Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    JDOC1003 Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    JDOC1003 Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464
    3 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views2 pages

    JDOC1003 Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    The University of Hong Kong

    Department of Law

    Academic Year of 2022-2023

    Examiner’s Report

    [This report will be posted onto intranet immediately after the release of exam results]

    Course code: JDOC1003 Course Title: Criminal Law I


    Report prepared by: Prof Michael Hor Date: Dec 17, 2022

    The exams were, in general, competently done. All answers had a basic understanding of the law
    and the issues involved. Here are some more specific observations:

    1. Use of word limit: some answers wasted too many words on background information or stating
    the obvious. 2000 words is not a very generous limit, but that is prescribed on purpose. A key skill is
    to be able to come to the point as quickly as possible. In factual hypotheticals, if the law is unclear,
    state the issue of law and then immediately discuss the issue and reach a reasoned conclusion. If the
    law is clear, state the law and then right away discuss how the law applied to the facts.

    2. Comments on particular questions:

    Question 1 (uncertainty and reverse burden)

    The better answers were able to tackle and discuss the key dynamic of resolving or balancing the
    tension between the need for certainty in the criminal law and the need to prevent ingenious
    defendants from exploiting the limitations of statutory language in order to “escape” liability. Better
    answers also dealt with the precedents in a satisfactory manner – eg for uncertainty, the CFA cases
    of Shum and Mo. The constitutional challenges failed in these cases – the challenge is to give a
    reasoned opinion on whether the offence in question here is sufficiently similar, or not, as the case
    may be.

    Question 2 (Intention, Knowledge, Recklessness)

    Most answers correctly focused on the issue of the “virtual certainty” limb of intention. Better
    answers were able to discuss the choice of treating it as a substantive definition of intention, or,
    alternatively, as an evidential device to prove intention.

    Question 3 (Negligence, Strict Liability)

    Not many answers dealt with the important issue of whether the particular circumstances of the
    defendant doctor should or should not be taken into account in the “reasonable person” test of
    criminal negligence. Some answers merely assumed that they are to be taken into account, other
    answers assumed the opposite.

    Question 4 (Actus Reus – Assault, Battery, Consent, Omission)

    Better answers correctly identified the issue concerning “implied consent” of modern living. Better
    answers also dealt with the key issue of whether the law of assault and battery ought to be
    “extended” or expanded to unamplified sound, and even to black magic – ie even going beyond
    physical force. A few answers to the essay question on omissions appear to have misunderstood the
    comment. It calls for a comparison between the common law categorical, case by case approach,
    and the duty established by some other existing law approach of some other jurisdiction. It is not
    about whether we should or should not criminalise omissions in general.

    Question 5 (Actus Reus – Congruence and Causation)


    Some answers to the essay portion went on a general discussion about law and morality. That is of
    course relevant but the better answers were able to contexualise the law and morality issue to the
    specific area of causation and congruence in criminal law.

    You might also like