Criminal Law Revision for LLB UK Students
Cases, exam pitfalls and OSCOLA-ready notes for the UK undergraduate criminal law syllabus.
Where Criminal Law sits in the LLB
Criminal Law is the module where doctrinal precision matters most. A misplaced 'recklessness' or a misidentified mode of participation will cost marks even where the conclusion is correct. The syllabus runs from the basic structure of an offence (actus reus, mens rea, coincidence and causation), through homicide (murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter), the non-fatal offences against the person, theft and related property offences, sexual offences, inchoate liability and the general defences.
Almost every UK LLB programme leans heavily on a small set of leading authorities, Cunningham, G [2003] UKHL 50 (subjective recklessness), Woollin (oblique intent in murder), Jogee (joint enterprise), Ghosh and now Ivey (dishonesty), and the homicide cases (Adomako, Smith, Dawson). Your job in the exam is to apply the right test, not to display a museum of cases.
This page sets out the canonical authorities and the most common student errors. Take the cases into ThinkLikeLaw to drill the elements of each offence with the assistant's Socratic prompts.
Key cases you must be able to apply
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Subjective recklessness in non-fatal offences.
R v G [2003] UKHL 50
Restored subjective recklessness as the general criminal-law standard.
R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
Jury may infer intent where death/GBH was a virtually certain consequence.
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Joint enterprise: foresight is evidence of intent, not a substitute for it.
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
New objective test for dishonesty, replaces the second limb of Ghosh.
R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
Gross negligence manslaughter, duty, breach, death, gross negligence.
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
Definition of 'grievous bodily harm' as really serious harm.
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
Medical mistreatment will rarely break the chain of causation.
Exam pitfalls to avoid
- Citing Caldwell recklessness in a contemporary problem, it has been restricted by G [2003] to (very narrow) property contexts.
- Drafting Woollin as a definition of intent rather than evidence from which intent can be inferred.
- Forgetting to satisfy the coincidence principle, actus reus and mens rea must align (Thabo Meli; Fagan).
- Skipping over secondary liability after Jogee instead of carefully separating principal, accessory and joint-enterprise reasoning.
- Applying the old two-stage Ghosh test for dishonesty rather than the objective Ivey test.
How ThinkLikeLaw helps with Criminal Law
- Drill mens rea / actus reus mapping in the assistant, paste an offence and the tutor walks you through each element.
- Generate spaced-repetition flashcards for the homicide ladder and the non-fatal offences so the elements stay in your long-term memory.
- Use the assistant to stress-test your problem-question answer for inconsistency between principal-liability and defence analysis.