9084 · June 2024
Law
This was the second summer of the new specification, and it seemed to present some challenges to candidates. The compulsory nature of the first five questions on the paper seemed to be particularly challenging as there was evidence of many candidates missing out whole questions or lacking focus in their…
Source: Cambridge International
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
No data available in official reports
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
Candidates need to be prepared for the potentially narrow focus of the compulsory questions and ensure they address this in their answer.
The use of legal authority is crucial across all answers, and this can take the form of cases, statutes, reports, statistics or academic opinion.
Candidates should be encouraged to pay attention to the command verbs used at the start of a question; for example, ‘Identify’ req Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers LAW Paper 9084/11 English Legal System Key messages
Ensure that the question answered is the question set and particularly in the evaluation questions, link answers back to the wording in the question.
If time management is an issue, candidates should be encouraged to answer the higher tariff questions first to ensure that they do not run out of time.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
Report
Examiner report
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
No data available in official reports
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 Comments on specific questions Section A Due to the small number of marks attributed to these questions, candidates are advised to focus their answers on the question being asked. To aid with this, paying attention to command verbs will help candidates judge the length required of the answer. Several responses were over a page long for some questions in this section which is disproportionate to the number of marks available. Further, candidates are reminded of the need to be specific and use correct legal terminology to access the higher mark bands. Question 1 Identify the two divisions of the Court of Appeal. Few candidates achieved full marks on this question. There was evidence of some guesswork with answers such as ‘House of Commons/Lords’, together with examples of other courts. There was also reference to ‘Upper/Lower Divisions’ and the names of the Divisions of the High Court. Question 2 Identify two types of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This was an accessible question with most candidates able to correctly identify two forms of dispute resolution from negotiation, mediation, conciliation or arbitration. Candidates are reminded that the command verb of ‘identify’ requires only a list. Precious examination time is wasted giving a definition of ADR or any of the types. Question 3 Identify five sources of persuasive precedent. Candidates seemed to find this question challenging, with many candidates choosing it to leave it unanswered. Weaker responses were confused by the question and instead offered types of precedent as an answer and there was also some confusion with law reform methods. Question 4 Describe three reasons why a judge might excuse or defer a person from serving on a jury. The key words in this question were excuse or defer which was missed by many candidates who instead talked about ineligibility to sit on a jury. Candidates are reminded that excusals and deferrals are different to ineligibility and challenges. As such, this question produced mixed responses. The implication of challenging a juror, like a judge excusing someone with connections to people in the case, was accepted as a benefit of the doubt, but only if the connection was related to the excusal. Credit was given for reasons such as: English being a second language, mental illness or episodes during the trial, being deaf, blind, or having another disability that makes serving impossible, military personnel called to duty, pregnant or new mothers, exams, holidays, or essential work obligations (such as doctors, nurses, or teachers) that prevent the person from serving. Centres should be advised that whilst deaf jurors were accepted in this series as a benefit of the doubt, since 2021, British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters are permitted to take part in jury service to aid a deaf juror. These provisions were contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Question 5 Assess the need for society to have both civil and criminal law. The most common approach which scored highly was to answer this question with a definition of civil and criminal law and then provide an outline of the key differences. Most candidates could outline the differences between civil and criminal law, for example, civil law is between two individuals, criminal law is between the
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 state and an individual, but only stronger responses developed this further with some narrative around why we need these areas of law. As with the last series, candidates scored higher on AO3 than on AO2 as only the stronger responses developed the AO3 points or supported with legal authority for the additional AO2 marks. For example, one point could be: ‘Criminal law is the area of law where the State can prosecute an individual for wrongdoing, such as murder or theft. This area of law is necessary to protect society from harmful individuals, to maintain law and order and also to deter individuals from committing crime.’ Here, the AO3 mark is awarded for the evaluation point and then the rest of the point is credited with AO2 as it shows development and supporting analysis of the point on representation. Weaker responses misused terminology, for example, using ‘guilty’ when referring to the civil law and ‘liable’ for criminal law. It is important to note that the misuse of legal terminology presents an unconvincing answer and such responses are not likely to achieve the higher levels of marks when demonstrating such inaccuracies. Some candidates chose to discuss political views or topics like religion, ethics, and morals in response to this question. These points could not be credited unless they were directly relevant to the question. Section B Most noteworthy in this section is the continued amount of repetition in part (b) from part (a). Candidates are reminded that different skills are being tested; part (a) is examining AO1 Knowledge and Understanding and part (b) is examining AO2 Analysis and Application and AO3 Evaluation and candidates cannot be credited for the same information twice. Question 6 (a) Explain the literal and mischief rules of statutory interpretation. This was a popular choice among candidates and produced some good answers, with some evidence of supporting case law for both the literal and the mischief rules. Candidates are generally more confident with the literal rule, with most candidates able to provide a correct definition. Where case law was used to support the literal rule, common citations were Whiteley v Chappel, Fisher v Bell and London North East Railway Company v Berriman. The Mischief Rule provided responses that were somewhat informal, with little reference to case law. There was also some confusion as to what the Mischief Rule is, with several candidates demonstrating some confusion with the purposive approach in the language used, for example, referring to ‘intention’ rather than the ‘gap’ Parliament was trying to fill. There was very little reference to Heydon’s Case, but Smith v Hughes and Pepper v Hart were commonly cited. (b) Assess the extent to which the rules of statutory interpretation prevent judges from making law. This question required an assessment of all rules of statutory interpretation. Many candidates repeated the knowledge demonstrated in part (a) to this question part, with little development in terms of analysis and evaluation. Candidates were expected to conclude that the literal and golden rules provide little scope for judicial creativity but that the mischief and purposive rules allow for slightly more undemocratic law making. This was not the case for the majority of candidates. Case law was credited in places with some implicit evaluation, for example where Re Sigsworth was cited as an ‘absurd’ result. To improve, candidates are advised to practice the skills of AO2 and AO3 as these were the lowest scoring questions on the paper. A good tip is for candidates to use the wording from the questions in their answers to help keep them focused on the question. Question 7
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 (a) Explain how the police should make a lawful arrest without a warrant. This was a popular choice of question although many candidates chose to focus on stop and search rather than arrest. Stronger responses identified the requirements of a lawful arrest, using sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and some relevant terms from the statute related to the requirements for a lawful arrest. Weaker responses discussed arrest with limited accuracy and spent a disproportionate amount of the response talking about detention rights when they arrive at the police station, such as the right to a phone call, legal advice and rules around samples, which was not wholly relevant to the question. Candidates are reminded that the command verb ‘explain’ requires more than simply a list. (b) Assess how the law on arrest without a warrant strikes a fair balance between the powers of the police and the rights of the individual. As seen in Question 6(b), there was a lot of repetition here from part (a) with candidates explaining police powers, with little development or evaluation that answers the question. As a point of guidance, candidates should be encouraged to link back to the question with connectives such as ‘This strikes a fair balance because……’. Overall, the evaluation points were often quite vague, lacked clarity and were very rarely supported with case law or statutory provisions. The AO3 points had a tendency to be list like with little or no development for the additional AO2 credit; these answers were unlikely be awarded higher than Band 2 as they only demonstrated ‘some’ analysis and evaluation. Stronger responses discussed cases such as Taylor v Thames Valley Police (2004), where it was claimed that the police had not informed Taylor of the reasons for his arrest. There was also some weak evaluation about young BAME males being three times more likely to be stopped and searched; where the candidate developed this into arrest, the benefit of the doubt was given and positively credited. Question 8 (a) Explain how lay magistrates are selected. This was another popular question and, on the whole, most candidates could provide a basic explanation of how lay magistrates are selected. There was some confusion around the focus on selection. Most candidates interpreted this as an invitation to discuss eligibility criteria, such as age and job role, rather than the selection process of interview and selection. There was some confusion with juries and with the Judicial Appointments Commission, which has no involvement with the selection of magistrates. The ideal approach was to discuss the way in which posts for the magistracy are advertised, the 2- stage interview and its requirements and then a short narrative about the training and mentoring process. (b) Assess the extent to which the selection process ensures that the most suitable people become lay magistrates. There were some very brief answers to this question, seemingly because candidates ran out of time. A sensible approach to this question would have been to assess how open the advertising process has become recently, the rigour of the training programme and how the process ensures a diversity balance, represents the local community and how the 2-stage interview assesses for the correct judicial attitudes and skills. The same confusion tended to be apparent in this question part as well, so if a candidate had discussed juries in part (a), they continued that in this question; likewise discussions of the judiciary also came through here.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 As a point of guidance, answers were disproportionately long for this question part in comparison to the number of marks available for the question. For example, time was wasted discussing the role of the jury. Question 5 Discuss the advantages of using lay magistrates in the criminal justice system. This question required discussion of only the advantages of lay magistrates and as such, any reference to disadvantages was not credited. On the whole, most candidates could identify two advantages of magistrates, although candidates scored higher on AO3 than on AO2 as only the stronger responses developed these points or supported with legal authority for the AO2 marks. A sensible approach to this question would be to consider around four advantages and develop these well with a sensible argument and some legal authority for the full range of marks. For example, one point could be: ‘Magistrates are generally representative of society. This is seen in recent diversity statistics which suggest that 51 per cent of magistrates are male and 49 per cent are female. There is also an increasing representation of BAME magistrates, possibly due to the increased advertising and recruitment campaigns being undertaken by the Magistrates’ Association’ Here, the AO3 mark is awarded for the evaluation point and then the rest of the point is credited with AO2 as it shows development and supporting analysis of the point on representation. Stronger responses mentioned AO3 points such as representativeness, cost, local knowledge, use of the legal adviser and fewer appeals. Weaker responses had the misconception that lay magistrates sit as a panel of two with a professional judge and that their role is to advise the judge. They thought that lay magistrates are legally qualified and some commented that their role was to ensure that the judge could not be bribed. This idea shares some similarity with Sir Robin Auld’s proposals, but not entirely. It’s either the case that these candidates confused proposed reforms for the current state of the criminal justice system or that they confused the criminal justice system of their own country with that of England and Wales. Further up the scale, answers wandered into disadvantages as well, which, although interesting to read, was not focused on the question. Candidates should be reminded to read the question carefully to prevent providing information that cannot be credited. Section B This is a new style question and most noteworthy in this section is the continued amount of repetition that features in part (b) from part (a). Candidates need to be reminded that different skills are being tested; part (a) is examining AO1 Knowledge and Understanding and part (b) is examining AO2 Analysis and Application and AO3 Evaluation and candidates cannot be credited for the same information twice. Question 6 (a) Explain what is meant by judicial independence. Candidates who answered this question seemed to find it challenging. There was some confusion with the appointment of judges, with many candidates discussing the difference between inferior and superior judges. Unfortunately, there was also some confusion with statutory interpretation and several responses discussed types of criminal offences, all of which was not relevant to the question and was therefore not credited. Judicial Precedent also featured heavily in some weaker answers. Some candidates began their answer by introducing the concept that judicial independence is the judge's ability to make any decision he wants. They then lost focus by discussing avoidance techniques and the availability of the Practice Statement. Stronger responses talked about elements of judicial independence, such as the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary from political bias, the security of tenure and the freedom from financial pressures. This was well supported in the strongest responses with cases such as Re Pinochet and also the Gina Miller case. Part (a) was generally more accessible than part (b) for the majority of candidates who chose this question.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 LAW Paper 9084/31 Law of Contract Key messages To achieve marks in the higher bands, candidates should: • Read the questions carefully. • Address the specific topic in the question. • Avoid writing all the facts of cases. Legal principle/reasoning is all that is required. General comments Overall, there was a wide spread of marks awarded to the candidates who sat the paper. Exemplary work was evident, showcasing detailed explanations and coherence throughout the responses. This reflects the hard work of candidates and the thorough preparation provided by their teachers. Many candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of legal principles and effectively used a wide range of citations to support their application and analysis. To achieve marks in the higher bands, candidates should incorporate evaluation, analysis, and application throughout their responses. It is not sufficient to state all the relevant law (AO1) at the beginning and then briefly add evaluation, analysis, and application (AO2 and AO3) at the end in a short conclusion. High- performing candidates successfully integrated AO1, AO2, and AO3 throughout their essays, ensuring a balanced and continuous application of these elements. While demonstrating an understanding of cases is crucial, candidates should avoid retelling all the facts of the cases. Instead, they should focus on the legal principles and reasoning derived from the cases. Additionally, it is important for candidates to know the names of the cases rather than just the facts, as this shows a deeper understanding of the material. Candidates should pay careful attention to the command words in questions, as these direct them to the relevant areas of focus. Including irrelevant material does not receive credit and wastes valuable examination time. In conclusion, candidates performed well when they demonstrated detailed legal knowledge, applied and analysed this knowledge throughout their responses, and focused on the legal principles of cases rather than just the facts. By following these guidelines and utilising past exam materials, candidates can improve their performance in future examinations. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 Successful responses to this scenario question on performance and breach identified all three key issues. To achieve the highest marks, candidates needed to explore these issues in sufficient depth. Most candidates effectively addressed the breach of contract issue with AB Ltd and, to a lesser extent, the issues involving Gladshire and the offices and wallpaper. The less successful responses often reached conclusions prematurely. These responses tended to make firm assertions without adequately considering possible alternatives, resulting in a lack of balance and depth
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 in their analyses. This hurried approach hindered their ability to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the issues. In conclusion, while many candidates were able to identify the relevant issues in the scenario, there was a general tendency to provide insufficient depth and balanced analysis. To improve, candidates should ensure they explore all issues thoroughly, consider alternative perspectives, and avoid rushing to conclusions. This approach will help achieve higher marks and provide a more nuanced and comprehensive response. Question 2 The question on Intention to Create Legal Relations (ITCLR) was popular among candidates. Most responses effectively identified the key ITCLR issues, with only a small proportion of candidates addressing irrelevant topics. The strongest responses provided a detailed explanation of the law, supported by a wide range of case law. These candidates skilfully reasoned all issues presented in the question with convincing arguments, resulting in high marks. Their thorough application of legal principles and extensive case support demonstrated a strong grasp of ITCLR. Weaker responses often lacked detailed explanation of the relevant legal principles. These responses often had inconsistent analysis and evaluation. While there was generally reasonable application concerning the house issue, many candidates did not recognise that the car and shopping issues required a different reasoning approach. Candidates must understand how ITCLR principles should be applied in varying contexts to differentiate between the issues. To improve performance, candidates should focus on several key areas. Firstly, providing a detailed explanation of the law is crucial. This includes a thorough discussion of ITCLR and its application, supported by a broad range of case law. Secondly, candidates should aim for consistency in their analysis and evaluation, applying the law accurately to the facts and ensuring that different issues are reasoned appropriately based on their specific circumstances. Finally, recognising that different scenarios may necessitate different legal reasoning is essential. Candidates should practise distinguishing between various issues and applying the relevant legal principles accordingly. Many candidates demonstrated a good understanding of ITCLR and offered reasonable legal applications. Candidates can improve on delivering detailed explanations, consistent analysis, and recognising the need for different reasoning in diverse contexts. Section B Question 3 This question on capacity (minors) was exceptionally popular among candidates. The very best responses showcased exemplary AO1, with candidates providing detailed explanations of the different categories of contracts and their implications under the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 (MCA). These candidates demonstrated a strong understanding of the requirements for valid and voidable contracts, effectively distinguishing between these concepts. Outstanding responses were marked by not only comprehensive explanations but also wide-ranging analysis and evaluation (A&E). These candidates skilfully applied their knowledge to explore the nuances of the MCA and provided insightful arguments that significantly enhanced the quality of their responses. Less successful responses were characterised by a limited range of arguments, both in scope and depth. These responses often lacked the thoroughness and critical engagement seen in higher-scoring answers, resulting in weaker overall evaluations and analyses. In summary, many candidates excelled in explaining the MCA and its impact on different contract categories, achieving high marks through detailed AO1 and insightful A&E. Candidates should aim to broaden their arguments and deepen their analysis to enhance their performance on similar questions in the future. Question 4 Responses were mixed to this question on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The most successful responses demonstrated a thorough understanding of the CRA, showcasing detailed knowledge of specific
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
No data available in official reports
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
No data available in official reports
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Formation of a valid contract (Law of contract (A Level))
Offences against property (Criminal law (AS Level))
Torts affecting land (Law of tort (A Level))
Principles and sources of English law (English legal system (AS Level))
Offences against property
Principles and sources of English law
Formation of a valid contract
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
No data available in official reports
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Self-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
Candidates need to be prepared for the potentially narrow focus of the compulsory questions and ensure they address this in their answer.
- 2Message
The use of legal authority is crucial across all answers, and this can take the form of cases, statutes, reports, statistics or academic opinion.
- 3Message
Candidates should be encouraged to pay attention to the command verbs used at the start of a question; for example, ‘Identify’ req Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers LAW Paper 9084/11 English Legal System Key messages
- 4Message
Ensure that the question answered is the question set and particularly in the evaluation questions, link answers back to the wording in the question.
- 5Message
If time management is an issue, candidates should be encouraged to answer the higher tariff questions first to ensure that they do not run out of time.
- 6Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner
- 7Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner
- 8Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principa…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2024 2024
Law
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 LAW Paper 9084/11 English Legal System Key messages • Candidates need to be prepared for the potentially narrow focus of the compulsory questions and en
Candidates need to be prepared for the potentially narrow focus of the compulsory questions and ensure they address this in their answer.
The use of legal authority is crucial across all answers, and this can take the form of cases, statutes, reports, statistics or academic opinion.
Candidates should be encouraged to pay attention to the command verbs used at the start of a question; for example, ‘Identify’ req Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9084 Law June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers LAW Paper 9084/11 English Legal System Key messages
Examiner insights
General comments
- •This was the second summer of the new specification, and it seemed to present some challenges to candidates.
- •The compulsory nature of the first five questions on the paper seemed to be particularly challenging as there was evidence of many candidates missing out whole questions or lacking focus in their…
- •This reveals some areas where understanding could be strengthened, suggesting that revision could be more focused.
- •Time management seems to have improved, and some candidates wisely attempted the more demanding Section B questions first.
- •This is to be encouraged, although candidates should remember to number the questions accordingly so that the Examiner can award credit against the correct questions.