OCR A Level Law (H018/H418/2020) Past Papers 2026

The Legal System and Criminal Law

Duration: 2h

Law Making and the Law of Tort

Duration: 2h

The Nature of Law and Human Rights (optional)

Duration: 2h

The Nature of Law and the Law of Contract (optional)

Duration: 2h

Mens rea of s.18 and s.20 OAPA 1861 — candidates confuse the fault elements of the two offences

H418/01 2023 Q9: 'candidates being confused about the correct mens rea for Section 18 and Section 20.' Candidates also spent unnecessary time discussing causation which is not a key issue in non-fatal offences. The assault element and words negating an assault were frequently missed.

H418/01

Intoxication — distinguishing specific and basic intent offences under the Majewski rule

H418/01 2023: 'Those that did attempt to deal with the intoxication seemed confused about which of the offences were specific and basic intent.' Candidates also invented Dutch courage arguments with no evidential basis in the scenario.

H418/01

Insanity and automatism — internal versus external cause and the correct application to given facts

H418/01 2024 Q9: epilepsy in the scenario caused candidates to mistakenly classify an externally triggered sneezing fit as an internal cause and apply insanity instead of automatism. Candidates also merged the requirements for both defences or incorrectly applied diminished responsibility.

H418/01

Loss of control — qualifying triggers, and the normal person standard under the CJA 2009

H418/01 2024 Q8: 'The weakest area was where candidates did not fully explore measures of loss of control or the normal person test, particularly in relation to the defendant's panic attacks.' Many applied old provocation case law rather than modern CJA 2009 authority.

H418/01

Negligence causation — factual and legal causation, novus actus interveniens and remoteness

H418/02 2024 Q7/Q10: a significant minority of candidates had no knowledge of negligence causation at all, scoring 0–4 out of 20. Others reproduced a general negligence essay on breach. Evaluation based on criminal causation principles was explicitly non-creditworthy.

H418/02

Rylands v Fletcher — element-by-element explanation and the distinction between non-natural use of land and the nature of the thing accumulated

H418/02 2023: 'There were also common misunderstandings such as the thing accumulated being non-natural rather than the use of the land.' Less successful responses produced a single bald statement of elements rather than explanations, and application tended towards assertion without linking facts to legal principles.

H418/02

HRA 1998 — the effect of ss2–4 and the distinction between the HRA and the ECHR

H418/03 2023: 'A significant minority of candidates mistook the HRA 1998 for the ECHR and tended to base their argument around the idea that this represented an external or foreign source of law.' The essay required analysis of the HRA Act itself, not just the article rights. Confusing the ECtHR with EU institutions earned zero marks.

H418/03

Contract law consideration and misrepresentation — failure to spot specific issues in scenarios

H418/04 2023: in the misrepresentation question, 'A surprising number of candidates were incorrect on the second part of the scenario, not identifying that there is no general duty of disclosure.' On consideration, candidates outlined rules that were not relevant (e.g. existing duty) rather than focusing on past consideration and its exceptions.

H418/04