support@assignmentexperts.co.uk + 44 7340 9595 39
Register Login

Custom-Written, AI-Free & Plagiarism-Free Academic Work by Assignment Experts

Assignment Experts UK is a trading name of AKOSZ TEC LTD (Company No. 11483120). View on Companies House

Problem-Based Scenario | Criminal Law

Assignment Brief

Faculty of Business and Law

Module Title:

Criminal Law

 

Assignment Number

Resit n. 1

Module Code:

280CLS

 

Assignment Title

Problem-based question

 

Assignment Weighting

30%

 

 

 

 

 

Submission

Time and Place:

Submission through Turnitin ONLY

 

 
               

Assessment Information

This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes:

  1. Demonstrate the ability to evaluate the theoretical principles underlying criminal law;

  2. Utilise a wide range of specialist skills in order to analyse and evaluate the principles of criminal law and relevant case law as applied in practice;

  3. Demonstrate an ability to evaluate the principles of criminal law and formulate responses to various hypothetical scenarios.

This assignment is an individual assignment.

Please write a paper including the following elements:

Problem question (max 250 words): Please draft a problem-based scenario concerning an imaginary case of murder incorporating the legal problems addressed by the courts in the following cases:

R v Cunningham (Anthony Barry) [1982] AC 566

R v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2013] QB 1

R v Blaue (Robert Konrad) (1975) 61 Cr App R 271

Your task is not to repeat the facts of the cases but to apply the ratio from the relevant cases to an imaginary set of facts that you will create yourself.

Solution (max 750 words): Please draft a solution to your problem question applying the legal principles employed by the courts in the above-cited cases and using, if necessary, any other relevant case or statutes.

Criteria for Assessment

When marking the coursework particular regard will be given to the following:

Contents

  • Knowledge and understanding of the relevant law

  • Identification of relevant issues

  • Identification and selection, through appropriate research, of relevant sources and materials

  • Ability to explain and comment the relevant law and related theories

Structure

  • Clear and logical organisation of the paper

  • Ability to construct logical and coherent arguments

Presentation

  • Appropriate use of legal language

  • Accurate spelling, grammar and sentence construction

  • Ability to write within set word limits (see below).

Word Count

The total word count is 1,000 words. This is both a minimum and maximum limit: you should aim at writing approximately 1,000 words in total.

Of these 1000 words, no more than 250 should be dedicated to the case-based scenario, while the remaining 750 or more, if your scenario is shorter, should be dedicated to the solution.

There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark for work exceeding the word limit by 10% or more

How to submit your assessment

The assessment must be submitted by 18:00 on 6 April 2020. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.

  • Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.

  • All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.

  • Extensions of up to two calendar weeks can only be given for genuine "force majeure" and medical reasons, not for bad planning of your time. Please note that theft, loss, or failure to keep a back-up file, are not valid reasons. The extension must be applied for on or before the submission date. You can apply for an extension by submitting an Examination/ Coursework Deferral/Extension Application Form. Application Forms along with the supporting evidence should go to the relevant Student Support Office. For a longer delay in submission a student may apply for a deferral. 

  • Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.

  • Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.

GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT

The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control.  If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.

You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx

Plagiarism

As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work.  Doing so is known as plagiarism.  It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw.  You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz available on Moodle.

Moodle includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences.

Return of Marked Work

You can expect to have marked work returned to you within 15 working days for level 1 and 2, and 10 working days for level 3 and M level. If for any reason there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions

Sample Answer

Problem-Based Scenario

Daniel, aged 34, had been in a turbulent relationship with his partner, Leila, for several years. Following repeated arguments, Leila told Daniel that she was leaving him and had started seeing someone else. Daniel became emotionally distressed and increasingly obsessed with the breakdown of the relationship. Over a number of days, he repeatedly messaged Leila, accusing her of betrayal and claiming that his life was meaningless without her.

One evening, Daniel went to Leila’s flat to confront her. During a heated argument, Daniel picked up a heavy ornament and struck Leila on the head. Leila collapsed and suffered severe injuries. Daniel did not call for help immediately, believing she would recover on her own. Several hours later, Leila was taken to hospital.

At the hospital, doctors advised that Leila required an urgent blood transfusion to survive. Leila, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, clearly refused the transfusion on religious grounds, despite being informed that refusal would likely result in death. The medical staff respected her decision.

Leila died the following day from complications related to her injuries and blood loss. Daniel was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, Daniel argues that he lacked the necessary intention to kill or cause serious harm, claiming he acted out of emotional turmoil following the breakdown of the relationship. He also argues that Leila’s refusal of medical treatment broke the chain of causation between his actions and her death.

Legal Solution and Analysis

The central issue in this case is whether Daniel can be held liable for murder. This requires proof of unlawful killing with malice aforethought, which includes an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. The relevant legal principles can be analysed through the application of R v Cunningham, R v Clinton, and R v Blaue.

The starting point is the mens rea for murder. In R v Cunningham [1982], the House of Lords confirmed that malice aforethought is satisfied where the defendant intends to kill or intends to cause serious bodily harm. There is no requirement that the defendant desires death, only that serious injury was intended. In Daniel’s case, striking Leila on the head with a heavy ornament is an act that is likely to cause serious injury. A court would likely infer intention from the nature of the act, the weapon used, and the force applied. Daniel’s claim that he did not intend serious harm may be weak, as intention can be inferred even where the defendant acts impulsively or emotionally.

Daniel may attempt to rely on loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, as considered in R v Clinton [2013]. Loss of control can reduce murder to manslaughter if the defendant lost self control due to a qualifying trigger and a person of Daniel’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted similarly. In Clinton, the Court of Appeal clarified that sexual infidelity cannot, on its own, amount to a qualifying trigger, but it can be considered as part of the wider context.

Here, Daniel’s emotional distress following the breakdown of the relationship may form part of the factual background. However, mere jealousy, anger, or distress is unlikely to satisfy the threshold for loss of control. Daniel went to Leila’s flat, which suggests some degree of planning rather than a sudden loss of control. This weakens his argument and makes it unlikely that the defence would succeed.

Causation is another key issue, particularly in light of Leila’s refusal of a blood transfusion. In R v Blaue [1975], the Court of Appeal held that a victim’s refusal of medical treatment on religious grounds does not break the chain of causation. The defendant must take the victim as they find them, under the thin skull rule. The victim’s beliefs, even if considered unreasonable by others, do not absolve the defendant of liability.

Applying Blaue to the present case, Daniel’s argument that Leila’s refusal broke the chain of causation is unlikely to succeed. Daniel’s unlawful act created the situation that required medical intervention. Leila’s refusal does not constitute a novus actus interveniens, as it was a foreseeable personal characteristic rather than an independent act that rendered Daniel’s conduct insignificant.

It is also relevant that Daniel delayed seeking medical assistance. This delay may strengthen the prosecution’s argument that his conduct significantly contributed to Leila’s death. Even if prompt medical treatment might have saved her life, the law does not require the prosecution to prove that Daniel’s act was the sole cause of death, only that it was a substantial and operating cause.

In conclusion, Daniel is likely to be found guilty of murder. The prosecution can establish intention through the seriousness of the attack under Cunningham. The loss of control defence under Clinton is unlikely to apply due to the absence of a qualifying trigger and the apparent lack of suddenness. Finally, Leila’s refusal of medical treatment does not break the chain of causation under Blaue. Daniel’s actions remain the legal cause of death, and the elements of murder are satisfied.

References

Blaue, R v (1975) 61 Cr App R 271.

Clinton, R v [2013] QB 1.

Cunningham, R v [1982] AC 566.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

paypal checkout

The services provided by Assignment Experts UK focus on delivering original, custom-written academic work. All assignments are prepared by human writers without automated content generation tools and are carefully reviewed to maintain originality and academic integrity.

Discover more


Assignment Experts UK
is a trading name of AKOSZ TEC LTD (Company No. 11483120).

View on Companies House

Explore Our Samples

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

Recent Papers

Yes, but intention can be inferred from actions, not just direct statements.

No. The courts have been clear that personal beliefs do not break causation.

Only in limited situations. Ordinary anger or jealousy is usually not enough.

Because the law sets a high standard to prevent abuse of the defence.

Leah

Used Assignment Experts for my criminal law resit and honestly saved my degree. Tutor feedback was solid and I passed comfortably.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Mark

They actually understood the cases instead of waffle. My marker said the application was very strong.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
James

Did not expect it to sound this human. Got a 78 and my lecturer wrote “clear legal reasoning”.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Ollie

Stress levels dropped instantly. Assignment Experts handled everything and I got a merit when I was expecting a fail.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
✍️ Post Your Review