A genuine preview of what £6.99 buys — full interactive screenshots, real case content, actual model answers. Not marketing fluff. Decide before you buy whether the modules match what you need.
Drilled in the real H418/01 paper structure. Bronze for recall and 8-mark Section A Explains; Silver and Gold for the 20-mark Section B scenarios and essays you'll actually face. Answer first. Self-mark. Read the model. Repeat.
Quick-fire recall and the 8-mark "Explain what is meant by" questions from Section A.
The actus reus is the physical element of a criminal offence — the conduct, action, omission, or consequence specified in the offence definition. It must be voluntary (Hill v Baxter) and, where the offence requires, must have caused the prohibited consequence. The actus reus must coincide with the mens rea for liability to attach.
(1) R v Pittwood (1902) — a railway gatekeeper failed to close the gate; the case established that a contractual duty can give rise to liability for omission. (2) R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] — the defendants took in Stone's sister but failed to care for her properly; the case established that a duty to act can arise from voluntary assumption of responsibility.
"Explain what is meant by novus actus interveniens in relation to causation in criminal law. Do not refer to the scenario."
A novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's conduct and the prohibited consequence. The general rule is that the defendant's act must remain the operating and substantial cause of the result (R v Smith [1959]). Where a new act intervenes, the courts ask whether it is so independent and so potent in causing harm that the defendant's contribution becomes insignificant (R v Cheshire [1991]). Three categories typically arise: medical treatment (R v Jordan; R v Cheshire); the victim's own act where it is reasonably foreseeable (R v Roberts; R v Marjoram); and acts of third parties (R v Pagett). The thin-skull rule preserves the chain even where the victim's pre-existing condition makes them more susceptible (R v Blaue).
Full problem questions with named defendants and victims. Each has a Level-6 model answer following IRAC structure with examiner annotations.
"Sam knocks Reece unconscious in a fight. Reece is taken to hospital where a tired doctor administers a painkiller to which Reece is allergic. Reece dies. Advise whether Sam can be held to have caused Reece's death."
Hover any highlighted clause to see what it does. Mark scheme: AO1 8 + AO2 12.
The legal question is whether Sam's punch can be treated as having caused Reece's death, given the intervening negligent administration of an allergen by hospital staff. Causation in English criminal law is a two-stage test: factual causation, then legal causation.
Factual causation applies the "but for" test (R v White — defendant put cyanide in his mother's drink but she died of an unrelated heart attack first; factual causation failed because her death did not depend on his act).
Legal causation requires the defendant's conduct to be (i) more than a minimal contribution (R v Kimsey: more than a "slight or trifling link"), and (ii) an operating and substantial cause at the time of death (R v Smith, where the stabbed soldier was dropped three times en route to the medical station and received bad treatment, but his original wound remained the operating cause).
Medical novus actus interveniens (NAI) sets a high threshold. R v Cheshire establishes that medical treatment will not break the chain unless it is so independent of the defendant's act and so potent in causing death that the defendant's contribution becomes insignificant. R v Jordan is the rare counter-example: the deceased's wounds had "mainly healed" and the treatment was found to be "palpably bad" — the original injury was no longer operating.
Factual causation: but for Sam's punch, Reece would not have been knocked unconscious, would not have been admitted to hospital, would not have been administered the painkiller, and would not have died. Factual causation is comfortably satisfied — distinguishable from White because death here flows directly from the chain Sam set in motion.
Legal causation: Sam's punch caused unconsciousness severe enough to require hospitalisation; without it the medical situation would never have arisen. The contribution is plainly more than the minimal Kimsey threshold. As in Smith, the original injury remained operating: Reece had not recovered when the painkiller was given.
Medical NAI: administering a known allergen to a patient with a documented allergy is serious medical conduct, closer in character to Jordan ("palpably bad" treatment) than to the more routine errors in Cheshire. However, the better view is that this still does not reach the Jordan threshold. Unlike Jordan, Reece's injuries had not "mainly healed" — the unconsciousness from blunt-force trauma was still operating at the time the painkiller was administered. A reasonable jury could go either way: the prosecution will argue Cheshire applies because Sam's act created the situation; the defence will argue Jordan applies because the medical conduct was radically unwarranted and independently fatal.
Factual causation is satisfied. Legal causation is more finely balanced, but on the better view the chain is preserved: Sam's punch remained an operating and substantial cause, and the medical error — though serious — did not reach the Jordan threshold of treatment so radically unwarranted that the original injury became insignificant. Sam can therefore be held to have caused Reece's death, with the qualification that a defence of medical NAI under Jordan is at least arguable.
Causation in criminal law has two parts: factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the but-for test from R v White, where the defendant tried to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack first, so he was not the factual cause. Legal causation is from R v Smith, where a stabbed soldier was dropped on the way to hospital but the original stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause.
R v Cheshire is about medical treatment causing death, where the chain of causation was not broken. R v Jordan is the opposite, where the chain was broken because the medical treatment was bad.
In this case, Sam knocked Reece unconscious and Reece was taken to hospital, where a tired doctor gave him the wrong painkiller. Reece was allergic to it and died. Sam’s punch put Reece in hospital, so Sam might be the factual cause of death. The doctor’s mistake might have broken the chain, but following Cheshire it probably did not. So Sam probably caused Reece’s death, although the doctor was also negligent.
What’s there. Causation correctly identified. Two-stage structure mentioned (factual / legal). Right cases named (White, Smith, Cheshire, Jordan).
What’s missing. Case facts of White and Smith are recited at length but never applied to Sam and Reece. The but-for test is described but not walked through (“but for Sam’s punch, would Reece have been in hospital?”). Cheshire’s threshold (“independent and so potent”) and Jordan’s threshold (“manifestly inappropriate”) are absent — both cases are mentioned but neither rule is stated, so the application has no test to apply. There is no AO3 evaluation. The conclusion hedges with “probably” and “might”.
To bump to Level 5. Structure crisply as factual → legal → NAI. Walk the but-for test through Sam and Reece by name. State the Cheshire and Jordan threshold tests before applying them. Add a brief AO3 paragraph (academic critique of the medical NAI doctrine, or a Law Commission comment). Commit to a definite conclusion.
The polished model answer above — the one labelled “Suggested answer (Level 5 / 20 marks)” — is the Level 5 reference for this question.
Read the Level 4 attempt and then this Level 5 model side by side. The differences are exactly what the examiner’s report flags between bands: structure, application to named parties, threshold tests stated before applied, and an evaluation paragraph that earns AO3 credit.
When you’ve done that, switch to the Level 6 tab to see what pushes the same answer into the top band.
"The defendant's conduct must remain the operating and substantial cause; intervening medical treatment will only break the chain where it is so independent and potent that the original injury becomes insignificant (R v Cheshire) — a threshold rarely met in practice..."
Level 6 answers nail the four specific moves examiners reward most — sophisticated reasoning, distinguishing cases on named facts, balanced counter-arguments, and definite conclusions with explicit reasons. Inside the module: the full Level 6 model with examiner annotations on every move.
Unlock to see the Level 6 attempt →The hardest questions on the paper — critical evaluation essays (Q7* / Q10*) worth A*-grade marks. Read the question. Plan your essay. Then unlock to see exactly how a Level-6 answer is structured.
"The doctrine of strict liability cannot be morally justified in modern criminal law. Critically discuss."
Inside the module, you'll get the full Level-6 essay plan with examiner annotations on every move — so you know exactly what to do differently next time.
Lifetime access · Instant download · Audited against 2024 examiner reports
Every General Elements question from real OCR H418 papers — each one decoded with a full model answer and examiner-report breakdown inside the module.
Stop guessing what examiners want. Read the actual mark schemes decoded into Level-5 and Level-6 model answers — then practise the techniques that consistently score top marks.
Lifetime access · Instant download · Audited against 2024 examiner reports
Before the law looks at what someone was thinking, it asks what they actually did — or in some cases, what they failed to do. This is where every criminal case begins.
Imagine you're explaining what a crime is to your younger cousin. You'd probably say something like: "You did something bad and you knew you were doing it." That's actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the "you did something" half. It's the conduct, the action — or sometimes the failure to act — that the law has criminalised.
The starting point in every case is that the actus reus must be:
The defendant must have been in control of their actions.
The criminal law generally punishes doing, not failing to do.
"The strongest candidates separated actus reus from mens rea clearly in their analysis, citing the relevant authority for each, before applying the named facts. Weaker responses collapsed the two elements into a generic 'did he do it' discussion."
Don't mention voluntariness or positive action in every problem question. Only raise them where the scenario gives you a reason to — e.g. the defendant was sleepwalking, was pushed, suffered a sudden seizure, or didn't actually do anything. If the scenario is silent on these, leave them out and save your time for the issues that do arise.
Get all 15 sections of Topic 1 — interactive practice questions, model answers with examiner annotations, flashcards, diagrams, and exam-board past papers from 2018-2024.
£6.99 Unlock Topic 1 — General Elements →Lifetime access · Instant download · Audited against 2024 examiner reports
The 15 cases OCR examiners name most often across Topic 1, drilled into flip cards. Front asks the question. Back reveals the principle plus the facts.
Principle: Factual causation is tested by the "but for" rule — would the consequence have occurred but for the defendant's act?
Facts: the defendant put cyanide in his mother's drink intending to kill her, but she died of a heart attack before drinking it. Factual causation failed (convicted of attempt).
Principle: D is reckless if they (i) foresaw the risk of the result and (ii) went on to take that risk unjustifiably. The test is subjective — what THIS defendant actually foresaw.
Facts: D pulled a gas meter off a wall to steal money; gas seeped through and poisoned his neighbour. Conviction quashed because he hadn't foreseen the risk.
Principle: There is a strong common-law presumption that mens rea is required for every element of a "truly criminal" offence. The presumption can only be rebutted by clear statutory words or necessary implication.
Facts: Schoolteacher convicted of "managing premises used for cannabis". HL quashed: the offence was truly criminal, presumption applied, she lacked knowledge.
All 15 OCR-named cases covering every General Elements topic, drilled into structured flip cards with examiner-grade answers. Drill mode adds shuffle, self-mark, and progress tracking.
Lifetime access · Instant download · Audited against 2024 examiner reports
Every section is built to the same standard as Practice — designed for OCR H418, OCR H018, and AQA 7162.
Instant download · Lifetime access · No subscription
If your question isn't answered here, email hello@lawbylak.co.uk — replies usually inside 24 hours.
15 sections. 50+ worked problems. Every OCR-named case decoded. Built specifically for OCR H418, OCR H018, and AQA 7162. Designed and written by a First-Class Law graduate.
