Aatika Virani

Answer Booklet - Transcribed into Text

1 (a) Connor has just been swimming at a pool where he is a member. In the changing room there is a
screen with a sign which says, ‘Keep out – staff only’. Connor goes behind the screen and sees
a sports bag on the floor. As Connor reaches for the sports bag Magid appears. He says, ‘Stop.
Don’t touch my bag!’ Connor punches Magid so hard that he falls and breaks his arm. Connor
runs off with Magid’s sports bag.

Explain how the source material will apply to Connor. [10]

Aatika Virani - Sample Answer

In order to determine the charge that Conner might be liable with, we must first look at the issues
in this scenario. According to the scenario, the issues can be that whether Connor committed an
offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and theft, in relation to the incident where
he punched Magid and took his sports bag as well as whether Conner is guilty of burglary under
S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 after entering the area marked for staff only.

In order to advise Conner, we must first look at the definition of Burglary under S9(1)(b), which is
defined as entering a building or a part of a building as a trespasser and he steals or attempts to
steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person there grievous bodily harm
(ABH). Moreover, the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) is defined under S47
of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The elements of the offence are (i) an assault (ii)
which causes actual bodily harm, (iii) where the defendant intended or was reckless as to causing
harm. Theft is defined under S1 of the Theft Act 1968. The elements of the offence are (i) dishonest
appropriation, (ii) of property belonging to another, (iii) with the intention to permanently deprive the
other of it.

However, to establish whether Conner has committed an offence, we need to apply the elements of
actus reus and mens rea.

Actus reus (?) to the guilty act or conduct of the defendant. Conner went behind the screen which
had a sign saying “Keep out, Staff Only” and saw Magid’s sports bag on the floor. He reached for the
sports bag, but Magid appeared suddenly and ordered him to stop. However, Conner’s immediate
response was to punch Magid, causing him to fall and break his arm. Conner then ran off with Magid’s
sports bag. Here Conner’s actions clearly demonstrates that he indeed had the actus reus, i.e, the
guilty act, of pushing Magid and stealing his sports bag.

Moving on, if we talk about whether Conner had the mens rea. In this case, the mens rea can be
referred to as when Conner went behind the screen, which had a sign saying “Keep out, Staff Only”.
Which clearly shows he knew that was not allowed to go there yet, he still did. Moreover, when he
saw Magid’s sports bag on the floor and actually attempted to steal it, which also clearly indicates
that he had intention to commit theft. Furthermore, when Connor punched Magid after he ordered
him to stop, this violent response indicated that Conner had the intention to cause harm to Magid.
Therefore, Conner had the mens rea i.e, the guilty mind, to commit the offence.

The situation is similar to the case of R v Walkington, where D went behind a centre in a large store
and opened a still drawer. The counter was moveable, but occupied a clearly identified area. It was
empty and he slammed it shut. D was convicted for burglary as he entered the area as a trespasser
because the area was clearly identified as not for public use.

Page 6 of Input
Taking into account the case of R v Walkington and linking it with the case of R v Conner, we will
argue in a way that Conner’s act of going behind the screen was therefore a trespass just like we
saw in the case of R v Walkington. Therefore, Conner is mostly likely to be convicted for burglary.
Moreover, his subsequent act of reaching for Magid’s sports bag was an appropriation of Magid’s
property and Conner’s intention to permanently deprive Magid of his property is evidenced by the
fact that he ran off with the bag after punching Magid, which may further lead to Conner being liable
for theft.

Furthermore, Conner’s act of punching Magid caused him to suffer a broken arm. Which is an in-
stance of actual bodily harm and this violent act was intentional and had no lawful excuse for using
any violence, Conner will most likely be held liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

In conclusion to Conner’s case, the court will hold Conner liable for the offence of assault occasioning
actual bodily harm (ABH), burglary, and theft. Moreover, the specifics of the charges will depend on
the evidence and the prosecutor’s assessment of the situation.

Some Thoughts By Me (Nilou Phua)

(1) Firstly, I think the answer is very well written. It delivers the main concept and ideas of what the
question is trying to ask. Furthermore, this person used a really good connection with the legal
case of R v Walkington, which is generally something that markers would typically want to see
since inferring to (legal) cases can award one with really high marks.

(2) Secondly, I think this answer could benefit from some twitching - some sentences could be a bit
more coherent. While the answer is fine as the main idea is there, twitching some sentences
may be beneficial for the marker’s convenience - some sentences are a tad bit difficult for me
to understand.

(3) I generally feel like this answer would score somewhere in the higher bands as it fulfills all of
the assessment objectives. The person who wrote this answer is also able to apply the rule
into action, which is something that a lot of candidates miss out on since it is an assessment
objective (AO3) - although AO3 (application) usually isn’t assessed in Paper 2 of Law.

Page 7 of Input