THE HONORABLE SOCIETY OF KING’S INNS

ENTRANCE EXAMINATION

AUGUST 2012

EXAMINATION:Criminal Law

DATE:Tuesday 21 August 2012

TIME:10.00 a.m. – 1.00 p.m.

Internal Examiner:Mr Tom O’Malley NUIG

External Examiner:Mr Michael O’Higgins

Instructions:

Candidates MUST attempt Question 1 and any Two other questions.

Question 1 carries 50 marks.

All other questions carry 25 marks each.

This paper is 5 pages long including the cover sheet. You should check that you have all the pages and inform the invigilator immediately if any are missing.

  1. Michael has been charged with rape which is alleged to have been committed in the following circumstances. He met the complainant, Joanne, in the early hours of the morning as she was leaving a nightclub.She had obviously had a good deal to drink. They got into conversation and she accepted an invitation to go back to his apartment for coffee. While they were in the apartment some sexual intimacy took place between them. He requested her to have sexual intercourse with him. At first she refused but she later changed her mind and they had intercourse. Some days later, Joanne made a complaint to the Gardai that she had been raped by Michael on the occasion in question. She said that she would never have consented to have intercourse with him if she had been sober, that he was well aware that she was heavily intoxicated and that he took advantage of her while she was in that state. She also claimed that, to the best of her recollection, while intercourse was taking place, she had asked Michael to desist but that he had persisted. Assume that Joanne’s version of events will be accepted by the jury, and then advise Michael as to whether, in these circumstances, he is likely to be convicted of rape.
  1. One afternoon in March 2012, Mary went to visit her friend Agnes who lived in a nearby house with her 21-year-old son James. While all three of them were having tea in the living room, Agnes was called to the phone which was in an adjacent room. Very soon after Agnes left the living room, James suddenly, and without explanation, attacked Mary and strangled her with a scarf which she was wearing. Despite efforts to revive her, Mary died a short time later. James was immediately arrested and charged with her murder. His trial is due to take place some weeks from now. He has undergone a psychiatric examination and it is the psychiatrist’s opinion that while, at the time of the attack, James would have understood what he was doing and would have known that it was wrong, he was suffering from what is described as an adjustment disorder which may have been a reaction to the sudden death of his father some months earlier. The psychiatric report indicates that this disorder may have seriously reduced James’s capacity to refrain from the violent, and ultimately fatal, assault which he perpetrated against Mary. In light of this information, you are requested to advise James’s solicitor of any defence(s) which might be raised on his behalf at the forthcoming murder trial.
  1. John is a 12-year-old boy who is a very keen and very competitive athlete. In late July 2012, an athletic competition was being held in the village where he lives. John was among the competitors and his main rival was a slightly older boy named Peter who had beaten him in one or two previous competitions. On the evening before the competition was due to take place, they met while training and John invited Peter back to his house where he offered him a soft drink which Peter accepted. In fact, unknown to Peter, John had put some rat poison in the drink with the result that Peter became seriously ill. He had to be brought to hospital where, for a day or two, his life was in danger, but he has now recovered. When John was questioned by the Gardai, he was adamant that he never intended to kill Peter but merely wanted to render him unfit to take part in the athletics competition the following day. The Gardai have now indicated that John will probably be charged with attempted murder. Advise his solicitor as to whether John is likely to found guilty of attempted murder in these circumstances and, in the event that he stands trial for that offence, of any defence(s) available to him.
  1. David lives in Galway but owns an apartment in Dublin. His partner, Patricia, has a 20-year-old son named Denis who lives in Cork. Some months ago, Denis informed Patricia and David that he was going up to Dublin to attend a rugby match. David told him that he was free to use his apartment and arranged for him to collect a spare key from the occupant of a neighbouring apartment. Denis took up the offer and spent the weekend in the apartment. Before leaving, he took a valuable painting which David kept in the apartment, sold it to an art dealer, Robert, and kept the proceeds. The painting was by a well-known artist and would have fetched about €30,000 on the open market. Denis had offered it to Robert for €5,000 and eventually sold it to him for €3,500. Some days later, when David visited the apartment and noticed that the painting was missing, he alerted the Gardai and they very quickly discovered what had happened. They have forwarded a file on the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Director has sought your advice as to the charge(s), if any, that may be brought against Denis and Robert. Advise the Director.
  1. Harold was walking home from a party in the early hours of the morning. He had been drinking with friends before going to the party and, in so far as he could later recall, he had drunk about 12 pints of beer as well as some spirits over a period of six or seven hours. He noticed that there was a fast-food outlet still open and decided to go in to get some chips. As he was approaching the door, Larry, one of a group of young men who were loitering outside, tried to block his path and told him that “no elephant men” were allowed in. This was obviously a reference to the fact that Harold has a marked facial disfigurement. Harold immediately responded by hitting Larry a blow across the head. Larry fell to the ground and suffered a fractured skull as a result of his head hitting the pavement. Larry was immediately brought to hospital and while he is predicted to survive, he is likely to be permanently incapacitated as a result of the injury. When Harold was questioned by the Gardai, he claimed that he had little recollection of the incident because he was so drunk at the time, but he believes that he was so infuriated by Larry’s remark that he just lost control and hit him. You are asked to advise Harold of the charge which he is most likely to face as a result as a result of this incident and of any defence(s) that may be available to him. Note: In advising on the charge must likely to be brought, you are asked to confine your answer to one offence only. There is no need to describe any related offences.

______

1