1. Grade Boundaries A* = 22/25 – 86% A = 20/25 – 79% B = 18/25 – 71% C = 16/25 – 64% D = 14/25 – 56% E = 12.5/25 – 50% Difference between each grade is only 2 marks

2. Potential Contents in the Question There were 3 potential contents in this question: Murder Loss of Control Diminished Responsibility The marks you got depended on how you answered each one: Sound Clear Some Fragments/none The combination generates a mark

3. Sound/Clear/Some 25 – 2 sound, 1 clear 23 – 2 sound, 1 some / 1 sound 2 clear 21 – 2 sound / 1 sound, 1 clear, 1 some / 3 clear 19 – 1 sound, 1 clear / 1 sound, 2 some / 2 clear, 1 some 17 – 1 sound, 1 some / 2 clear / 1 clear, 2 some 14 – 1 sound / 1 clear, 1 some / 3 some 13 – 2 sound explanations only (no application) 11 – 1 clear / 2 some

4. Murder – Actus Reus - Causation Weak Skull Rule – Blaue – must take victim as you find him so no break in the chain of causation due to Oliver’s weak skull. Also, his weak skull may not have even made a difference to injuries due to nature of the attack (stamping on head may have caused brain damage anyway) Potential NAI – switching off life support machine – but decision was presumably based on medical judgement that Oliver had suffered brain death so no break in chain of causation – Malcherek and Steel

5. Murder – Mens Rea Was there intent to kill or cause serious harm? Mike was “furious” He “brooded for 45 minutes” – could show deliberation and therefore intent Mike attacked a vulnerable part of Oliver’s body (his head). Oliver would have been defenceless due to the shock of the initial attack (being pushed off his stool) and his position (on the ground). Oliver “stamped” on his head a number of times – the combination of Oliver’s vulnerability and the method of attack presents a strong argument for intention to cause serious injury even if not to kill Vickers – intention to inflict GBH resulting in death of victim is enough to imply the necessary intention for murder

6. Loss of Control – Loss of self-control Use authority – Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ss.54-55 Evidence of loss of self-control but 45 minutes brooding could call this into question – S.54(2) – loss of control doesn’t have to be sudden and can be a time delay – Baillie – where there is a time delay, Mike will have to persuade the jury the he lost control for the duration of the 45 minutes “brooding”

7. Loss of Control – Qualifying Trigger – S.55 “Anger trigger” is the most obvious – 2 parts to the trigger: “Things done and/or said which constituted circumstances of a grave character… …and also caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” Objective Sexual infidelity, suggestion of Oliver’s physical violence against Nora, comments made about Kim Assessed objectively Could also consider “Fear trigger” – fear of serious violence from Oliver to Nora (another identified person) – but only in addition to anger trigger not instead of

8. Loss of Control – Restrictions to Qualifying Triggers – S.55 Sexual infidelity – might be discounted but after case of Clinton it can be taken into account if it provides a context in which another trigger operated “Anger trigger” is tested objectively – could come to the conclusion that enough was said/done to amount to “circumstances of a grave character” causing Mike to have a “justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” Revenge – 45 minutes of brooding could raise doubts about Mike acting out of a “considered” desire for revenge” - Ibrams and Gregory S.54(4) excludes the defence where killing is motivated by a considered desire for revenge

9. Loss of Control – Objective Test Would a person of Mike’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self- restraint, and in the circumstances of Mike, have reacted in the same way. Mike’s anxiety, stress, depression cannot be considered in his circumstances as these would affect his tolerance and self-restraint and so must be discounted – i.e. would someone who did not suffer from these things have acted in the same way – it does not automatically fail the test, it just can’t be considered. Mohammed - if D was simply bad-tempered and prone to violence this is to be disregarded as circumstances as this means he does not have a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint Holley –depression to be disregarded as circumstances as these affect tolerance and self- restraint Other circumstances of Mike can be considered – all the things said/done – Oliver’s boasts of physical violence against women, what he said about Kim and the sexual infidelity of Nora (infidelity is not excluded from this part) Most of the times this defence will be withheld from the jury as it is only in exceptional circumstances that a person of normal tolerance and self-restrain is driven to kill

10. Diminished Responsibility S.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 An abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition – yes Mike suffering from anxiety, stress and depression – these are recognised medical conditions and they are making him irritable Substantially impairing Mike’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, or form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control – probably either his ability to form a rational judgement or to exercise self-control Egan – substantial impairment does not need to mean total impairment but must be more than trivial impairment Which provides an explanation for Mike’s conduct – abnormality of mental functioning needs to cause Mike’s conduct or at least be a significant contributory factor in causing it – anger at what Oliver said clearly played a significant part in Mike’s conduct but this does not mean that the abnormality of mental functioning did not also make a significant contribution and provide an explanation for the killing Mike was in a bar but we are not told if he was drinking alcohol – if he was - Gittens – D killed while suffering from depression and intoxicated. Court held that jury should be directed to disregard the effect of the intoxication and consider whether his depression alone was sufficient to impair his mental responsibility for the act