Examiner's Review: May/June 2024 Law (9084) Series

The May/June 2024 series for 9084 Law offers a beautifully balanced set of papers testing both the structured mechanics of the English Legal System (Paper 12) and the rigorous, application-heavy requirements of Criminal Law (Paper 22). With an overall difficulty index of 3 stars out of 5, this series rewards candidates who combine precise memorisation of statutory rules and judicial precedent with analytical application to novel problem scenarios.

Where the Marks Were Won and Lost

In Paper 12 (English Legal System), the short-answer questions in Section A provided quick-win marks for students who could recall precise legal details, such as the specific names of regulatory bodies (e.g., the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board) and notable Practice Statement cases like Miliangos or Herrington. However, many candidates lost marks in Section B by presenting one-sided essays. For instance, in the Judicial Independence question (Q6), candidates often described the concept well (AO1) but failed to critically assess the "extent" of true independence (AO3), missing crucial judicial review examples (e.g., the Miller decisions) or academic critiques like Professor Griffiths' 'pro-establishment' view.

In Paper 22 (Criminal Law), Section A was highly focused on the Sentencing Council Guidelines for Aggravated Burglary. Excellent candidates methodically separated their answers into the structured steps required by the guidelines: first determining the offence category (harm vs. culpability) and then identifying aggravating and mitigating factors. The most common pitfall here was jumping straight to a concluding custodial term without demonstrating the step-by-step reasoning that examiners demand.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Generic Explanations: Avoid writing vague, non-legal essays. In Paper 12, Q8 (Civil Track Allocation), candidates who did not state the exact financial thresholds (e.g., Small Claims under \( £10,000 \), Fast Track \( £10,000 \) to \( £25,000 \)) could not access the higher mark bands.
  • Failing to Use the Source Material: In Paper 22 Section A, candidates must stick exclusively to the provided sentencing guide facts. Inventing external facts or general criminal law principles not requested in the scenario will lose you valuable application (AO2) marks.
  • Weak Statutory Citations: When evaluating Criminal Damage (Q2b) or Fraud (Q3b), failing to cite the specific sections (e.g., Section 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 or Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006) directly limits your AO1 potential.

Pro Strategy for Success

To master Paper 1, construct case tables categorised by topic (such as Practice Statement cases, Statutory Interpretation cases like Laroche v Spirit of Adventure, and Judicial Review cases). For Paper 2, practice the "IRAC" method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) with a timer. Section A requires you to act like a sentencing judge—your logic must be transparent, citing every applicable guideline factor explicitly.