of Ruby Fairground, Akash, is
supposed to check the riders to make sure the buckles are clicked in fully, but he is
distracted today as he had found out that his father was terminally ill that morning. He
doesn’t check that Frankie’s buckle is securely fastened.

When the ride starts and the swings start going round, Frankie’s seatbelt comes undone
and Frankie falls out of the swing, bumps his head and is knocked unconscious. Despite
swift and exemplary medical care, he dies as a result of these injuries.

In a subsequent investigation, evidence is found to show that the Head of Operations of
Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd, as well as the manager of Ruby Fairground where Frankie died
had been warned that the seatbelts on the chair swing rides needed replacing as some
of them were worn and the buckles did not always click in securely. A memorandum
shows that Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd was going to replace these after the summer
holidays had passed, but asked the managers of the fairgrounds to tell the ride
attendants to check the buckles are clicked in carefully. The manager of Ruby
Fairground had written an email to all the fairground employees on this, but due to
misspelling the email address this had not reached the employees.

Consider the criminal liability of Ted, Akash and Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd.

,ANSWER 1:

Ted takes £20 from his girlfriend’s purse

Ted - theft

AR (Actus reus)

Appropriating property belonging to another – Ted assumes the rights of an owner (DPP
v Gomez) by taking a £20 note from his girlfriend’s purse, which belonged to her.

MR (Mens rea)

Dishonesty – while on the one hand Ted could be judged to have acted in a way
reasonable and honest people would have by borrowing money from his partner’s
handbag (Ivey), on the facts it seems that Ted would not have had his girlfriend’s
permission to take the money. They had been arguing a lot about money recently, so it
seems that Ted did not believe that she would have consented to him taking the £20
note (s.2(1)(b) TA 1968). Also, given that he appreciated this fact, and that he could
have just asked his girlfriend for the money if he thought she would consent to him
taking it, he is likely to be regarded as being dishonest.

Intention to deprive his girlfriend of the money permanently – Ted does not intend to
deprive permanently in the ordinary meaning of the word as per s.1() TA / Warner.
However, by intending to replace the money when he picks up his benefits, he could be
taking the item under a condition as to its return which Ted may not be able to perform
(s.6(2) TA). Nevertheless, given that there is no information on the facts that Ted should
expect his welfare payments to suddenly stop, he is probably able to keep this promise
and will be not guilty. If not, he may be guilty.

Ted and Frankie get into Ruby Fairground and go on some rides

Ted – simple criminal damage (s.1(1) CDA 1971)

AR

D damages or destroys property belonging to another – Ted damages the fairground
fence by pulling two panels away, which although not extensive damage will alter the
fence to the extent that fixing it incurs cost (Hardman). The fence belongs to Crystal
Fairgrounds Ltd (‘CF’), who own the fairground.

MR

, D intends to damage property or is reckless as to its destruction. Intention means
aim/desire/purpose. He clearly makes it his aim/desire/purpose to pull the fence panels
loose in order to get him and Frankie into the fairground. D knows property belongs to
another or is reckless as to who it belongs to – Ted knows this is the fairground site,
and so will also know that the fence belongs to them (another). Ted is guilty of simple
criminal damage.

Ted - Fraud (s.2 Fraud Act 2006)

AR
Ted makes a representation by going into the fairground and queuing and getting on
rides. This is a false representation as he has not in fact paid his adult’s entrance fee.
His 5-year-old son, Frankie, is not criminally liable, as not only does Frankie not have to
pay an entrance fee as he is a child of 5 or under, but criminal liability does not extend
to children under 10 years-old.

MR
Ted knows the representation is or might be misleading, as he realises he doesn’t have
enough money to pay for his ticket and snacks, so clearly knows he needed to pay
entrance. This also makes Ted clearly dishonest. Intent, by making the representation,
to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss to another – Ted might not
make or intend to make a gain for himself and Frankie as he gains access to a service
(the fairground ride park itself), which does not fall under s.5(2)(a) FA 2006. However,
given the rides may themselves be goods rather than services, Ted may intend to make
a gain (i.e. equivalent to the cost of entrance). Regardless, he does intend to cause a
loss to Crystal Fairgrounds Ltd (the cost of his entrance fee). Ted is therefore guilty of
fraud by misrepresentation (s.2 FA 2006).


Frankie dies

Ted - Gross negligence manslaughter (Adomako)

Ted clearly lacks the MR for murder when his son dies (they do not intend to kill or
cause GBH), and cannot be liable for constructive manslaughter as they have not
committed a positive unlawful act (Lamb). However, Adomako confirms that liability for a
homicide charge can be incurred through an omission to act, providing that:

A duty of care is owed by Ted to Frankie – as Frankie’s father, Ted has a special
relationship with his son which establishes a duty of care (Stone and Dobinson).
However, there is no clear breach of Ted’s duty her. While he lets his son go on the ride
by himself (he is only 5 years-old), there are no safety warnings or rules at the

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotes08. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$10.97. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

81113 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
CA$10.97
  • (0)
  Add to cart