AQA A-Level Law Paper 1: May
2025 Exam Question Paper with Full
Mark Scheme | Updated for
2025/2026
Q1: Define the actus reus of murder.
A: The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under
the Queen's peace. Case law clarifies: it must be unlawful (R v Clegg – soldier using
disproportionate force), the victim must be a human being (not a fetus, R v Copeland),
the defendant's act must cause the death (R v Malcherek – switching off life support),
and it can be by act or omission where there is a duty to act (R v Gibbons and Proctor –
parents starving child) .
Q2: Define the mens rea of murder.
A: The mens rea of murder is 'malice aforethought', which is defined as the intention to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Vickers). Intention can be direct (aiming to
bring about a consequence, R v Mohan) or oblique, where death or GBH was a virtually
certain consequence of the defendant's actions and they realised this (R v Woollin) .
Q3: Outline the three-stage test for the defence of loss of control.
A: The test is set out in s.54 and s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. First, the
defendant must have lost self-control, which need not be sudden (R v Dawes) but
cannot be for a considered revenge (R v Ibrams). Second, the loss of control must have a
qualifying trigger: a fear of serious violence (R v Ward) or things said/done of an
extremely grave character giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being wronged (R v
Clinton). Third, a person of the defendant's age and sex, with a normal degree of
tolerance and self-restraint, might have acted in the same way (R v Camplin) .
,Q4: What is the defence of diminished responsibility?
A: Under s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended), a defendant suffering from an
abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (e.g.,
depression, R v Martin; battered woman syndrome, R v Ahluwalia; pre-menstrual
syndrome) will have a defence if the abnormality substantially impaired their ability to
understand their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control (R v Byrne),
and it provides an explanation for the killing. The impairment does not need to be total
(R v Lloyd), and the defence fails if the abnormality was caused solely by intoxication (R v
Dietschman) .
Q5: Distinguish between direct and oblique intention.
A: Direct intention refers to a situation where the defendant's aim, purpose, or desire is
to bring about a consequence (R v Mohan). Oblique intention arises when the
consequence is not the defendant's primary aim, but it is a virtually certain result of their
actions, and they realise that this is the case (R v Woollin). The jury are entitled to find
intention in such circumstances.
Q6: Can a defendant be liable for murder by omission?
A: Yes, but only where the defendant is under a duty to act. This duty can arise from a
statutory obligation, a contractual duty, a close family relationship (R v Gibbons and
Proctor), or where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility for another. The
omission must be a cause of death.
Q7: Explain the 'year and a day rule'. Is it still relevant?
A: The 'year and a day rule' was an old common law rule stating that a death could not
be prosecuted as homicide if it occurred more than a year and one day after the
defendant's act. This rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act
1996, so it is no longer relevant for modern cases, except where the death occurs more
than three years after the act and the defendant has already been convicted of a serious
offence in relation to the same incident.
, Q8: For loss of control, what is meant by a 'qualifying trigger'?
A: A qualifying trigger is one of two things specified in s.55 of the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009. The first is a fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or
another identified person (R v Ward). The second is that things said or done (or both)
constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to
have a justifiable sense of being wronged (R v Clinton). Sexual infidelity alone is
excluded as a trigger, but can be considered as part of the overall circumstances.
Q9: What is the significance of R v Clinton (2012) for the loss of control defence?
A: R v Clinton established that while sexual infidelity cannot, on its own, be a qualifying
trigger for loss of control, it can be taken into account as part of the context in which
other things were said or done that do constitute a qualifying trigger. This allows the
jury to consider the whole circumstances surrounding the killing.
Q10: How does the law treat a defendant who claims they lost control but acted
out of revenge?
A: The defence of loss of control will fail. The first element of the defence requires that
the defendant's actions resulted from a loss of self-control. If the defendant acted out of
a considered desire for revenge, they have not lost control. This principle was affirmed
in R v Ibrams, where a planned 'punishment' of a victim over several days was not
considered a loss of control.
Q11: For diminished responsibility, what is meant by a 'recognised medical
condition'?
A: The term is not exhaustively defined in the statute but relies on recognised diagnostic
manuals such as the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the
American DSM. It has been held to include conditions such as depression (R v Martin),
battered woman syndrome (R v Ahluwalia), anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and
in some cases, pre-menstrual syndrome. The condition must be medically recognised.
Q12: What does 'substantial impairment' mean in the context of diminished
responsibility?
2025 Exam Question Paper with Full
Mark Scheme | Updated for
2025/2026
Q1: Define the actus reus of murder.
A: The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under
the Queen's peace. Case law clarifies: it must be unlawful (R v Clegg – soldier using
disproportionate force), the victim must be a human being (not a fetus, R v Copeland),
the defendant's act must cause the death (R v Malcherek – switching off life support),
and it can be by act or omission where there is a duty to act (R v Gibbons and Proctor –
parents starving child) .
Q2: Define the mens rea of murder.
A: The mens rea of murder is 'malice aforethought', which is defined as the intention to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Vickers). Intention can be direct (aiming to
bring about a consequence, R v Mohan) or oblique, where death or GBH was a virtually
certain consequence of the defendant's actions and they realised this (R v Woollin) .
Q3: Outline the three-stage test for the defence of loss of control.
A: The test is set out in s.54 and s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. First, the
defendant must have lost self-control, which need not be sudden (R v Dawes) but
cannot be for a considered revenge (R v Ibrams). Second, the loss of control must have a
qualifying trigger: a fear of serious violence (R v Ward) or things said/done of an
extremely grave character giving the defendant a justifiable sense of being wronged (R v
Clinton). Third, a person of the defendant's age and sex, with a normal degree of
tolerance and self-restraint, might have acted in the same way (R v Camplin) .
,Q4: What is the defence of diminished responsibility?
A: Under s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended), a defendant suffering from an
abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (e.g.,
depression, R v Martin; battered woman syndrome, R v Ahluwalia; pre-menstrual
syndrome) will have a defence if the abnormality substantially impaired their ability to
understand their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control (R v Byrne),
and it provides an explanation for the killing. The impairment does not need to be total
(R v Lloyd), and the defence fails if the abnormality was caused solely by intoxication (R v
Dietschman) .
Q5: Distinguish between direct and oblique intention.
A: Direct intention refers to a situation where the defendant's aim, purpose, or desire is
to bring about a consequence (R v Mohan). Oblique intention arises when the
consequence is not the defendant's primary aim, but it is a virtually certain result of their
actions, and they realise that this is the case (R v Woollin). The jury are entitled to find
intention in such circumstances.
Q6: Can a defendant be liable for murder by omission?
A: Yes, but only where the defendant is under a duty to act. This duty can arise from a
statutory obligation, a contractual duty, a close family relationship (R v Gibbons and
Proctor), or where the defendant has voluntarily assumed responsibility for another. The
omission must be a cause of death.
Q7: Explain the 'year and a day rule'. Is it still relevant?
A: The 'year and a day rule' was an old common law rule stating that a death could not
be prosecuted as homicide if it occurred more than a year and one day after the
defendant's act. This rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act
1996, so it is no longer relevant for modern cases, except where the death occurs more
than three years after the act and the defendant has already been convicted of a serious
offence in relation to the same incident.
, Q8: For loss of control, what is meant by a 'qualifying trigger'?
A: A qualifying trigger is one of two things specified in s.55 of the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009. The first is a fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or
another identified person (R v Ward). The second is that things said or done (or both)
constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to
have a justifiable sense of being wronged (R v Clinton). Sexual infidelity alone is
excluded as a trigger, but can be considered as part of the overall circumstances.
Q9: What is the significance of R v Clinton (2012) for the loss of control defence?
A: R v Clinton established that while sexual infidelity cannot, on its own, be a qualifying
trigger for loss of control, it can be taken into account as part of the context in which
other things were said or done that do constitute a qualifying trigger. This allows the
jury to consider the whole circumstances surrounding the killing.
Q10: How does the law treat a defendant who claims they lost control but acted
out of revenge?
A: The defence of loss of control will fail. The first element of the defence requires that
the defendant's actions resulted from a loss of self-control. If the defendant acted out of
a considered desire for revenge, they have not lost control. This principle was affirmed
in R v Ibrams, where a planned 'punishment' of a victim over several days was not
considered a loss of control.
Q11: For diminished responsibility, what is meant by a 'recognised medical
condition'?
A: The term is not exhaustively defined in the statute but relies on recognised diagnostic
manuals such as the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the
American DSM. It has been held to include conditions such as depression (R v Martin),
battered woman syndrome (R v Ahluwalia), anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and
in some cases, pre-menstrual syndrome. The condition must be medically recognised.
Q12: What does 'substantial impairment' mean in the context of diminished
responsibility?
