A Cambridge University law exam has caused a furore in the national press because of its explicit content.

200 undergraduates sitting their criminal law paper were asked to consider the offences committed at a fictional Cambridge college drinking society. The question posits a familiar student scenario in which a female student tricks one man into getting gobbled by another man, bums a second man with a bottle and rips off a third's pubic hair, resulting in an infection and untimely death.

    Sandra may have issues
Media outlets including the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Telegraph have all spun the story as an outrage, using frothing tweets from non-law students ("horrific - beyond acceptable") to bolster their case.

However, as Cambridge student mag The Tab reports, the law students themselves were largely unfazed, no doubt thanks to their familiarity with R v Brown. One Christs student even admitted "I liked the question. The circumstances felt familiar, and that was a comfort in the stressful atmosphere of an exam room".

A University spokesman forced to defend the paper said "hypothetical situations are presented in order to test students' understanding of different aspects of Criminal Law", before hurrying home clutching a two litre bottle of Pepsi and a tub of Veet.
Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 07 June 13 09:00

It's standard for a crim law exam in 1st year. I don't see why the media is going nuts over it. Hell, I've seen worse.

Anonymous 07 June 13 10:17

Is the answer sexual assault, sexual assault and assault? I'm not a lawyer unfortunately...

Anonymous 07 June 13 10:47

I know it's wrong to answer a question with a question, but...

Describe Sandra's norks.

Anonymous 07 June 13 11:12

One Christs student even admitted "I liked the question. The circumstances felt familiar......" = likes being bummed by a bottle

Anonymous 07 June 13 11:32

Sexual Assault x 2, plus one arguable GBH / maybe ABH.

Query whether in latter case there's a murder \ manslaughter argument (there is but will fail).

Sandra can be done for various conspiracies to [x], joint enterprises etc.


Anonymous 07 June 13 11:37

Why do universities draft questions like that:

Consider what offences, if any, have been committed.

If I write "ok", do I get full marks?

Do you really need the "consider" bit?

Roll On Friday 07 June 13 12:48

Some people out there really are quite warped. We have criminal law exams because crime actually does take place. Are we to ignore it or not allow prospective criminal lawyers to be tested on such issues because they are "rude" (gasp)? I also agree with OldDude, when was the last time there was a "furore" about a question in which someone was murdered?

I didn't do much on sexual offences. The first two are sexual assaults, second could also be battery. The third could be gross negligence manslaughter but you'd have to consider whether the victim's actions broke the chain of causation. I think this would come down to whether it was foreseeable that the victim would be too embarrassed to seek medical attention. If not, then I guess it would amount to GBH.

Anonymous 07 June 13 14:17

I'm sure the Daily Mail are just annoyed there doesn't seem to be foreigner they can blame it all on.

Anonymous 07 June 13 19:16

Seems that the former News of the World journalists have now turned to setting exam questions.

Anonymous 12 June 13 19:38

I was actually asked in my universty entrance interview, as a callow 18 yr old, "Can a woman rape a man"? I'm sure part of the reason for the question was to see if I flinched. The answer then, as I recall, was no (rape could only be man on woman) but it has been redefined in statute since so the answer now would be yes. (I got in, thanks for asking)

Anonymous 14 June 13 12:44

Its just a hypothetical situation. I really don't see why everybody is so upset, considering the fact that real cases can often be far, FAR! worse. These students, answering this question will have to deal with those real cases in the future.

Anonymous 17 July 13 20:57

anonymous user 12/06/2013 18:38 - afraid I'm a little late to the party, but no, rape has not been redefined. It's still the penile penetration of an orifice without the penetratee's consent. No penis, no rape...