PART A BAR COURSE 2013 CRIMINAL LAW

PART A BAR COURSE 2013 CRIMINAL LAWSYLLABUSnature, for example, persons in a fight plan to cause grievous hurt but a victim iskilled?5. When would a person be considered to be a member of an unlawful assembly?6. In what circumstances would presence be regarded as sufficient to render aperson a member of an unlawful assembly?7. Should involuntary withdrawals from an unlawful assembly, such as beingrendered unconscious by being hit on the head, be sufficient to render one nolonger a member of an unlawful assembly?8. As a matter of social policy, should the law allow a defence of withdrawal fromconstructive liability? What are the arguments for and against such a defence?9. Should the reason for the withdrawal be relevant? Should a distinction be madebetween a person who experiences a genuine change of heart because heappreciates the moral wrongness of is conduct with the person who changes hismind because he encounters police at the scene of the crime?10. Does s 396 of the Penal Code require that (i) the persons involved know thatmurder may be committed by one of their number during the gang robbery? (ii)the persons involved in the gang robbery be physically present at the commissionof the murder?11. Is the reach of liability under s 396 of the Penal Code unjustifiably broad, or can itbe justified considering the number of persons involved and the fact that robberycomes with a degree of personal violence?12. How should the term “accomplice” in s 5 of the Arms Offences Act beunderstood?13. Can it be argued that it should be easier to impose constructive liability insituations involving firearms (where severe injuries are common) than in lessdangerous situations covered by ss 34, 149 or 396 of the Penal Code?14. Do you agree that the different approaches used towards constructive liability inthe criminal law are unnecessarily confusing, resulting in unfairness to theaccused? If so, how should the different approaches to constructive liability bereplaced?24