Exam Practice Answers AQA

My Revision Notes: AQA A-level Law second edition: Exam
Practice Answers
Chapter 1 The nature of law and the English legal system

Page 58
1 Proposed new legislation affecting the whole of the country, but which is promoted by a minority interest group, is most
likely to be brought to Parliament as a:
C Private Members’ Bill
2 A local council intends to introduce a law banning dogs from walking on beaches in its area in the summer months. From
the following list, choose the best form of legislation for the council to use:
C By-law
3 Which statement most accurately describes the effect of an EU treaty on UK law?

B It automatically becomes part of UK law.
4 Which of the following statements about magistrates in criminal trials is correct?

C Magistrates can send convicted citizens to prison.
5 In the criminal courts, which one of the following judges will not sit in the Crown Court to hear indictable cases?
D High Court Judge
‘Short answer’ 5-mark questions

6 Explain what is meant by a Private Members’ bill and how they are introduced to Parliament.
Private Members' bills are public bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not government ministers. Their purpose is to
change the law as it applies to the general population.
Like other public bills, Private Members' bills can be introduced in either House and must go through the same set stages.
To introduce a bill in the House of Commons a Member needs to provide its short title (by which it is known) and its long
title (which describes briefly what it does).
There are three ways of introducing Private Members' bills in the House of Commons: the Ballot, the Ten Minute Rule and
Presentation.
The Ballot
The names of Members applying for a bill are drawn in a ballot
Ten Minute Rule
Ten Minute Rule bills are often an opportunity for Members to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing
legislation, rather than a serious attempt to get a bill passed.
Presentation
Members formally introduce the title of the bill but do not speak in support of it - they rarely become law.
7 Explain two differences between the civil and criminal law.
Criminal laws create criminal offences and punish those who commit them. These laws attract the attention of the Criminal
Justice.
The Crown prosecutes the defendant. The defendant may be found guilty, provided the jury/magistrates have no
reasonable doubt.
Civil laws create rights that are enforceable between private individuals. This means that enforcement agencies such as the
police do not get involved in these laws. Civil laws therefore do not aim to punish but to compensate those whose rights
have been violated.
The claimant can sue the defendant. The defendant may be found liable on the balance of probabilities.
There are courts that specialise in civil law.
Page 59
8 Explain two advantages and one disadvantage of using juries in criminal courts.
Answers could include:
Advantage:
• Public confidence
• Jury equity upholds democracy
MRN AQA A-level Law 2nd edition 1 © Hodder & Stoughton Limited 2022
Disadvantage
• Slow and expensive
9 Explain two of the key roles of a barrister as a member of the legal profession.
• Represent clients in serious criminal trials in Crown Court
• Act as a specialist legal adviser
10-mark questions
Page 59
10 Explain how a barrister’s work is regulated.
Answer could include:
Barristers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board, whose duties include:
• Setting the education and training requirements of barristers and continuing training requirements throughout
their career
• Setting the standards of conduct for barristers
• Monitoring the service provided by barristers
• Handling complaints against barristers, taking disciplinary action where required.
11 Explain the process of passing an Act of Parliament starting in the House of Commons.
• A new law making its way through the formal stages of becoming an Act of Parliament is known as a bill. Normally a bill
will start in the House of Commons.
• The bill has its ‘First reading’ in the House of Commons. Here the short title of the bill is read out and an order to print
the bill is made.
• The bill has its ‘Second reading’ in the House of Commons. This is the first opportunity for MPs to debate the bill. If it is a
government bill, the government will open the debate and the opposition will respond. A vote is taken at the end to decide
if the bill will continue to the next stage.
• The bill goes to ‘Committee stage’ and is discussed. A small committee of all-party MPs debate and suggest amendments
to the bill. The bill is reprinted to reflect the changes.
• The bill goes to the ‘Report stage’. The potentially amended bill is debated by the full House of Commons MPs. Further
amendments can be suggested and is usually immediately followed by the ‘Third reading’.
• The bill has its ‘Third reading’ in the House of Commons. The final debate in the Commons is on purely what is in the final
bill post-Report stage. No amendments are suggested or considered. A final vote is taken and if successful passes to the
House of Lords to debate.
• The above stages are repeated in the House of Lords, although at Committee stage any member of the House can take
part.
• If approved, the bill is given Royal Assent and the bill becomes law, or certain parts may be phased in over time.
15-mark questions
12 Examine the meaning of ‘justice’ and discuss the extent to which (application of the rules on sexual infidelity in the loss
of control defence) may achieve justice.

The different possible meanings ‘of justice,’ for example, justice in terms of basic fairness or equality of treatment.
The rules of natural justice
The theories of justice, eg distributive justice, utilitarianism and social justice and how they have been embedded
within the legal system.
The philosophies behind the theories and the thinkers who have explained them e.g. Aristotle, Marx, Bentham, Rawls etc.
Procedural justice and how legal institutions, such as the courts and the judiciary work to achieve justice.
How the law has been developed in order to achieve justice, for example, miscarriages of justice and the development of
the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
(Analysis of the substantive element – eg partial defence, case development – Clinton etc)
13 Examine the meaning and significance of ‘fault’ within criminal law and discuss the extent to which offences of strict
liability criminalise those who are not at ‘fault’.

The meaning of fault within criminal law in actus reus - voluntariness Hill v Baxter, causation, omissions.
The meaning of fault within criminal law in mens rea and the distinction between intention and recklessness.
The meaning of and examples of strict liability offences such as offences relating to food hygiene (e.g. Smedleys v Breed),
pollution (e.g. Alphacell v Woodward), the protection of under-age children (e.g. Harrow v Shah)
The significance of fault within specific areas of law in order to demonstrate how they indicate the presence or absence of
fault and levels of fault e.g. murder and defences.
The notion of levels of fault, the relevance of blameworthiness to sentencing, etc.
The significance of fault as a marker of blame which imposes responsibility, and therefore justifies imposition of penalties
or sanctions with reference to utilitarianism/protection of the pubic from harm
The extent to which strict liability offences criminalise those who are at fault e.g. mens rea being present for part of the
offence (e.g. R v Prince)
Chapter 2 Criminal Law

Page 103
1 Which of the following statements about strict liability offences is false?

A D cannot be guilty of a strict liability offences if she was not negligent.
2 Which one of the following statements about the defence of insanity is true?
B The defence cannot succeed if D understood the nature and quality of his act.
3 Which of the following statements about theft is true?

D Belonging to another can include a person who has temporary control of the property such as a garage or cloakroom
attendant.
4 Which of the following statements about robbery is false?

D Robbery is a basic intent crime.
5 Which of the following statements about self-defence are false?

B The defence will not operate where a person ‘throws the first punch’ to avoid conflict.
Short answer 5-mark questions

6 Explain the doctrine of transferred malice. Illustrate your answer with cases.

• Definition of transferred malice stating that mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.
• The limits of transferred malice; it only applies to crimes of the same kind – use examples eg asualt and criminal
damage
• Relevant cases Latimer, Pembliton.
7 Alan borrowed a book from his friend Balsem a week ago. Balsem asks for the book back, but Alan says he has given it to
her mother ‘yesterday’. In fact, Alan still has the book. An hour later, feeling guilty, he gives the book to Balsem’s mother.
Suggest why, in law, Alan probably did not commit the mens rea of theft when he returned the book.
• Alan appears dishonest in saying he has ‘given it to his mother’
• However, whether he had an intent to permanently deprive seems unlikely as he probably didn’t have an intent
as he gives it to Balsem’s mother having felt ‘guilty’.
8 Kaira intended to throw acid at Laboni’s face. She hid in a shop doorway and as Laboni approached, Kaira threw the acid
at her. Laboni suffered serious burns as a result.
Identify and explain the actus reus of the offence Kaira is likely to be charged with.
Answers could include

• Use of the word ‘serious’ indicates Grievous bodily harm.
• Actus reas defined as ‘really serious harm’ – appropriate cases in support Smith, Bollom, Brown & Stratton, Burstow
and Dhaliwal.
• The indirect element may be referred to using DPP v Kay in support.
• Use of the word ‘intended’ means this is likely to be prosecuted as a s18 offence – could be argued that intending
tothrow is not the same as intending to cause serious harm and so bith direct and oblique intent should be discussed
– potentially look at lesser intent and s20.
9 ‘The defence of the prevention of crime under s 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 is clear and unambiguous.’
Examine the truth behind this statement.
Answers may include:
• All or nothing approach and harshness in murder cases
• Danger of an apparently two-tier defence if citizens and those with public duty are treated differently
• A moral defence can be very difficult to interpret
• Could be used to help battered women, as in the USA, but danger of carte blanche for force
• Allowing householders to use ‘disproportionate force’ is a dramatic shift in law
• Problem of allowing pre-emptive strike
• Is it fair to expect someone feeling vulnerable to only use reasonable force?
• Need to discourage vigilante justice
10-mark questions
Page 103
10 William has been threatened by his girlfriend, Delia, that unless he steals a very expensive painting from an art gallery,
she will pour paint over his neighbour’s car. She says that she will tell the neighbour it was William who did it. The last time
Delia threatened William, she persuaded her brother, who has a series of convictions for violence, to punch William in the
face. William reluctantly steals the painting but is arrested by the police while he tries to escape.
Advise William on whether he could avoid criminal liability for the theft/burglary by pleading duress by threats.
• No threat of death or serious injury – paint over car
• No apparent close relationship between William and neighbour
• Graham test unlikely to be satisfied
• Nexus established between threat and crime committed – theft
• No connection between William and brother
• Opportunity to notify authorities before theft?
11 Ranya has fallen out with Saachi and decides to teach her a lesson. Ranya hides behind a wall and as Saachi passes,
Ranya sticks her foot out to trip Saachi. Saachi’s leg makes contact with Ranya’s foot and she does trip. The trip causes
Saachi to fall and she bangs her head, resulting in mild concussion.
Identify and apply the elements of the offence Ranya is likely to be charged with.
• Mild concussion suggests 247 ABH.
• Actus reus – explore the elements – identify the leg contact as the initial battery – ie application of force Ireland
• Mens rea of battery is satisfied when the decision to trip Saachi is taken – this is likely to be intent, but explore
oblique and recklessness too
• The fall and head bang could impact on the chain of causation – however, they are foreseeable consequences so
whilst working through the rules of causation you are likely to conclude that the chain is in tact. Key cases Blaue,
Pagett, Roberts
• The resulting harm lift the offence to s47 if causation is established – key case Chan Fook
• The mens reas required for ABH is that of the initial offence, so the mens rea for battery will suffice - Roberts.
15-mark questions
Page 104
13 Hope is at a party when she sees her ex-boyfriend. He pins her against the wall and says: ‘Get out of this house or I’ll do
you in!’ Hope, who is holding a bottle of beer, smashes it against his face, causing a deep cut to his cheek.
Suggest why, in law, Hope will be able to successfully raise the defence of self-defence against a charge of wounding under
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Hope is female and pinned against a wall so self-defence could be necessary
• Hope’s use of force may or may not be reasonable as she uses a weapon to defend herself causing a serious injury
• Test of reasonableness is a subjective test – did Hope have a genuine belief in the circumstance to use force?
• Was the force reasonable as she was pinned against the wall?
• The amount of force must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances – would a reasonable person think Hope’s
force was reasonable or excessive?
30-mark questions
14 Denzel was furious as his neighbour, Victor, had blocked his drive. He banged on Victor’s door. Victor began to open the
door but when he saw who was there, he tried to close it again. Denzel pushed the door hard, Victor fell back and hit his
head on a coat peg in the hallway. When the ambulance arrived, the crew dropped Victor on the way to the vehicle. On
arrival at hospital, Victor was misdiagnosed with mild concussion. The following day, he died from brain damage. The
effects of the concussion were more serious for him because he suffered from brittle bone disease, which meant that his
skull did not adequately protect his brain.
Consider the criminal liability of Denzel for the involuntary manslaughter of Victor (including whether there was a break in
the chain of causation).

• Denzel could be liable for involuntary manslaughter, for example, unlawful act manslaughter.
• Actus reus: Denzel is likely to have caused a criminal act (indirect battery, for example) when he forces Victor’s door
(Franklin, Lowe).
• Actus reus: Denzel’s act is dangerous, in that a sober and reasonable person would realise that forcing the door would
subject Victor to the risk of physical harm, though not necessarily serious harm, whether or not Denzel realised this
(Church).
• Actus reus: Victor’s unlawful and dangerous act must cause (factually and legally) Victor’s death, and this is so in this
situation as he has died of his head injury as a result of falling backwards when Denzel forced his door (Carey).
• The mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is that of the unlawful act. If the unlawful act is battery, for example, then
Denzel must have intended to apply the unlawful force or was reckless as to applying the force. It looks likely that if he
didn’t intend to apply the force, he must surely have seen a risk of this since Victor was right behind the door when it
was forced open.
• There may be a novus actus interveniens in the form of third-party intervention when the ambulance crew dropped
Victor, although this is unlikely to break the chain (Pagett Smith).
• There may be a novus actus interveniens in the form of the misdiagnosis at the hospital; if this can be seen as
‘palpably wrong’ then it could break the chain (Cheshire Jordan).
• There may be a novus actus interveniens in the form of the thin skull rule as Victor has ‘brittle bone disease’, a specific
medical condition that could break the chain (Blaue).
Page 104
15 Shauna and her partner Luca live in a block of flats. One morning on his way to work, Luca is walking through the main
entrance when Grace, a neighbour, stands in his way and says: ‘Where are you off to, gorgeous?’ Luca is nervous as he
knows Grace can be violent and shoves her so hard that she falls, banging her head against the floor. Luca runs off to work.
Later that day, when Luca returns home from work, he tells Shauna what had happened earlier with Grace. Angry and
upset, Shauna goes to Grace’s flat and kicks in her front door, shouting, ‘Where are you? I’m going to kill you!’ Grace gets a
knife from the kitchen and holds it up as Shauna approaches. Shauna picks up a plant pot and throws it at Grace. The plant
pot hits Grace in the chest. Grace runs at Shauna and stabs her, killing her instantly. Luca, who has followed Shauna, grabs
Grace and restrains her until the police arrive.
Consider whether the defences of self-defence and the prevention of crime will assist Luca or Grace if they were to be
charged with any crimes.
Luca:
• Luca is only asked a question so self-defence could be unnecessary
• However, as Grace is known to be violent, Luca’s actions could be deemed a pre-emptive strike
• Luca’s use of force may or may not be reasonable
• Test of reasonableness is a subjective test – did Luca have a genuine belief in the circumstance to use force?
• Was the force reasonable as he only had his way blocked?
• The amount of force must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances – would a reasonable person think Luca’s
Shauna:
• Grace is threatened by Shauna so self-defence could be necessary
• Grace’s actions could be deemed a pre-emptive strike as she is threatened by Shauna
• Grace’s use of force may or may not be reasonable
• Test of reasonableness is a subjective test – did Grace have a genuine belief in the circumstance to use force?
• Was the force reasonable as she was threatened?
• The amount of force must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances – would a reasonable person think Grace’s
Chapter 3 Tort
Page 139
Multiple-choice questions (1 mark each)
1 If established by the defendant, the defence of consent has the following effect on a claim brought by the claimant:
D No damages will be awarded.
2 Claimants have a duty to mitigate their losses when seeking damages in negligence. Which of the following accurately
describes the duty to mitigate?
D Take reasonable steps to minimise losses.
3 In relation to a claim for vicarious liability made against an employer, which of the following is false?
A An employer cannot be vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of an employee.
4 In a claim for psychiatric injury, which of the following is not a characteristic of a secondary victim?
A Being in personal danger.
‘Short answer’ 5-mark questions

5 Zeena’s property was damaged by Yannick’s negligence. Most of the damage was of a kind that might have been
expected, but some of the damage was much more extensive than might have been expected.
Apply the remoteness of damage principle to Zeena’s claim against Yannick for compensation in an action in negligence,
suggesting why she is likely to recover compensation for some, but perhaps not for all, of the damage.

• Compensation is unrecoverable in tort for any damage that is too remote and is only recoverable if it satisfies the
‘reasonable foreseeability’ test. As the damage is caused by Yannick’s negligence, and we assume reasonably foreseeable,
damages are probably recoverable (Wagon Mound (No. 1)).
• It is not necessary for the claimant to demonstrate the precise manner in which the damage occurs, nor its full extent,
provided it is reasonably foreseeable. Whether any extensive damage occurs, and if the same kind or of another kind, is
not mentioned so it is difficult to quantify if at all. Therefore, recovery for any more extensive damage is unclear (Hughes v
Lord Advocate).
6 Andy owned a car wash. Beth was digging up the road outside Andy’s car wash. Beth had been given the plans for the
road showing the location of the water pipes, but she had not bothered to look at them. Consequently, when Beth used
her digger, she broke the water pipe leading to Andy’s car wash. The car wash was not damaged, but Andy did lose an
afternoon’s earnings as he had no water to wash customers’ cars.
Suggest why any claim made by Andy in respect of his economic loss would not succeed in court.

Generally, no duty of care is owed to avoid causing another to suffer a loss which is purely economic, where the financial
loss is not related to a personal injury or damage to property (Spartan Steel v Martin).
The distinction between negligent acts and negligent statements- identification of Beth’s activity as an act rather than a
statement.
As there was no physical damage, just loss of earnings, the loss was a pure economic loss
7 Cameron bought a bungalow in a quiet residential area. Dianne, the owner of a neighbouring house, ran a community
radio station from the shed in her back garden. Despite being warned of this before purchasing the house, Cameron
became increasingly irritated by the music and noise.
Suggest whether Cameron has the basis of a claim.
Answers may include:

Identification of the definition and elements of private nuisance.
• Cameron has a legal interest – bought a bungalow
• His enjoyment of it has been interfered with by noise – Kennaway v Thompson
• The locality being quiet and residential, may make that interference unlawful Southwark v Mills, Sturges v Bridgman
• The type of damage must be foreseeable.
• Coming to the nuisance is no defence for Dianne – see Bolton v Stone, but if the radio station is felt to have
community benefit, like the cricket club did in Bolton, a partial injunction or damages may be the appropriate remedy.
15-mark questions
8 On an ice rink owned by NICE-ICE, some figure skaters were in the habit of skating in an area clearly marked out for
speed skating only. While doing so, Jon (a figure skater) skated into the path of Kylie (a speed skater). In the resulting
collision, Jon suffered severe facial injuries and Kylie was knocked out.
Advise Jon and Kylie as to their rights and remedies against NICE-ICE.

• Occupiers’ Liability Act discussion of whether Jon is a trespasser or not; the effect of warning signs. Are the premises
dangerous? Kylie is clearly a visitor so is covered by the 1957 Act.
• Duty could be alternatively established through Common Law negligence.
• Breach – did NICE-ICE act reasonably to keep both skaters safe given the dangers involved?
9 Explain the importance of fault-based liability, in particular in relation to Rylands v Fletcher.

• General basis of fault:
o Candidates should identify potential fault under civil law and under the criminal law.
o The importance of the requirement of the voluntary nature of conduct and causation.
o The impact of intention, recklessness and negligence as requiring higher level.
o The relevance of any defences.
• Liability through the rule in Rylands v Fletcher:
o Candidates should summarise the basic rule in Rylands v Fletcher: (a) property damage is caused by an ‘escape’
from land onto other land; (b) of ‘something’ brought onto the land by the defendant which, if it escaped, would
be likely to do ‘mischief’; and (c) that the accumulation was ‘non-natural’.
10 Evie was walking to collect her children from school. A coach carrying children back to school from a trip suddenly hit a
nearby tree and burst into flames. Although her children were not on that coach, Evie did not know this and went to help
some of the survivors to escape from the wreckage and she was lucky not to suffer serious injury. It was proved that the
accident was caused by negligence on the part of the coach driver, Freya. For several months after the accident, Evie
suffered depression and severe anxiety attacks.
Advise Evie as to her rights and remedies against Freya.

Identification and explanation of psychiatric injury, and of the potential of an action in negligence. Evie will need to show
that she has a psychiatric injury in the form of a recognised psychiatric condition. (Behrens)
Brief explanation of a primary victim and a secondary victim. Evie may qualify as a primary victim in that she was in the
‘zone of danger’ as it was reasonably foreseeable that she could have been physically injured.
Also Evie may also qualify as a primary victim in that she helped others and by doing so placed herself in physical danger
(‘rescuer’).
Reference to cases such as Page v Smith McLoughlin v OBrian, White and Alcock and Young v Downey
Chadwick v BRB.
On the event of a successful claim, Evie would be entitled to a remedy of compensatory damages.
Page 140
30-mark questions
11 Previously a quiet lake overlooked by a few cottages, Linacre Lake has recently been developed by its new owner,
Wetlife Developments, to provide extensive leisure facilities, including swimming and powerboating. In consequence,
Ingrid, a cottage owner has experienced a large increase in noise, especially at weekends and during frequent competition
weeks.
Additionally, damage to a diesel oil storage tank owned by Wetlife Developments resulted in a leak which caused extensive
contamination of Ingrid’s vegetable garden.
Some swimmers were in the habit of swimming beneath the surface in an area of Linacre Lake clearly marked out for
powerboating only. While doing so, Jon surfaced into the path of a powerboat being driven by Kylie. In the resulting
collision, Jon suffered severe facial injuries and Kylie was knocked out of the boat and had her arm severed by the
propeller. Kylie’s friend, Rachel, who was in another boat, dragged her out of the water to safety. The experience caused
Rachel deep emotional disturbance.
Consider the rights and remedies of Ingrid, Jon, Kylie and Rachel against the owners of Linacre Lake.

• Re: Noise and increase in noisy activities:
o This scenario involves the area of private nuisance where the law protects the rights of the occupiers of land against any
‘unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of his land’.
o Here, Ingrid is in dispute with her neighbour, Wetlife Developments. The courts will need to balance, where possible, the
conflict of interests between Ingrid who lives in a cottage overlooking a previously idyllic lake, with that of the leisure
company organising frequent and noisy watersports activities and competitions on the lake.
o Ingrid has a clear interest in the land being a resident and she should be able to claim that her enjoyment of her land has
been ‘unreasonably interfered with’ (Kennaway v Thompson).
o Ingrid must have a legal interest and clearly has, as owner of the cottage (Malone v Laskey, Hunter v Canary Wharf).
o Wetlife does not need to own/occupy the land they are using, they simply need to have used or be using the land. This is
clear here as the lake is being used for watersports (Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City Council).
o In determining whether there is an ‘unreasonable interference’, the courts will have regard to:
o Nature of the locality/neighbourhood – the reasonableness of the use of watersports will depend upon the nature of the
location. The area appears to be sparsely populated, with Ingrid being the only one to complain (Sturges v Bridgman,
Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients).
o Duration – clearly a temporary and necessary interference would have to be accepted, but the noise seems to be seven
days a week at times with weekend activity and competitions (DeKeyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros).
o Sensitivity – the watersports must amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner. It
could be argued due to the regularity of the noise and no doubt increase of traffic that the this would
amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person and there is nothing to suggest Ingrid is abnormally sensitive,
which would preclude a claim (Robinson v Kilvert, McKinnon Industries v Walker).
o Malice – it is unlikely that Wetlife’s activities can be seen as malicious, but if they were then they would be held as being
unreasonable.
o Ingrid must establish foreseeability in relation to damage (Wagon Mound (No. 1)).
o Remedies – injunction.
• Re: Spillage of diesel:
o Private nuisance in the form of flooding (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan or Rylands v Fletcher).
o Encroachment (Lemon v Webb).
• Re: Jon’s injury while swimming in an ‘out of bounds’ area and the resultant injury to Kylie:
o This scenario is likely to be covered by the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 in respect of Jon, as a swimmer, being a
trespasser in the area ‘clearly marked out for powerboating only’ or having exceeded his permission to be there (Revill v
Newbery).
o Section 1(8) clearly applies as there is personal injury as Jon suffers severe facial injuries.
o Under s 1(3) Wetlife will owe Jon a duty of care, and therefore liability under the 1984 Act if: (a) they were aware that
swimming in a restricted area was occurring, or there were reasonable grounds it was happening; (b) the ‘other’ (Jon) is in
the vicinity of the danger/risk, or there were reasonable grounds the ‘other’ may come into the area; and (c) the
danger/risk is something Wetlife would have been reasonably expected to have done something about. The scenario is
unclear, but if Wetlife were aware, or had reasonable grounds to be aware (for example, employees had seen the
dangerous swimming, or complaints had been made by visitors to the lake), and did nothing, then they could be liable
(Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd).
o The standard of care is objective in that Wetlife should take reasonable care to ensure that ‘others’ are not injured.
o Wetlife could argue contributory negligence as Jon must have been aware of the risk in swimming in a restricted area of
being hit and injured by a powerboat (Ratcliff v McConnell).
o Indeed, under s 1(5) Wetlife’s duty could be discharged as there was a sign warning of the danger (Tomlinson v
Congleton).
o Remedies – general damage (if possible) for Jon.
• Re: Kylie’s injury:
o Jon would be liable under negligence to the injury caused to Kylie.
o Remedies – general damages, special damages.
• Re: Rachel’s psychological harm:
o Rachel’s psychiatric injury must be a long-term, diagnosed mental injury greater than simply shock or grief.
o Rachel must suffer from a diagnosed psychiatric injury (Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd).
o Whether Rachel is a primary or secondary victim depends on her geographic position in relation to witnessing Kylie’s
accident. It seems Rachel is close-by, and if so, could be treated as a primary victim in the zone of physical danger – this is
an objective test.
o Rachel only needs to establish that physical harm to Kylie was foreseeable. There is no requirement that psychiatric
injury was foreseeable, provided personal injury was foreseeable (Page v Smith).
o If she is seen as a secondary victim then the tests in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire apply.
o Remedies - general damages, special damages.
12 Leila owned a book shop in the centre of town. She had recently asked Pritamjit, the brother of a friend of hers, to
install some new shelves along one of the walls. Ninder was a customer in the book shop and he wanted to look at a book
on the top row of the new shelves. Ninder stood on a small stool provided for the use of customers to reach the book.
Despite the fact that he could see that the top shelves were loose and coming away from the wall, he held onto the top
shelves to reach the book. The shelves collapsed and Ninder fell to the floor, suffering a broken arm.
At the back of Leila’s book shop was a storeroom with a door out onto the next street. Customers frequently went through
the storeroom when they left the shop as it provided a convenient short cut. Leila was concerned because some wiring had
come loose in the storeroom. Leila therefore put up a notice on the door to the storeroom saying, ‘Strictly no admittance’.
Maddie saw the notice, but she was late for an appointment with her bank and decided to use the short cut anyway.
Maddie brushed against the loose wiring and received a severe electric shock. She suffered bad burns and her mobile
phone was smashed when she fell to the floor.
Consider the rights and remedies of Ninder and of Maddie against Leila in relation to their injuries and losses.
In relation to Ninder:
• Explanation of the provisions of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: premises, occupier, visitor and dangers due to the
state of the premises due to the state of the premises (loose shelves capable of falling on someone.
• The duty imposed by the 1957 Act on Leila to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to
see that customers, like Ninder, are visitors will be reasonably safe in using the shop for the purposes for which they
are invited or permitted to be there.
• The defence contained in s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957: work carried out by an independent contractor. Leila should have
checked that Pritamjit was a suitable contractor given that he was the brother of a friend.
• Leila should have known of the defect in the shelves, even though she was not a carpenter, given that Ninder could
see that the shelves were loose
• The defence of contributory negligence as Ninder possibly partly contributed to the accident by attempting to hold
onto the shelf given that he can see that it was loose and therefore his own behaviour fell below that of the
reasonable person.
• If Leila does not have a defence then she is liable to pay compensatory damages to Ninder for his injuries, but that the
existence of a defence may reduce or eliminate her liability.
• Relevant cases Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire NHS, Haseldine v Daw, Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, Froom v
Butcher, Brannon v Airtours, Bolton v Stone, Paris v Stepney BC.
In relation to Maddie:
• The duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984: occupier, premises, conditions necessary for a duty to arise under
s1(3) of the Act, to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the unlawful visitor
does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.
• The storeroom was premises and Maddie was an unlawful visitor given the presence of the sign.
• There was a danger due to the state of the premises loose wiring rather than Maddie’s own actions (walking through
the storeroom).
• The requirements of s1(3) are satisfied:
o Leila was aware of the danger she should have taken precautions if the danger was obvious – was the sign
adequate – could more have been done – locked the door for example?
o Leila knew others might come into the vicinity of the danger as she knew that customers frequently took the
shortcut
o Leila may reasonably be expected to offer another some protection (loose wiring capable of inflicting serious
• Leila’s breach of the duty of care considering factors of likelihood of trespass, seriousness of the injury risked, cost and
practicality of precautions and how obvious the danger was.
• The defence of consent: s1(6) OLA 1984. Leila may have a defence of consent if Maddie voluntarily assumed the risk
of walking through the storeroom.
• If Leila does not have a defence then she is liable to pay compensatory damages to Maddie for her injuries (but not for
her smashed phone), but that the existence of a defence may eliminate her liability.
• Relevant cases Tomlinson v Congleton BC, Keown v Coventry NHS Trust, Donoghue v Folkestone Properties, Platt v
Liverpool City Council, Ratcliff v McConnell.
Chapter 4 Law of contract

Page 180
Multiple choice questions
1 Which of the following is an accurate statement concerning the postal rule for the purposes of forming a contract? [1
mark]
C An offer cannot be revoked after an acceptance is posted.
2 Select the false statement about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). [1 mark]
A UCTA applies to both consumer and business-to-business contracts.
3 Which of the following is not a suitable way for an exclusion clause to be validly included into a contract? [1 mark]
D Using a ticket with the clause on the reverse.
4 Choose the best description of misrepresentation as a form of vitiating factor in contract law. [1 mark]
D It can be a false statement of material fact.
5 Select the true statement about the doctrine of consideration. [1 mark]

A Consideration does not have to be sufficient.
Short answer 5-mark questions
Pages 180-181
6 Explain two types of contractual term. Briefly explain why the breach of either term leads to different remedies available
to the parties. [5 marks]

• A condition is a type of term which ‘goes to the root of the contract’. If this type of term is breached, then the
claimant has remedies available in the form of either, or both of, repudiation of the contract or can sue for damages
(Poussard v Spiers), for example the brand of car a person wants to buy.
• A warranty is generally seen as a descriptive term which does not go ‘to the root of the contract’. If this type of term is
breached, then the claimant can only sue for damages (Bettini v Gye), for example the brand of brakes on a car a
person wants to buy.
7 Explain why the breach of an express term leads to different remedies being available to the parties.

• The breach of an express term is where there is a fundamental underperformance of an obligation under a contract.
This would normally give rise to common law damages as of right.
• A breach of an express term that goes to the heart of the contract allows the injured party to also petition the court
for rescission: an equitable remedy where damages would be insufficient. If agreed by the court it would place the
claimant in the position they would have been had the contract not been entered into in the first place.
8 Paige is employed as a taxi driver and agrees to drive her sister, Hope, to the cinema on Friday night. Hope says she will
let Paige borrow her expensive shoes for a party later that month if she does. Paige drives Hope to the cinema but Hope
later refuses to let her borrow her shoes.
Applying the rules of intention to create legal relations, suggest why Paige would probably have no rights and
therefore no remedies against Hope.

• There is clearly an agreement of some sort: Hope asks for a lift (offer) and Paige agrees (acceptance) to drive her sister
to the cinema.
• There is consideration as Hope allows Paige to borrow her shoes in return for the lift (Thomas v T).
• Whether the agreement is enforceable as a binding contract, in order for Paige to sue for breach, depends on whether
there is an intent to create legal relations from a business point of view and prima facie enforceable rather than some
simple family agreement prima facie unenforceable (Balfour v B).
• This could be a business arrangement since Paige is a taxi driver. However as they are sisters this could be seen as a
social and domestic arrangement, unless Paige suffers an obvious detriment and could successfully sue Hope for
breach. For example, she turned down a lucrative fare to take Hope to the cinema (Parker v Clark).
9 Adam is shopping online. He notices a pair of expensive headphones advertised on a well-known brand’s website for
£3.99. The headphones normally retail at £399.99. He clicks the image which adds a pair of headphones into his ‘shopping
basket’. However, when he goes to pay for the headphones, the price is £399.99.
Suggest why Adam would probably have no rights against the website’s owners to insist on the lower price.

• Adam may think that the advert for the headphones is an offer for him to accept and is lucky to obtain the
headphones at the incorrect price.
• However, like displays in shop windows, self-service shelves etc., the display online is an invitation to treat and not an
offer.
• It is for Adam to select the product, which will move into a virtual ‘shopping basket’ (which shows the correct price)
and click ‘buy’ or similar. In clicking ‘buy’ he would make an offer and it is for the company to then accept his offer.
Therefore, there is no valid offer here for the company to accept.
10-mark questions
Page 181
10 Dorothy needs to pay for her car parking in a city-centre car park. She has no coins, but a sign on the parking meter says
she can ‘Pay by phone’. Dorothy rings the number and an automated message explains the price per hour and that by
paying the parking fee by phone she agrees to the car park’s terms and conditions. One of the conditions is that the car
park owner will not be responsible for damage to her car caused by the negligence of other users of the car park. Dorothy’s
car is badly damaged by another customer of the car park who leaves without leaving their details.
Advise Dorothy as to whether she has any rights and remedies against the car park owner.
• The car park is an invitation to treat for patrons to make an offer to park their car for a fee (the consideration) and the
company accepts a patron’s offer to park their car for a specified period of time.
• When Dorothy rings the company, she is making the offer for the company to accept her parking. Once she has paid
her fee the company allows her to park, subject to their terms and conditions.
• Dorothy agrees to the terms and condition of parking in the car park by ringing the company and by implication offers
to agree to their terms and conditions when she pays for her ticket this way.
• Under common law the term must be incorporated into the contract in which it appears so that it protects the
company from damage rather than to seek to gain an undue advantage.
• The car park’s terms and conditions must be UCTA77 compliant.
• As there is no death or personal injury the term remains valid under s2(1).
• Under s2(2) the company cannot exclude liability for negligence except where the test for reasonableness is satisfied.
• There is no statutory test here for negligence.
• However, s11(1) states that the term must be ‘fair and reasonable’ in the circumstances.
• While serious damage may not be absolutely contemplated by either party, parking in a car park would, most likely,
include damage to her car by other patrons’ actions.
11 Belinda is shopping on U-Trade, an internet auction site. She wants to buy the DVD of an old film that she can’t easily
buy elsewhere when she comes across one advertised for sale by Charles for ‘£20.00 – Buy it Now or Best Offer’. Belinda
messages Charles and says she will give him £10.00 as a ‘Best Offer’. He rejects this, messaging her back saying he would
take £15.00. Belinda instantly pays Charles £15.00 through the website. However, later Charles says he’s sold it to another
person for the full amount.
Advise Belinda as to whether she has any rights and remedies against Charles in offer and acceptance.

• Belinda may think that the advert for the DVD is an offer for her to accept.
• However, like displays in shop windows, self-service shelves etc., the display online is an invitation to treat and not an
offer.
• It is for Belinda to buy the DVD for £20.00 and U-Trade to accept or for Belinda to make a lesser offer, here £10.00 and
for U-Trade to accept or reject. This would appear to operate as a counter-offer, but since there is no offer in the first
place from U-Trade this probably remains an invitation to treat.
• Therefore, there is no valid offer here for the company to accept at £10.00.
• However, when they say they will take £15.00 this may operate as an offer, but most likely an invitation to treat.
• If it is an offer, then Belinda has a reasonable period of time to accept or reject. So, when he sold the DVD this may be
a breach of contract if the termination of the offer is not communicated to Belinda.
• If the suggested £15.00 remains an invitation to treat, then there is no offer to accept by Belinda.
15-mark questions
Page 181
12 Examine the relationship between the doctrines of consideration and privity of contract. Discuss the extent to which the
doctrine of privity is necessary in contract law.

• Consideration was defined in Dunlop v Selfridge as ‘an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the
price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable’.
Consideration’s purpose is to provide further, if not absolute, proof that an agreement is to be enforceable.
• Privity of contract was discussed in Dunlop v Selfridge where the Court stated that, generally, a contract is only
enforceable by the parties to the contract (Dunlop v Selfridge).
• The privity of contract rule seems fair, since why should someone who is not part of a contract be allowed to enforce
the contract? However, the contrary is perhaps truer. Since for those to whom the contract provides a benefit for,
third parties, are prima facie unable to sue for the benefit of a contract where they are neither the offeror or offeree
(Tweddle v Atkinson).
• It is due to this unfairness that the law has created exceptions to this rule of unenforceability, normally through
statute (Beswick v B) or the common law (Shanklin Pier v Detel).
• The law has championed such unfairness in the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which provides: ‘A person
who is not a party to a contract may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if … the contract expressly
provides that he may, or … the term purports to confer a benefit on him.’ The Act also requires that this party is
expressly identified in the contract by name, or as a member of a class, or answering a particular description.
13 There are various ways in which an offer can be terminated.

Examine the termination of an offer in contract law. Discuss the various ways, using case examples, how contract law
allows an offer to be terminated prior to acceptance.
• An offer may be terminated by a counter-offer. If an offeree decides they would like to change the terms of an offer
(for example, by trying to negotiate/change the price of an item), then this would be called a counter-offer. A counter-
offer, in effect, ends the original offer and becomes an offer in itself, making the offeree become the offeror.
Therefore, the counter-offer can be accepted or rejected by the person making the original offer – see Hyde v Wrench
(1840). A modern example of a counter-offer would be in using internet selling sites, such as eBay. A seller can place
an item on eBay with a ‘Buy it now or best offer’ label. Here, the potential buyer can offer a lower price than the ‘Buy
it now’ price, and it is up to the seller to accept the lower offer or counter-offer with a higher price at which they are
happy to sell.
• Death of either the offeror or offeree.
• Lapse of time – see Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire (1866).
• Revocation: an offer can be revoked (cancelled) at any time before acceptance – see Dickinson v Dodds (1867).
30-mark questions
14 Joe is a student in the final year of studying A-levels. In his spare time, he designs and makes decorative greetings cards.
Joe can supply ready-made cards from his catalogue and ‘made to order’ cards at the request of a buyer. Joe has just
received an enquiry for 100 ready-made cards and 100 ‘made to order’ cards from his father, who runs a newsagent’s
shop.
However, Joe has told his father that he is going to give up his studies in order to become a professional skateboarder.
Alarmed at this, Joe’s father places the order for the cards and says he will pay him £200 per month to finish his studies in
six months’ time. Joe says that this is not enough and he would need at least £500. His father says he will only pay Joe £300
per month: ‘Take it or leave it’. Joe reluctantly agrees to continue with his studies and accepts his order for the cards. Joe’s
father pays on time for the order for the cards, but after three months he stops paying £300 monthly and refuses to
continue to do so. In fact, his father says that he only had enough money for three months and had no intention of paying
Joe after that.
(a) Consider the rights and remedies of Joe against his father.
(b) Assess the extent to which the rules that you have applied in the case of Joe and his father achieve an appropriate
balancing of interests between the parties.
(a)
The enquiry from Joe’s father:
• This is unlikely to be an offer to order/buy as Joe’s father is simply making an enquiry and not a firm order. This is
most likely to be seen as an invitation to treat (Partridge v Crittenden).
The order from Joe’s father:

• Here there is an offer from Joe’s father to buy the cards which we assume is accepted by Joe. The consideration would
be the price Joe’s father has to pay. Therefore, there seems to be a valid contract struck here (Dunlop v Selfridge).
The offer to pay £200 per month:

• Ordinarily the offer to pay the £200 would constitute an offer which, if accepted by the offeree, would form a
contract. However, there are two potential complications here. The first is whether this would, in these
circumstances, be seen as a social and domestic arrangement and therefore no intention to create legal relations and
unenforceable. The second issue is that Joe rejects the offer of £200, insisting that this is not enough and wants £500.
This would potentially amount to a counter offer (Hyde v Wrench).
• Nevertheless, the £500 is rejected by Joe’s father who again counter offers £300, which is ‘reluctantly’ agreed to by
Joe. When Joe’s father stops paying, then whether this is a breach of contract depends upon the intention between
the parties (Balfour v B, Merritt v M, Jones v Padavatton).
• There may be an issue of undue influence or duress if Joe’s father had actually forced or made his son take the
counter offer of £300.
• Consider whether Joe can sue for unliquidated damages for the unpaid maintenance, if there was not a formal
business contract containing an amount for liquidated damages. Consider whether Joe would be successful in an
application for specific performance (Dyster v Randall and Sons).
(b)
The balance of interests between Joe and his father:
• An investigation and evaluation should be carried out on the formation of the agreement between father and son; of
the rules of offer, including the counter offer, and of Joe’s reluctant acceptance. This should be supported by case
authority.
• An investigation and evaluation should be carried out on the formation of the agreement between a father and son
and of the consequent implications of a social and domestic agreement or whether this is a business arrangement.
This should be supported by case authority.
• An evaluation must be formed as to whether there is, or is not, a balance struck between the Joe and his father as
identified above.
• Discuss the need for a balance in the law of contract in such situations and what may be a reasonable balance.
• Evaluation of the balance struck by reference to the analysis and evaluation of the rules on offer and acceptance, as
identified above.
15 Tegan runs a carpet-cleaning service. She hears that Neil, a nightclub owner, needs his carpets cleaned after a 24-hour
rave. She rang Neil telling him that she would clean the whole nightclub’s carpets for £1000.00. Neil said the most he
would pay would be £900.00. Tegan says she will think about it. A week later, Neil rings Tegan and says he’ll pay her the
£1000.00 after customers were refusing to stay because of the smell of the carpet. However, Tegan has agreed another job
with another company to clean their carpets.
Tegan buys a new carpet cleaner form KleenaZ, an industrial cleaning machine supplier. When she removed it from its
packaging, she noticed that one of the wheels was loose. When she used the cleaner, the loose wheel became distracting
and difficult to use. After a week the loose wheel fell off and it was impossible to use as a cleaner.
Consider the rights and remedies of Neil against Tegan and of Tegan against KleenaZ.
Assess the extent to which the rules that you have applied in the case of Tegan, Neil and KleenaZ achieve an appropriate
balancing of interests between the parties.

Tegan and Neil:
• Tegan makes an offer to clean Neil’s carpets for £1000.00. This is an offer for Neil to accept or reject.
• In saying he would only pay £900.00, this operates as a counter offer for Tegan to accept or reject.
• Tegan has neither accepted nor rejected Neil’s offer. However, not hearing from Tegan for a week, the offer would
most likely have lapsed.
• When Neil then agrees to the original offer of £1000.00, his counter offer of £900.00 has annulled Tegan’s original
offer and he cannot claim Tegan is in breach as she has taken work on elsewhere.
• There would unlikely be any rights or remedies for Neil against Tegan.
Tegan and KleenaZ:

• This situation could be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, provided Tegan bought the carpet cleaner as a
consumer. If not, she would have to rely on general contract terms as a business and the courts would look at what
were the terms of the agreement – expressor implied by custom or fact, such as common trade practices. These
common trade practices would be similar to those applied to consumer contracts under the Consumer Rights Act
2015.
• The Act implies terms into a consumer contract.
• Under s9 the cleaner must be of satisfactory quality: it must meet the standard that a reasonable person would
expect. Here, after a week the wheel fell off, so it is unlikely to satisfy this section.
• Under s10 the cleaner must be fit for the particular purpose to clean. Again, this looks unlikely and is a breach of this
section.
• Under s11 the goods must meet the description. Described as a cleaner, once the wheel fell off and it was impossible
to use, the cleaner appears in breach of this section.
• Under the Act, Tegan has the right to reject under s20 within 30 days if there is a breach. The wheel is loose straight
away and falls off after a week. Under s23 she has a right to repair or a replacement within six months. The repair
must be within a reasonable time and the cost must be on the supplier.
Balance of interests:
• In all contracts, the courts must strike a fair balance between parties.
• No single party can be treated as having and losing a more appropriate claim whether it is a business, individual etc
unless there is a fair and appropriate reason.
• In the case of Tegan and Neil, Neil cannot be allowed to choose when and how Tegan’s original offer works or lasts.
This would put undue pressure on Tegan, and others in her situation to be nervous in making such offers only for Neil
to manipulate the situation as his own choosing and timing.
• For KleenaZ to supply faulty equipment and Tegan to lose out in such a case was exactly the reason the Consumer
Rights Act 2015 was introduced. Buying a good or service should meet the standards expected and supplying a faulty
cleaner requires appropriate redress and resolution by Tegan.
Chapter 5 Human Rights

Multiple-choice questions (1 mark each)
Page 216
1 Select the one true statement about the theory of natural law.
B Developed from the law of nature, natural order and selection, the theory of natural law forms the basis of a
peaceful and co-existing society.
2 Select the one false statement. Article 2 covers the right to life, but:
B taking a loved one to a country where assisted suicide is tolerated prevents prosecution in the UK
3 Select the one true statement. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights covers the freedom of
assembly and association, however:
D this is a qualified right and not an absolute right.
4 Select the one false statement. Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to
respect for family and private life. However, Article 8(2) restricts this right where:
D the neutrality and authority of the judiciary is maintained.
5 Select the one false statement. Article 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right of
peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. However, Article 11(2) restricts this right where:
D the neutrality and authority of the judiciary is maintained.
6 Explain Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Briefly explain why this right can be restricted. [5
marks]
Article 8(1) is the right to respect for family and private life and therefore covers a large broad range of rights which
were not specifically or satisfactorily covered through the existing law.
Under Article 8(2) the rights under Article 8(1), Thus, the right to respect for family and private can be restricted if
there is a law, required in a democratic society and it:
(a) benefits national security, the public’s safety, or the financial safety of the country, or
(b) prevents disorder or crime, or
(c) protects health or morals of its citizens, or
(d) protects the rights and freedoms of others.
7 Information received by prison officers has suggested that six prisoners are planning to escape from a high-security
prison. The information also suggests that the prisoners have homemade weapons and that a handgun has been
smuggled into the prison to be used in the escape. On the morning of the escape, members of a specialist police
firearms team raid the cells. Three of the prisoners are shot dead and a toy handgun is found in one of the prison cells.

• Under Article 2.1 there is a basic obligation on the UK and its agents, here a specialist police firearms team, not to take
life (i.e. to kill people).
• As intelligence was gathered the police team were required to plan and carry out the operation under guidelines and
that any plan must consider innocent life as well as those believed to be planning violence with the use of firearms.
• Under Article 2.2 there are exceptions to the rule under Article 2.1: (i) in defence of any person from unlawful
violence; (ii) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained. In order to carry
out an act authorised under Article 2.2 the requirement that force used for such purposes must be ‘no more than
absolutely necessary’.
• Intelligence had been gathered to suggest the police would be met with violence and firearms which would allow
more force to be used than in a routine search of the prisoners’ cells. (McShane v UK)
• However, as the gun was in fact a toy gun, intelligence would need to be questioned and a potential independent
investigation carried out. This is reinforced by obligations dictated by the European Court of Human Rights.
• Cases such as McCann v UK, Bubbins v UK, Jordan v UK, Gul v Turkey can be used for further exploration.
8 Charles is a keen birdwatcher and on weekends he takes his binoculars and long-lensed camera to a local wildfowl park
to watch and photograph rare birds. Charles’ ex-wife, Teresa, has told the police that he is taking photographs of children
at a nearby school and of residents in their bedrooms in a nearby housing estate. Both accusations are untrue and out of
spite by Teresa. The police arrest Charles, and he is denied bail and kept on remand for nine months at a local prison.
Suggest whether it could probably be a violation of Charles’ rights to liberty and security of person under Article 5 of the
European Convention on Human Rights following the actions of the police.
• Article 5 protects Charles’ rights when he is outside his home. Here, he is outside birdwatching and within his rights to
do so. The reason he is arrested is through malice of his ex-wife, but the police need to investigate such allegations.
• Under Article 5 he has the right to liberty and security of his person – the right of personal independence from
unlawful arrest or detention. However, this right is restricted under 5(1)(c) where the police are entitled to arrest and
detain him on ‘reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence’. Here, the police have lawfully arrested him to
prevent a further alleged offence.
• However, under Article 5(3) Charles must be bailed and/or brought to trial within a reasonable period of time. Having
been denied bail and being on remand for nine months would appear unjust.
10-mark questions
Pages 216-217
9 A local police force has been criticised for not doing enough to stop the activities of a football hooligan gang at the city’s
football club on matchdays. Information is received by the police indicating that a huge fight has been arranged with
another gang from a visiting team. Determined to avoid further criticism, the police are described by onlookers as ‘heavy-
handed’. The police use a lot of force during the fight and two of the gang die as a result.
Advise the police as to how the provisions of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights might apply to these
facts.

• Article 2 covers the right to life and not to be killed. However, this is a restricted right and not an absolute right.
Therefore no one can take another’s life without just cause, for example acting in self-defence where the criminal law
defence would operate for the police as a potential defence.
• As the dead are human beings, this Article covers such unlawful killings.
• Under Article 2(2) there are justified exceptions in very limited circumstances.
• Under Article 2(2)(a) the right to life can be restricted in defence of any person from unlawful violence. Where the
police act to prevent such violence, this section would allow reasonable force to be used, even if death occurs. It
appears that the force used was not reasonable and ‘heavy-handed’.
• Under Article 2(2)(b) the right to life can be restricted to effect a lawful arrest. Where the police move in, to effect
arrests during the fight, this section would allow reasonable force to be used, even if death occurs. Again, it appears
that the force used was not reasonable and ‘heavy-handed’.
• Under Article 2(2)(c) the right to life can be restricted to quell a riot or insurrection. Where the police move in, to
effect arrests during the fight, this section would allow reasonable force to be used, but again death occurs. Again, it
appears that the force used was not reasonable and ‘heavy-handed’.
• Any evidence in considering the police’s use of force would have to be taken into the context of their actions, in
particular, in the face of criticism of being previously apathetic and if the onlookers were part of or sympathetic to the
football hooligans.
10 Taylor has been diagnosed with autism, a specific learning difficulty. As a result of her condition, she can become angry
and agitated. One day, while out shopping, a police officer sees Taylor shouting at a shop assistant and arrests her,
mistakenly believing that she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She is held on remand for 18 months before being
released with no charge.
• Advise Taylor as to how the provisions of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights might apply to these
facts.

• Article 5 protects Taylor’s rights when she is outside her home. Here, she is outside and, in a shop, and within her
rights to do so.
• The reason she is arrested is through the potentially justifiable mistake of the police thinking she is under the
influence of drink or drugs. The police are therefore entitled to interfere and investigate a potential crime.
• Under Article 5 Taylor has the right to liberty and security of her person – the right to personal independence from
unlawful arrest or detention.
• Taylor’s rights are nevertheless restricted under 5(1)(c) where the police are entitled to arrest and detain her on
‘reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence’.
• Here, the police have potentially lawfully arrested her due to her strange behaviour and to prevent a further alleged
offence. At the time of arrest, they are unaware of her mental health conditions impacting upon her actions.
• However, under Article 5(3) Taylor must be bailed and/or brought to trial within a reasonable period of time.
• Taylor is nevertheless held on remand for 18 months which could appear unjust.
• Under Article 5(4) if Taylor’s arrest is deemed in contravention of this Article she will be entitled to compensation.
15-mark questions
11 Examine the relationship between the common law and the development of human rights. Discuss the extent to which
the common law is founded on moral rules.
• The common law is the law common to the land, sometimes known a custom or customary law. This could be unique
to an area and adopted by adjacent areas.
• Morals are subjective personal codes of values or beliefs that are based on levels of fault and determine what is right
or wrong, for example, lying.
• The common law that has spread through custom and been adopted and developed as the norm around the UK for
centuries and where required, ratified by judges in legal cases.
• Historically, indigenous tribes and races would develop their own codes and rules which have been influenced or
reformed at the behest of invading armies – Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Romans etc., or via peaceful means such
as through immigration.
• The UK has benefitted by a being a multicultural society so races, creeds and cultural differences have been reflected
in the moral rules and customs of its citizens.
• The common law itself has its basis in moral rules. Moral rules are essentially based around Christian values such as
‘thou shalt not kill’ (common law murder) or ‘thou shalt not steal’ which the latter has been enacted into statute by
the Theft Act 1968.
• The strong religious line in the common law has been balanced through local customs such as trading rules, for
example, contract law.
• Moral rules morphing into the common law has been adopted or rejected through court procedures, for example the
historic Assize Circuits Courts who would rule on acceptable customs through judges’ decisions.
• Common law is the basis of the English legal system and of many ex-British colonies such as the USA, Canada, India
and Australia (Entick v Carrington, Bushell’s Case)
12 Examine the purpose of Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Discuss the extent to which the
restrictions under Article 2(2) are justified.

The Purpose:
• The right to life is perhaps the most important and fundamental rights that we have in the UK: the right to stay alive
and not be killed.
• This is a restricted right and is not absolute.
• Article 2(1) states: ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally
save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by
law.’
• Article 2 protects life – it does not allow a right to die. In Pretty v UK (2002) P was suffering from motor neuron
disease. As a result, she was paralysed but could make lucid decisions. She wanted her husband to assist in her suicide
and sought clarification that he would not consequently be prosecuted under the Suicide Act 1961. Her argument,
inter alia, was under Article 2, that if there was a right to die there must be a subsequent right to die. Having been
unsuccessful in her argument in the domestic courts, she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In
dismissing her appeal, the Court stated:
• (a) Article 2 ensured that a citizen’s life could not be readily taken by countries in which they lived.
• (b) That while there was a right to life, there is no express or implied corresponding allowance to take life under this
Article.
• The justified restrictions:

• Article 2(2) provides that the right to life can be restricted under Article 2(2) in limited ‘justified’ circumstances.
• Article 2(2) states: ‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results
from the use of force which is no more than necessary’.
• Article 2(2) provides three justifications.
• Under Article 2(2)(a) life can be taken in defence of any person from unlawful violence. This is justified where, for
example, a person such as a police officer kills another during an attack on a third person. This may seem
contradictory in the death of a person while trying to defend another person, but each case of death must be taken on
its own merits, Pagett (1983)
• Under Article 2(2)(b) life can be taken in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained. Again, this seems contradictory, but must be taken into the context of who is being arrested/detained and
why. An escaped serial-killer who is choked to death during an arrest using reasonable force may be justified to avoid
them killing further.
• Under Article 2(2)(c) life can be taken for the ‘purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection’. This allows the taking of life
for the greater good. If a person or persons is likely to risk the lives of others in starting or facilitating a serious
disturbance, then another person, for example, the police, can take a life to protect others from death.
13 Examine the purpose of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Discuss the extent to which the
restrictions under Article 5(2) are justified.

The Purpose:
• Article 5 covers the right to liberty and security of person.
• In essence, this Article protects citizens when they are outside their homes.
• Liberty refers to an individual’s physical movement without interference by the state or otherwise.
• Security of person refers to an individual’s physical and emotional self and their right not to be interfered with.
The Justified Restrictions:

• The restrictions for Article 5 allow the smooth flow of the criminal justice system to essentially stop or prevent further
criminal activity by a person or persons.
• Under Article 5(1) there are three justified exceptions to the right to liberty.
• Under Article 5(1)(a) liberty can be restricted during the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent
court. So, upon conviction of a crime a person can justifiably, where necessary, be sent to prison.
• Under Article 5(1)(b) liberty can be restricted during the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance
with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law. Here, if a
person is bound by a court to fulfil certain conditions, for example, not to enter a certain area or harass a particular
person, but does so, they can be arrested and detained pending the court’s further actions as a consequence.
• Under Article 5(1)(c) liberty can be restricted for the purpose of bringing them before the competent legal authority
on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. This allows, for example, the police to arrest and the courts to
detain on remand a person accused of an offence, or ‘skipping’ bail if such was requested by the accused.
30-mark questions
Page 217
14 One afternoon, a supermarket store detective detained Mika, who is from Poland, for three hours in the manager’s
office. The store detective detained Mika because she believed she had stolen a bottle of whiskey and some baby milk.
When the police arrived, Mika was arrested and had her rights read to her. However, Mika does not speak a lot of English
and did not understand what was happening. Mika was put on remand and her trial date was set for six months’ time. She
was refused access to a solicitor for the first two weeks. When the date arrived for her trial, the judge was ill, so the trial
date was postponed for another six months. At Mika’s trial, she was sent to prison for two years.
Consider what rights and remedies Mika may have against the supermarket, and whether her rights or liberties were
breached while on remand or during the trial.

• Mika could bring an action under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to liberty and
security of person.
• Article 5(1) states, ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty’.
For Mika, there are two potential issues under Article 5(1):
• ‘Liberty’ means autonomy or independence from arrest or detention and is a fundamental right in a free and
democratic society. A person cannot be arrested or detained without cause. Mika has been arrested. We are not told
if she has carried out the theft or whether any evidence leading to a conviction has been found, for example CCTV or
the goods themselves.
• ‘Security of person’ means that an individual cannot have their liberty removed or restricted without just cause. Mika
has been detained for three hours and doesn’t understand the police when they read her rights. Assuming she hasn’t
stolen the items, this would be a very frightening experience for her.
• For Mika, despite having such a right to liberty and security of the person under Article 5, it is restricted in cases
where the law allows arrest or detention ‘and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’.
• Under Article 5(1)(c) deprivation of liberty is justified when ‘The lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the
purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having
done so.’
• If Mika has committed an offence, then the store detective and the police are lawful in arresting on reasonable
suspicion that she has committed an offence, or to prevent her ‘fleeing’ the scene, and later detaining her before an
appearance in court.
• However, under Article 5(2), ‘Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he
understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.’ Therefore, Mika must be informed as soon
as possible that they are or have been arrested, the reason for the arrest and all in a language they understand. This
clearly hasn’t happened in Mika’s case as she may be unaware why she is detained for three hours, then unaware why
the police are called and unable to understand them when her rights are read to her.
• Article 5.2 allows, for example, the police time to find a translator if required, or if there is a struggle in order to arrest
a suspect, time to provide the information. Neither of these safeguards have been adhered to here.
• However, under Article 5(3), ‘Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of
this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and
shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by
guarantees to appear for trial.’
• Therefore, Mika under 5(3) must be brought to trial, bailed (with or without conditions) to appear at a trial or released
within a reasonable period of time. Mika was put on remand for six months, refused a solicitor and then sent to prison
for two years. For a theft charge this is unlawful and a breach of her human rights under Article 5.
• Under Article 5(4), ‘Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention
is not lawful.’
• There is nothing to suggest that Mika didn’t commit a crime, probably theft, but as an arrested person she is entitled
to a swift trial to decide their innocence or guilt. This includes any appeals against conviction and/or sentence. Being
kept on remand with no bail set seems excessive and being sent to prison for two years would again seem excessive if
not an impossible/excessive sentence (MH v United Kingdom)
• Under Article 5(5), ‘Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this
Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.’
• For Mika, as an arrested person if any of the rights under Article 5 are infringed, she is entitled to compensation,
usually in the form of a financial reward. So, if she did commit the crime, then she must be punished for that fact;
however, the method of the detention and the resultant court’s decision would appear to breach her rights under
Article 5.
15 Belinda is a professional football player and plays for her national team. In January, she finds out that she is pregnant,
but because the team has qualified for the World Cup in June, she decides to have an abortion in order to play. An online
newspaper, GuffMail wants to publish the details. However, on the run up to the last World Cup, where Belinda had had an
abortion in order to play, the website had been prevented from publishing the details by the courts.
Belinda’s brother, Christian, is a lead member of a performance-art dance troupe. Having heard of her second abortion, he
decides to turn her life into a piece of performance art. Here, together with his dance troupe, they plan to expose the two
abortions in their dance performances.
Consider what rights and remedies Belinda may have against GuffMail and Christian arising out of these incidents.
In an action against GuffMail:

• Under Article 8(1) Belinda has the right to respect for family and private life and therefore covers a large broad range
of rights. This allows Belinda the right to privacy in order to pursue her own private life without ‘outside’ interference.
• Under the right to privacy, Belinda has the right to live her own life in the way that she chooses, including having
abortions and to do so without outside knowledge and scrutiny.
• Belinda has the right to avoid media scrutiny as a private individual. However, as she is a famous professional
footballer the media, here GuffMail, may be able to avoid her right to privacy in the public interest and invoke Article
10: the media’s potential right to publish the story, Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2001). This is a balance that the courts must
take into consideration.
• Under the right to a private life, Belinda’s choice to have an abortion is protected without media scrutiny, but again
this has to be balanced against whether such a fact is in the public interest to publish. Does having two abortions to
allow her to play in professional competitions prevent her from silencing the media?
• Under Article 8(2) the rights under Article 8(1) can be further and categorically restricted. Thus, the right to respect for
family and private life can be restricted if there is a law, required in a democratic society and it: (a) benefits national
security, the public’s safety, or the financial safety of the country, or (b) prevents disorder or crime, or (c) protects
health or morals of its citizens, or (d) protects the rights and freedoms of others.
• The restrictions under 8(2) may be tenuous for GuffMail but if they could argue that publishing a story could protect
the morals (religious beliefs or self-beliefs) of the country’s citizens, then they may be able to publish.
In an action against Christian: Article 8.

• Under Article 8(1) Belinda has the right to respect for family and private life and therefore covers a large broad range
of rights. This allows Belinda the right to privacy in order to pursue her own private life without ‘outside’ interference.
• Under the right to privacy, Belinda has the right to live her own life in the way that she chooses, including having
abortions and to do so without outside knowledge and scrutiny.
• Belinda has the right to avoid her brother’s exposure in his performance art as a private individual. However, as she is
a famous professional footballer in the media, her brother may be able to avoid her right to privacy in the public
interest and invoke Article 10, his right to freedom of expression during his performance art, Spycatcher Case (1991).
This is a balance that the courts must take into consideration.
In an action against Christian: Article 10

• Under Article 10 Christian’s right of performance art is protected so he can express himself, and in consequence, hold
an opinion without state interference.
• His freedom of expression is achieved by different means, for example, through artistic mediums, such as painting or
drawings or via his theatrical performances. This is even the case where views may ‘offend, shock or disturb the State
or any sector of the population’ – see Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) and The Observer and the Guardian v
United Kingdom (1991).
• However, Christian’s freedom of expression could be restricted under Article 10(1) in order to protect the health or
morals of its citizens. There could be such an outcry at the nature of the performance that it is deemed contrary with
Christian’s freedom of expression, R v Lemon and Gay News (1979).
• Similarly, Christian’s freedom of expression could be restricted under Article 10(1) in order to protect the reputation
or rights of Belinda or since it seems he obtained the information as a family member, prevents the revelation of
information gained under trust.

Exam Practice Answers AQA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Exam Practice Answers AQA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exam Practice Answers AQA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

My Revision Notes: AQA A-level Law second edition: Exam

Chapter 1 The nature of law and the English legal system

3 Which statement most accurately describes the effect of an EU treaty on UK law?

4 Which of the following statements about magistrates in criminal trials is correct?

‘Short answer’ 5-mark questions

7 Explain two differences between the civil and criminal law.

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Chapter 2 Criminal Law

1 Which of the following statements about strict liability offences is false?

3 Which of the following statements about theft is true?

4 Which of the following statements about robbery is false?

5 Which of the following statements about self-defence are false?

Short answer 5-mark questions

Answers could include:

Answers could include

Answers could include:

‘Short answer’ 5-mark questions

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers may include:

Answers could include:

9 Explain the importance of fault-based liability, in particular in relation to Rylands v Fletcher.

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Chapter 4 Law of contract

5 Select the true statement about the doctrine of consideration. [1 mark]

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

13 There are various ways in which an offer can be terminated.

Answers could include:

The order from Joe’s father:

The offer to pay £200 per month:

Answers could include:

Tegan and KleenaZ:

Chapter 5 Human Rights

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

• The justified restrictions:

Answers could include:

The Justified Restrictions:

Answers could include:

Answers could include:

In an action against GuffMail:

In an action against Christian: Article 8.

In an action against Christian: Article 10

You might also like