Question 1

Believing that the Court of Appeal has the power to use the Practice Statement 1966 to depart from its own precedent.

Accepted Answer

Always state that the Practice Statement 1966 is exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal must follow its own decisions subject to the narrow exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane.

Question 2

Wasting valuable examination time by rewriting or paraphrasing detailed scenario facts in Paper 2 rather than directly analyzing them.

Accepted Answer

Get straight to the legal analysis by identifying the relevant statutory section, citing the provided case law authority, and directly applying it to the scenario characters.

Question 3

Applying the outdated subjective-objective tests of the Ghosh standard when evaluating criminal dishonesty.

Accepted Answer

Apply the simplified objective test established in Ivey v Genting Casinos and confirmed in R v Barton and Booth: determine the defendant's actual state of mind/beliefs first, and then evaluate whether their conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people.

Question 4

Failing to address the bipartite subjective test in Section 21(1) blackmail scenarios, specifically omitting the defendant's belief regarding proper means.

Accepted Answer

Always analyze both limbs of s21(1): whether the defendant believed they had reasonable grounds for making the demand AND whether they believed the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing it (applying R v Harvey).

Question 5

Conflating Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b) burglary under the Theft Act 1968.

Accepted Answer

Distinguish them clearly: under s9(1)(a), the intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage must exist at the time of entry; under s9(1)(b), the entry is a trespass and the intent or attempt to steal/inflict GBH is formed or committed once inside.

Question 6

Failing to evaluate parliamentary controls alongside judicial controls when asked to discuss controls over delegated legislation.

Accepted Answer

Ensure a balanced essay by addressing both Parliamentary controls (e.g., Joint Select Committee, affirmative/negative resolutions, Enabling Act limits) and Judicial controls (substantive and procedural ultra vires).

Question 7

Failing to treat multiple co-defendants individually in scenario questions, leading to a combined or generic legal analysis.

Accepted Answer

Analyze each suspect or character separately under their own subheading, assessing their specific actus reus, mens rea, and any applicable individual defences or sentencing rules.

ฉบับ	เวลา	คะแนน	จำนวนข้อ	น้ำหนักคะแนน	ประเภทคำถาม
Paper 1 English Legal System	1ชม. 30นาที	75	7	50%	Short recall/identification (1-2 marks), Structured description of structures/controls (6 marks), Discussive analytical essay (10 marks), Explain/describe procedural or rules framework (part a), Critically assess/discuss effectiveness (part b)
Paper 2 Criminal Law	1ชม. 30นาที	60	2	50%	Application of statutory and case source material to scenarios, Define/describe specific criminal law element/actus reus (part a), Evaluate effectiveness or fairness of specific penal statutes (part b)

Law (9084) เคล็ดลับการสอบ

ภาพรวมข้อสอบ

ข้อผิดพลาดที่พบบ่อย

เปลี่ยนเคล็ดลับให้เป็นเกรดดีเยี่ยม