ADDITIONAL PAST EXAMINATION PAPER – ‘MOCK’ EXAM

Suggested solution

This is provided as an aid to revision. Answer guidance will be provided after the
teaching programme has finished.

You may wish to use this past paper as a ‘mock’ exam, by completing it under timed
conditions (1 hour) without reference to your revision notes and materials. You can
then compare your completed test with the answer guidance provided.

A blank answer sheet of the type you will use to indicate your answers is also
provided, plus a completed answer key.
MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS & LAW
MANCHESTER LAW SCHOOL

EXAMINATION FOR THE GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH AND HONG KONG

LAW

ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM TEST

MOCK EXAM 2020-2021

SOLUTION

Time allowed: 1 hour

Answer ALL questions.

Each question is worth 4 marks.
Section One

Use the additional material provided below to answer the questions in section 1.

In 2012, the Home Secretary, Theresa Might, introduced a new bill into Parliament.
She said:

"We have seen a new fashion phenomomen in recent years which I regret to say has
had an impact on our crime statistics. I refer to the “hoodie” – these fleecy tops with
hoods which are now everywhere. Young people wearing hooded tops – these so-
called ‘hoodies’ – have become the scourge of our city centres. They use the disguise
of the hood to intimidate honest and decent citizens, and rampage about committing
crimes, knowing they can’t be distinguished by CCTV cameras. We intend to put a
stop to that with this bill, and reclaim the streets for law-abiding people.”

The bill went through Parliament and became the following Act:

Hooded Tops (Prohibition) Act 2012

C. 40
AN ACT to prohibit the wearing of hooded tops by young people in city centres
[10 June 2012]

Offence of wearing a 1. It shall be an offence to wear a hooded upper garment

hooded top
with its hood raised in any public place within a two
mile radius of a city centre.

Interpretation 2. For the purposes of this Act, public place shall be

defined as any shop, shopping centre, library, car-park,
arcade or precinct.

Punishment for 3. The offence of wearing a hooded top shall be triable

wearing a hooded top
summarily only and punishable by a maximum fine of
£1000.

Short title and 4. This Act may be cited as the Hooded Tops (Prohibition)
commencement
Act 2012. It shall come into force on such date as the
minister shall appoint.
 A. R v LIGHTWOOD

Following the implementation of the offence, Len Lightwood, a 19-year old student, is
wearing a hooded top with the hood raised as he drives to university, which is situated
1.5 miles from Personchester city centre. He parks in a lay-by near the university
premises, and as he gets out of the car, he is arrested by PC Forsyth, and is charged
under section 1 of the Act.

Len Lightwood is convicted on the basis that he was wearing a hooded top in a
public place. He appeals by way of case stated on the point of law of whether a lay-
by can be considered a “public place” under the Act, to the Divisional Court of the
Queen’s Bench Division.

The appeal is heard by Mrs Justice Brilliant, who states:

“The question before us is whether a lay-by can be considered to be a

public place, which under section 2 is defined as any shop, shopping
centre, library, car-park, arcade or precinct. Clearly the only possibility
here is whether the lay-by can be considered to be a car-park; it certainly
isn’t a shop or a library. The prosecution has argued that since Len
parked his car in the lay-by, it must by definition be a car-park. I must
disagree. I admit that a car-park is a word which is capable of having
more than one meaning, but by a long-established convention of the
construction of statutes, I must construe the intended meaning of the
word car-park according to the ‘company it keeps’. Shops, shopping
centres, libraries, arcades: these are all broadly indoor public places;
covered places. I find that in these circumstances the meaning of the
work car-park in the context of the Act means the type of covered, multi-
storey building we are familiar with in our city centres. Should I have had
to judge whether an open air car-park is included, I would have found
that it was not; a lay-by certainly is not. The argument that a place
becomes a car-park because a car is parked there makes my drive-way
a car-park! I must allow this appeal.”
1. What is the Divisional Court doing in relation to the ruling of the trial court in this
case?
A. Affirming it
B. Approving it
C. Overruling it
D. Reversing it
Explanation: First, we need to identify an appeal term. This means we
can eliminate B and C which are precedent terms. Then we need to work
out whether the appeal is denied (affirming – i.e. the appeal court agrees
with the trial court) or allowed (reversing – i.e. the appeal court disagrees
with the trial court). We can see the appeal is allowed from the quotation.
Therefore this means that the appeal court has reversed the ruling of the
trial court.

2. What aid to construction is Brilliant J adopting in interpreting the word ‘car-park’?

A. Per incuriam
B. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
C. Noscitur a sociis
D. Res judicata
Explanation: Here the judge interprets one word with more than one possible
meaning, and construes the appropriate meaning by reference to the other
related words (the ‘company it keeps’) – whether the word car-park includes
something like a layby is construed with reference to shopping centres etc. This
corresponds to noscitur a sociis.

3. Which of the following would you consider to be a narrow obiter line of

reasoning in Brilliant J’s ruling?
A. That the conviction does not stand
B. That an open air car-park is not covered by the Act
C. That a lay-by is not covered by the Act
D. That Lightwood is not guilty
Explanation: We can eliminate A and D straight away as these look more like
decision (i.e. the outcome of the case, whereas we know we are looking for a
 line of reasoning). B and C are both lines of reasoning. Then we can look for
what actually decides the case – which is C (since the facts of the case involve
a lay-by). Therefore C must be a form of ratio in the case. The question asks
for a line of obiter reasoning, so we are looking for something that is ‘by the
way’. An open air car-park is not the circumstance at issue, yet the judge gives
reasoning in relation to it anyway – so this must be ‘by the way’. Therefore it is
obiter dictum, as it is not needed to decide the case.

4. What is the status of the ruling in R v Lightwood as a precedent?

A. The ratio is binding on all courts
B. The ratio is binding on the Court of Appeal and lower courts
C. The ratio is highly persuasive in the High Court and binding on lower courts
D. The ratio is not binding on any court
Explanation: Here we need to identify the court, in this case the High Court,
and therefore understand the precedent value of an authority from the High
Court. Clearly under the rules of doctrine of vertical precedent, we know that
courts above the High Court cannot be bound by a precedent from the High
Court – therefore we can eliminate A and B, since that would involve courts
higher than the High Court, which is wrong. That leaves us with C and D. Here,
we simply need to know whether the High Court has any precedent value at all
(for example, on lower courts): it does, so we can eliminate D. Therefore C is
the correct answer - the High Court is not bound by its own decisions but will
follow them whenever possible, and lower courts must follow them.

B. R v ALLEN
Aleysha Allen is shopping in the Personchester Shopping Centre. She is wearing an
anorak with a hood, and as it is raining, she puts up the hood whilst inside the shopping
centre, prior to walking out into the street. She is arrested by PC Daley and charged
under section 1 of the Act.

Aleysha is convicted on the basis that she is wearing a “hooded upper garment”
under the definition in section 1. She appeals on the issue of whether an anorak
can be considered a ‘hooded top’ and her appeal, on this important point of law,
reaches the Supreme Court. Mr Pompous QC, acting for Aleysha, wishes to
introduce Theresa Might’s statement to Parliament in support of Aleysha’s appeal.

The leading judgment in the appeal is given by Lord Concise, who states:
“I find this an extraordinarily difficult piece of legislation to interpret. I think
we have to look further than the plain words of the statute to find
Parliament’s intention. I find the comments of the minister in Parliament,
cited to me by Mr Pompous, extremely helpful in resolving this dilemma.
The problem the Act was trying to solve was clearly that of hooligans in
‘hoodies’. I might add that I do not believe that raising a hood for a few
moments prior to stepping out into the rain is within the scope of the Act
either but I do not need to make a finding on that. Aleysha is neither a
hooligan nor was she wearing a hoodie. She was wearing an anorak.
She is not guilty.”

5. Which approach to statutory interpretation does Lord Concise appear to be

rejecting in the above extract?
A. Golden rule
B. Literal rule
C. Mischief rule
D. Purposive approach
Explanation: Lord Concise says “I think we have to look further than the plain
words of the statute to find Parliament’s intention” – this means he is rejecting
the literal rule, which required the court to look at nothing more than the plain
ordinary meaning (or in appropriate cases, the technical legal meaning) of the
words in the statute.

6. Which of the following comes closest to your understanding of the ratio of

Lord Concise’s speech?
A. The Act is difficult to interpret
B. Anoraks are not hooded tops under the Act
C. The statement of a minister in Parliament is a good guide to Parliament’s
intention
D. Raising a hood prior to going out in rain does not breach the Act
 Explanation: Here we can eliminate anything which is not a proposition of
law capable of being the ratio ie A and C, which are both general statements.
That leaves us with B and D – one of which is likely to be ratio, and the other
obiter. So then we look at which one decided the case (which must be ratio).
Lord Concise says “I do not need to make a finding on that” about the point
represented by D. He has decided the case based on the fact that she is not
wearing a hoodie but an anorak. This makes B the ratio of the case.

7. Looking specifically at Lord Concise’s statement “I do not believe that raising

a hood for a few moments prior to stepping out into the rain is within the
scope of the Act”, what do you consider to be the precedent value of this
comment?
A. It is binding on all courts lower than the Supreme Court
B. It is highly persuasive for all courts
C. It binding on all courts including the Supreme Court
D. It has no precedent value
Explanation: The explanation to the previous question identifies that this
statement is obiter, so this question is asking for the precedent value of obiter
from the Supreme Court. Obiter is never binding, so we can eliminate A and
C straight away. Obiter does have precedent value (eliminating D) but it is
only ever persuasive: and the more senior the court, the more persuasive it
will be, so the answer is B.

C. R v BLUSTER
Bruno Bluster, a 20-year old with convictions for assault, taking and driving away a
vehicle, shoplifting and vandalism, and who has had several anti-social behaviour
orders served on him in the past, possesses a garment which is a padded jacket on
the outside and a hooded top on the inside. The jacket and top can be worn
separately or zipped together. He is wearing both garments zipped together in
Personchester Shopping Arcade and has had just put the hood up prior to attempting
to rob a jeweller’s shop when he is arrested by PC Forsyth. Bruno’s subsequent
arrest, conviction and appeal to the Supreme Court are recorded in an internet diary
“I’m a hooligan, get me out of here”.
His appeal comes before the Supreme Court, where the leading judgment is given
by Lord Waffle of Nonsense, President. He states:

I must carefully consider the authority of this House in the case of R v

Allen. My noble friend Lord Concise stated that the Act was designed
to outlaw hooligans in these so-called ‘hoodies’. Bruno is clearly a
hooligan – he admits as much – but rather more obscure is the
question of whether he was wearing a ‘hoodie’. In my view the words
on the face of the Act are clear; the offence applies to any hooded
upper garment. I find it regrettable that the House in R v Allen felt it
necessary to disregard the plain words of the statute. We sit here to
interpret what Parliament said, not speculate on what they might have
meant. I would not have been so ready to dismiss an anorak as
exempt from the Act. Fortunately, the circumstances here are in any
case entirely different. Bruno may have been wearing a jacket rather
than an anorak – I leave aside the question of whether there is a
distinction between these two garments – but he was certainly wearing
a hoodie zipped underneath it. He is most certainly, I am relieved to
say, guilty.

8. What is the relationship between the cases of R v Allen and R v Bluster?

A. Bluster overrules Allen

B. Bluster applies Allen
C. Bluster approves Allen
D. Bluster distinguishes Allen
Explanation: This is a matter of reading the extract carefully (and of
course knowing the meaning of the terms). Lord Waffle does make
some critical comments about the ruling in Allen, but then goes on to
make it clear that the circumstances of this case are different – this is
why he does not adopt the reasoning and ratio of Allen. Therefore he
is distinguishing the case.
In the same appeal, Lord Pillar of Establishment, adds:
I agree that Bluster is guilty. The aim of the Act in question was to
solve the problem of hooligans trying to disguise themselves in order to
commit crimes. To interpret the statute to acquit Bruno Bluster would
be entirely failing to fulfil Parliament’s intention: he is exactly the sort of
person for whom this Act was placed on our statute books!

9. Comparing the opinions of Lord Waffle and Lord Pillar, which of the following
statements comes closest to your view of the approach to statutory
interpretation each adopts?
A. Lord Waffle is using the literal rule and Lord Pillar the mischief rule
B. Lord Waffle is using the mischief rule and Lord Pillar the literal rule
C. Both are using the mischief rule
D. Both are using the literal rule
Explanation: Lord Waffle clearly wants to use the plain words of the statute, so
this is the literal approach. We do not have much information to go on for Lord
Pillar, but he is referencing the ‘problem the act was designed to fix’ – which
therefore suggests a mischief approach as the best answer.

10. Which of the following comes closest to your view of the decision in this case?
A. Bruno Bluster is convicted of the offence
B. Anoraks and jackets are similar
C. Wearing a hoodie underneath a jacket breaches the Act
D. Parliament intended that hooligans should be treated differently

Explanation: Here we need to identify the outcome or result, so A is

correct. The other statements are more like propositions or reasoning.
Section 2
These questions do not relate to the additional materials.

11. Which of the following was achieved by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005?

A. Relaxing of the rules of horizontal precedent

B. Creation of the Supreme Court
C. Allowance of reference to Hansard in court proceedings
D. Introduction of Human Rights principles into domestic law
Explanation: This question tests your knowledge of the sources of certain
principles of the English Legal System. A – this principle comes from the
Practice Statement 1966 (in respect of the Supreme Court) and Young v
Bristol Aeroplanes in the Court of Appeal. C comes from the case of Pepper v
Hart. D is the Human Rights Act 1998. The correct answer is B.

12. Which of the following statements is NOT a true statement about the system
of law in England and Wales?

A. It is based on the concept of Common Law

B. It operates a doctrine of precedent
C. The most important laws are enacted in the form of Codes
D. The most senior court is described as the Supreme Court
Explanation: Note the negative in this question – we are looking for
three true statements. The English Legal System is a Common Law
system rather than a Civil System, and this means it operates a
doctrine of precedent, so both A and B are true. Your knowledge of the
court hierarchy should enable you to identify D as also true. This
points us to C as the correct answer (ie the only untrue statement) and
Codes are a feature of Civil Law systems rather than Common Law
systems therefore this statement is indeed untrue.

13. Which of the following is a function of a criminal case?

A. Provision of a remedy for a wronged party

B. Establishment of the truth
 C. Protection of minority interests
D. Punishment of a guilty party
Explanation: again, this is testing your basic knowledge. A is a possible
function of a civil case rather than a criminal case. B and C are not functions
of a criminal case (B perhaps surprisingly; the function is indeed to establish
whether or not the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but not, for
example, to establish who else is guilty if the defendant is not guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore establishment of the truth cannot be the function).

14. Before which judicial personnel would a trial on indictment be most likely to be
heard at first instance?

A. A circuit judge
B. A district judge
C. A Justice of the Peace
D. A Justice of the Supreme Court

Explanation: This is testing your knowledge of the term ‘trial on indictment’

and which judges sit in which court. We are looking for a judge who would sit
in the Crown Court, as this is where a trial on indictment must take place.
Note also the instruction ‘most likely’ – as some levels of judges do sit in more
than one court. A district judge is most likely to sit in the County Court (or
Family Court). A JP sits in the Magistrates Court. A Supreme Court Justice
obviously sits in the Supreme Court. A circuit judge sits in the Crown Court, or
may also sit in the High Court or County Court. It is most likely that a Crown
Court trial would be before a circuit judge.

15. Which court would be the trial court in proceedings of a summary-only offence?

A. County Court
B. Crown Court
C. High Court
D. Magistrates Court
Explanation: A summary-only trial must be tried in the magistrates court.
16. Which of the following statements best represents where the burden of proof
lies in criminal and civil cases?

A. In a civil case the burden is on the claimant, and in a criminal case, the
defendant
B. In a civil case the burden is on the claimant, and in a criminal case, the
prosecution
C. In a civil case the burden is on the defendant, and in a criminal case, the
prosecution
D. In a civil case the burden is on the defendant, and in a criminal case, also
on the defendant
Explanation: a matter of reading the question carefully and getting the burdens
the right way round. B is correct.

17. Which of the following statements best represents the current relationship
between the English Legal System and European Union Law now the United
Kingdom has left the European Union (“Brexit”)?

A. The current position is unchanged, and the future position is uncertain

pending the terms on which the UK leaves the EU
B. The current position is unchanged, and in future the jurisdiction of the
European Court of Human Rights will be reduced
C. The UK is no longer subject to rulings from the European Court of Justice
following the referendum vote
D. Human Rights issues can no longer be pleaded in UK courts following the
referendum vote
Explanation: remember that we are testing you on the basis that the UK is
no longer a member of the European Union at the time of your test, but that
no major changes have taken place yet as the transitional period is not yet
complete. The crucial thing to appreciate here is that, for now, the legal
position is unchanged. The referendum and formally leaving has changed
nothing in respect of the legal relationship between the UK and EU for now.
Therefore we can eliminate C and D which suggest there has already been a
legal change: there has not. The next thing to remember is that changes in
 the legal relationship following the UK’s departure will affect (though we do not
yet know in what way) the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, rather
than the European Court of Human Rights (leaving the EU will not of itself
reduce the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human
Rights), so we can also eliminate B. The nature of the UK’s departure will
determine the future relationship in relation to the ECJ (whether there is a
negotiated ‘deal’ and the terms of that ‘deal). Therefore A is the correct
answer here.

18. Which of the following is another name for delegated legislation?

A. Codifying legislation
B. Government legislation
C. Private Members’ legislation
D. Secondary legislation

Explanation: codifying legislation, Government legislation, and Private

members legislation are all terms that relate to primary legislation (ie
statutes). Government legislation may also include delegated
legislation, but it is not what the term exclusively means. Secondary
legislation is the term that corresponds exactly to delegated legislation.

19. Which case contains the criteria for deciding whether a statement made in
Parliament can be introduced in court?

A. Pepper v Hart
B. Donoghue v Stevenson
C. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd
D. British Railways Board v Herrington
Explanation: there are a few key cases that we expect you to know as the
source of key principles of the English Legal System. Pepper v Hart (the
correct answer here) is one; Young v Bristol Aeroplanes (which sets out the
principles by which the Court of Appeal may depart from its own previous
ratios) is another. Donoghue v Stevenson and British Railways Board v
Herrington are cases we have used to illustrate certain principles.
20. Which one of the following comes closest to your view of what is denoted by
the date underneath the long title of an Act of Parliament?

A. The date of the first reading of the Bill

B. The date on which the Bill became an Act
C. The date on which the Minister enacted any delegated legislation required
by the Act
D. The date on which it became an offence to contravene the Act
Explanation: This question is testing knowledge of two things: at what point
a Bill becomes an Act (which is the Royal Assent date) and where on the face
of an Act this date is located. The date of first reading is not indicated in the
text of an Act (we would find that information in Hansard) and similarly, the
date of any delegated legislation would be confirmed later and would be found
on the delegated legislation itself, rather than the Act. The date on which it
becomes an offence to contravene the Act – this is of couse applicable to
criminal statutes only. This would be the date on which the legislation comes
into legal force. This might be on the Royal Assent date, or it might be at a
later date, but this information is not indicated underneath the long title – it
would be set out within the Act.

21. At which stage of the passage of a bill through Parliament will there be a
debate on the principle of the Bill?

A. First reading
B. Second reading
C. Committee stage
D. Report stage
Explanation: refer to your notes on what happens at each stage of the
passage of a Bill for more detail, but in brief: the first reading is a paper
exercise, the publication of the Bill; the second reading is the debate in
principle; the Committee stage is the detailed line-by-line consideration by a
smaller group of MPs; the report stage is when any changes proposed by the
Committee return for consideration by the House.
22. What does Stare decisis mean?

A. The reason for the decision

B. The thing said in passing or by the way
C. Stand by what has been decided
D. Beyond the powers
Explanation: this is testing your understanding of certain Latin terms that are
essential knowledge. A – this is the meaning of ratio decidendi. B is obiter
dictum. C is the correct answer. D is ultra vires.

23. Which of the following terms describes the concept that the parties to a case
are bound by its outcome once all avenues of appeal are exhausted?

A. Obiter dictum
B. Res judicata
C. Per incuriam
D. Ratio decidendi

Explanation: more essential Latin terminology! A and D are explained

above. B is the correct answer here. C means ‘decided in ignorance’ (see
your notes on the principles in Young v Bristol Aeroplanes for more on this
term).

24. Which of the following statements about horizontal precedent is false?

A. The Practice Statement 1966 was introduced in order to give the House of
Lords more flexibility in relation to horizontal precedent
B. The Practice Statement 1966 now governs horizontal precedent in the
Supreme Court
C. Horizontal precedent in the Court of Appeal is governed by the case of
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd
D. Horizontal precedent in the High Court is governed by the case of
Donoghue v Stevenson
 Explanation: Note this question is asking you for the FALSE answer. A,
B and C are all true statements about precedent.

25. The appeal of Mr Parker who unsuccessfully sued Mr Salim for negligence
has been reported at page 202 of the 2nd volume of the Weekly Law Reports for
2012. Which of the following represents the written form of the citation for this
case?
A. Parker v Salim [2012] 2 WLR 202
B. Salim v Parker [2012] 2 WLR 202
C. R v Parker [2012] 2 WLR 202
D. R (on the application of Parker) v Salim [2012] 2 WLR 202

Explanation: This is testing your knowledge of the correct way to set out a
case citation, including knowledge of which party name goes first in a clear-
cut situation, and the type of case. (Note that Mr Parker is both the claimant
at first instance and the appellant on appeal, so there is no doubt that his
name goes first – though the ordering of party names can get more
complicated in some circumstances, which we do not expect you to know for
the purposes of the test.) C is the format for a criminal case, and D is the
format for a judicial review case.