May/June 2025 Examiner Review: Paper 1 & Paper 2
The May/June 2025 sitting for CIE A-Level Law (9084) offered a fair but highly discriminating test across both Paper 1 (English Legal System) and Paper 2 (Criminal Law). The paper structural profiles ensured that while average students could secure pass marks through rote recall, reaching the highest grade boundaries demanded exceptional skills in applied legal analysis and critical evaluation.
Where the Marks Are Won
For Paper 1, the core marks were concentrated in the Section B essay questions. High-scoring candidates successfully structured their answers to transition from descriptive accounts (AO1) to sharp, balanced debates (AO3). For example, evaluating whether judicial precedent allows the law to develop required candidates to contrast the strict hierarchy of the courts against the flexibility of distinguishing and the Practice Statement 1966.
In Paper 2, the source-based questions on burglary and aggravated burglary under Section 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968 yielded maximum points to candidates who followed the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) model meticulously, citing the key provisions and authorities like B & S v Leathley and R v Kelly.
Examiner Pitfalls & Common Mistakes
A recurrent pitfall noted in Paper 2 was the inability of candidates to distinguish between s9(1)(a) and s9(1)(b) burglary. Many failed to realize that for s9(1)(a), the intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage must exist at the moment of entry as a trespasser, whereas s9(1)(b) focuses on what the defendant actually does or attempts to do once inside.
In Paper 1, candidates frequently struggled to explain the distinction between codification and consolidation when describing the roles of the Law Commission, or they merely listed the disadvantages of arbitration without contrasting them against other ADR formats.
Strategic Revision & Predictions
Future candidates must move away from simply memorizing lists of facts. Success in Paper 1 relies on writing structured, evaluative arguments. In Paper 2, absolute familiarity with statutory phrasing and direct case application is vital. Since non-fatal offences against the person and murder/manslaughter were absent in this series, they are highly predicted to feature as major focal areas in upcoming sittings.