Criminal Law Module code UJUULF; UJUUB9; UJUTD3 Assessment name Case Commentary & Research Trail Assessment task ref. Task 2 Module intended learning outcomes being assessed MO1: Demonstrate subject knowledge and a basic

Module name

Criminal Law

Module code

UJUULF; UJUUB9; UJUTD3

Assessment name

Case Commentary & Research Trail

Assessment task ref.

Task 2

Module intended learning outcomes being assessed

MO1: Demonstrate subject knowledge and a basic understanding of the key theories, concepts and values, principles and rules of the English criminal legal system.

MO2: Understand the importance of primary and secondary sources of law within the criminal law and source information from a guided range of primary and secondary data.

MO4: Recognise, respect and value diversity of experience and the perspectives of others, and demonstrate an understanding of the principles and values of law, justice, and legal ethics

Assessment deadline

14:00 on 6^th May 2026

Does the 48-hour late submission window apply?

Yes – for more details, please see Common Assessment Guidance (link above)

Marks and feedback to be returned by, and via

8^th June 2026; via Blackboard and embedded comments. A general feedback document will also be made available to the whole cohort shortly after this date.

Assessment weighting

65%

STUDENTS ON UJUULF: Please remember that your final module mark will be aggregated with the 10% contribution from the Student Lawyer.  Please see the Student Lawyer Blackboard site for details.

Content limit, if applicable

Legal Commentary: 1,000 words

Research Trail: 800 words (excluding 1,613 words of template)

Acceptable file formats

.doc or .docx

Please save your work using a recent version of Word, as this is installed on university computers.

Good Scholarship Requirements – Including use of AI in assessment

When submitting your work, you will be required to confirm that the work is your own (or that of your group, if assessed as group work), and that it has been submitted following the principles of academic integrity.

A specific declaration on AI is also needed on the front page (see above).

The purpose and format of this assessment make it inappropriate and/or impractical for GenAI tools to be used to successfully demonstrate the appropriate skills and knowledge.

You are permitted to use technology to assist with:

• correcting spelling and grammar
• identifying words with similar meanings (e.g. consulting thesauri)
• generating feedback on your writing (such as using Studiosity)

However, you should not use any software to rewrite sentences or make substantive changes to your original text. Please note that inappropriate use of Gen AI is considered to be an assessment offence.

For more advice on this please see your Generative AI study skills guide.

Good scholarship also requires that you do not commit an assessment offence. Common assessment offences on this Task include collusion and plagiarism.

There is extensive advice on how to prepare for assessments and to avoid offences on UWE’s Study Skills Preparing for Assessments.  Please note that a finding of an assessment offence against you is likely to seriously hinder or prevent a career in the legal professions. 

Referencing requirements

• OSCOLA for single-honours (LLB) students
• Either OSCOLA or UWE Harvard for joint awards students (please confirm which used)

Please note that the aim of referencing is to demonstrate you have read and understood a range of sources to evidence your key points.  You need to list the references consistently and in such a way as to ensure the reader can follow up on the sources for themselves.

Formatting requirements

Times New Roman or Arial, 1.5 spacing

The first page of your coursework must include:

• Your student number
• The module name and number
• Your word count
• That you are using Harvard referencing, if you are a joint awards student only
• The coursework title
• Your declaration as to use of AI, as follows:

Has this assessment been created or completed with the use of an AI tool:

☐ No

☐ Yes

If no:

I declare that no use was made of artificial intelligence in the production of this submission

If yes – please read the following carefully:

I declare that I have used a generative AI tool (indicate which ones) in the creation of my submission. The extent to which I have used this tool includes (tick relevant boxes):

☐ Generating / creating a structure;

☐ Research including case law and / or statutory provisions;

☐ Proofreading my work for consistency and/or grammatical clarity;

☐ Other (please specify):

While I have used an AI tool in my submission, the substance of this work is mine and I have cross-referenced and verified all sources to which my work refers. By making a false declaration, including failure to verify my sources, I realise that my work may be referred for a suspected assessment offence in line with the UWE’s Misconduct Policy.

Specific resources which may help you complete this assessment

Within Learning Unit 12 on Blackboard there will be:

• Guidance documents provided in order to help you with this assessment.
• Assessment guidance recordings
• A folder of resources provided by the Law Librarians, to support you through the process of producing this submission
• Research Trail template

In addition:

• There will be a formative opportunity available in workshops in week commencing 20^th April 2026.
• General assessment support will be provided within the timetabled lecture in week commencing 30^th March 2026 and workshop sessions in week commencing 27^th April 2026.
• If you are registered on UJUUB9-30-1, please remember that finding and evaluating authoritative secondary sources, referencing and reading case law has also formed part of your Skills sessions in the Foundations for Law and Criminology module.

Title: Portfolio of Written Work

• This piece of work is an individual submission and should therefore represent one student’s work.
• Information and guidance pertaining to the submission will be made available within the Learning Unit 12 Assessment Guidance for Task 2 om Blackboard.
• There are two elements to this submission, each worth 50% of the overall mark and so it is essential to engage with both parts.

Hypothetical Situation:

• You are in the process of applying for a summer internship.
• There are ten positions available, but it is anticipated that hundreds of applications will be submitted and so competition for the summer internships is high.
• The law firm is extremely prestigious, has a successful track record and an excellent media profile. It also has offices nationally and internationally, thereby making the summer internship even more appealing, as some of the positions will be overseas.
• In addition to the experience of working for such a well thought of law firm, the successful candidates that become summer interns are also mentored by senior colleagues and the position of summer intern could lead to the offer of a training contract at the end of the summer.
• Part of the application process requires you to provide evidence of your ability to carry out authoritative legal research, as this will form an important part of your duties as a summer intern.
• You have been asked to submit a written portfolio of work, comprising of a ‘case commentary’ and supporting evidence of the legal research that you have carried out in order to produce the piece of writing. The writing must be fully referenced and supported with a complete bibliography.

Case Commentary

Read the R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 case and write a 1,000 word case commentary addressing ONE of the following questions:

1. Does the judgement in R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 balance the competing interests of personal autonomy against public interest in the context of consent to harm?
2. Has the judgement in R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 resulted in the medicalisation of a practice that is primarily based on aesthetics rather than medical necessity?
3. Has the judgement in R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 undermined the common law development of the law and created stagnation regarding consent to harm?

Due to the word limit, you are NOT required to provide a summary of the case itself, just the commentary on the case. A good example of this can be found in:

Karl Laird, ‘Defence: R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560’ (2018) Crim. L.R. 10 847

In the above article, the commentary is approximately 1,000 words and has a primary focus on whether the judgement provides clear guidance on whether it is the identity of the person performing the procedure or the nature of the procedure itself that is the reason for the ruling. Laird suggests that the judgement has just confused the issues more and that Parliamentary intervention is now required.

Research Trail

There is a template available within Learning Unit 12 Assessment Guidance on Task 2 on Blackboard – you should download this and record all of your research notes within the document.

• This document should verify the research that you have carried out in order to produce the case commentary.
• You should make notes on how your research material has been found, and when you locate a source that you will use within your work, you should briefly summarise the key points and how you will use it within your work.

Markers will be checking this for authenticity and to ensure that sources are genuine.

What you must do within this submission: 

You must submit two Word documents – each piece of work is worth 50% of the marks and so it is essential to complete and submit both:

1. A 1,000 word case commentary as per the above instructions. The writing should not include a summary of the case but should be fully referenced and contain a complete bibliography.
2. A research trail that demonstrates the way in which research for this piece of work has been located and used within the case commentary. The word limit is 800 words, excluding the words within the template.

NOTE that you will need to ensure that both files are attached to the one submission you are making. Do not submit your files in separate submissions, as only the latest submission can be marked.

• Where students are on a single honours programme (LLB) the footnotes and bibliography MUST be in OSCOLA format.
• Students on a joint honours programme may choose to reference using Harvard, but their work must include a bibliography in addition to a reference list.

What am I required to do on this assessment?

• The primary focus of this assessment is a case commentary that addresses one of the questions set and a corresponding research trail that demonstrates engagement with authoritative legal research in order to produce the case commentary.
• Within workshops, you will also be given an opportunity to gain feedback and support with the review of relevant literature and also in planning the work.

Where should I start?

• First, you should revisit all of your notes and the guidance that has been provided for workshops – we have been practising how to address this task throughout semester 2 and so the approach to this piece of work should not be problematic.
• Second, you will need to revisit and consolidate your knowledge and understanding of Unit 7 General Defences and specifically Consent to Harm, as this will form the basis for the submission.

What do I need to do to pass?

• It is essential for both parts of this submission to be made in order to achieve an overall pass mark as the two parts of the submission are assessing different skills and attributes.
• You need to achieve a mark of at least 40% for this submission in order to pass the assessment.

Issues that detract from gaining higher marks:

• Not carrying out research in the correct way
• Not evidencing your research within the research trail
• Using poor quality materials within the case commentary

How do I achieve high marks in this assessment?

• By carrying out high quality research to find source materials
• By reading relevant case law and legal commentary to inform your arguments
• By structuring your work in a way that addresses the question coherently and logically
• By referencing correctly throughout the document and including a full bibliography

What milestones are there for this module, and when might I aim to reach these?

• The lecture on consent to harm is being delivered in week commencing 23^rd February 2026
• The workshop on consent to harm is being delivered in week commencing 9^th March 2026.
• In the final week before spring break, there will be a lecture that provides assessment guidance aimed specifically at this Task.
• You will have an opportunity to receive some formative feedback in the week commencing 20^th April 2026 and the following week the workshops will be drop in sessions so that you can ask questions and get any additional support.
• If you have been attending workshops regularly throughout semester 2, you should be confident in your ability to address the Task.

How does the learning and teaching relate to the assessment?

• All of the workshops in semester 2 are specifically designed to support you in the gaining of the knowledge and understanding required for this Task.
• In addition to this, you will also have been practicing many of the skills needed to complete the Task, when completing the workshop tasks.

Are there other ways to complete this assessment?

Please see these webpages and speak to the Module Leader if in doubt.

What do I do if I am concerned about completing this assessment?

It is recommended that you review all of the relevant materials on Blackboard. You can also speak to your Module Leader for advice and guidance.  

UWE Bristol offer a range of Assessment Support Options that you can explore through this link, and both Student Support Advisers and Wellbeing Support are available.

For further information, please see the Student study essentials.

How do I avoid an Assessment Offence on this module?

See, generally, the Academic Conduct Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedures.  Use the support above if you feel unable to submit your own work for this module.

What resources will help me understand and succeed with what I’ve been asked to do?

• FAQs and other resources on your Blackboard site
• Finding books, articles and other information > generally, here and for legal research, here
• Plan and structure your work > workbook here
• Writing in academic style > workbook here
• Write a report > workbook here
• Be reflective > workbook here
• Be critical/evaluative > workbook here
• Complete a literature review > workbook here
• Reference via OSCOLA, or Harvard (optional for joint award students only) – or see BLIS course
• Write using academic English > support here

Please refer to the Assessment Q&A on the module’s Blackboard site for more guidance.  

This Q&A, found in the ‘Discussions’, allows you to ask questions about the assessment(s), anonymously if you wish, and receive a response from the module leader. 

You should regularly review the Q&A in order that you are up to date with the latest answers from the module leader.  Please note:  The answers posted here effectively form part of the assessment brief - that is, if you do something instructed or advised against in this Q&A, you will lose marks, and, conversely, if you follow the guidance provided, you will earn marks. 

Please observe the following before posting:

1. Do not ask a question that has already been asked;
2. Do not ask a question that can readily be answered using the resources on Blackboard, including any module handbook;
3. Please only post relevant and sensible questions, all of which are moderated before becoming public;
4. Please note that questions posted within 1 week of the assessment deadline will not be answered.

Please ensure your question is clear and precise and include any contextual information necessary for the module leader to understand it.

FOR WORK UPLOADED TO BLACKBOARD, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU PREVIEW YOUR WORK IN BLACKBOARD BEFORE FINAL SUBMISSION.

Everything you need to know is within the instructions above.

Refer to Learning Unit 12 Assessment Guidance for Task 2 for more support and guidance.

Please scroll down for the marking rubric.

Criterion

Failed attempt qualities

(0 – 39%)

Satisfactory attempt qualities

(40 - 49%)

Sound attempt qualities

(50 - 59%)

Good attempt

qualities

(60 – 69%)

Excellent attempt qualities

(70 – 84%)

Outstanding attempt qualities

(85%+)

Legal Commentary:

Knowledge and understanding

Significant gaps or errors in knowledge and understanding of the law.

Lack of evaluation as to content, with sizeable amounts of irrelevant material.

Descriptive interpretation of basic knowledge and understanding of the law.

Generally cogent, but moderate gaps/errors evident.

Some irrelevant material evident.

Wide-ranging, partially analytical coverage of law, with some knowledge and understanding demonstrated.

May have minor but frequent gaps or errors and/or limited inclusion of irrelevant material.

Generally analytical, methodical coverage of law, with a good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

May have minor gaps or errors &/or inclusion of content with limited relevance.

Thorough analytical coverage of law, with a high level of knowledge and understanding demonstrated.

No gaps or errors, with relevant material/content throughout and evidence of critical engagement.

Exhaustive, masterful coverage of the law, with knowledge and understanding demonstrated to an exceptional level and high levels of critical engagement.

Legal Commentary:

Structure and argument

A lack of structure, with confused or haphazard ordering of content. May contain unclear &/or unsupported assertions.

Reasoning may lack clarity and/or be confusing or illogical.

Evidence of some structure.

Many assertions supported with evidence/reasons, albeit sometimes with poor-quality evidence and/or questionable reasoning.

Structure somewhat aligned to brief.

Most assertions consistently supported, with evidence and/or reasons that are generally cogent.

Reasoning of varying quality, with a mixture of logical and illogical points &/or arguments made.

Structure clearly aligned to brief and evident to paragraph-level.

Arguments are consistently persuasive and cogent, with very good use of authoritative source materials.

Reasoning is generally sound and logical, although may contain some minor errors.

Structure wholly aligned to brief, evident to sentence-level and substantially aids clarity.

Quality of evidence and/or reasoning consistently sound, with high-quality authoritative source materials being used extensively throughout.

Structure aids cogency of arguments.

Arguments of outstanding persuasiveness and cogency.

Logic immaculate throughout.

Legal Commentary:

Written communication

Mostly incomprehensible.

Significant grammatical, spelling and syntax errors present in work.

May be mostly written in the first person.

Somewhat comprehensible but with some parts that are incomprehensible.

Many grammatical, spelling and syntax errors.

May contain significant amounts written in the first person.

Mostly comprehensible but may have some grammatical, spelling and syntax errors.

Some parts may be written in first person.

May contain a few spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors, but generally engaging prose.

Very minor superficial errors, with a highly engaging written style.

A highly engaging written style that demonstrates literacy of an exceptional standard.

Legal Commentary:

Referencing & bibliography

No referencing within the work &/or incorrect referencing conventions used.

Bibliography not included or incomplete.

Repeated issues &/or limited use of references broadly identifiable as OSCOLA or Harvard.

Bibliography included but not compliant.

Some errors in referencing evident, but format is generally correct.

Bibliography included but may have errors in format.

Minor errors in referencing but largely correct.

Bibliography largely correct.

Superficial errors in referencing but a comprehensive attempt to use ‘pinpoint’ referencing and some Latin ‘gadgets.’

Bibliography correct.

Referencing 100% correct, following OSCOLA or Harvard.

Bibliography 100% correct.

Research trail:

Engagement with correct legal research methods

No research trail submitted or a research trail that fails to demonstrate engagement with the research process.

A failure to find authoritative sources.

The research trail has been completed and demonstrates limited engagement with the research process.

Few authoritative and relevant sources have been found.

The research trail demonstrates some engagement with the research process.

Several authoritative and relevant sources have been identified but are limited in number.

Engagement with the research trail is evident and demonstrates the ability to locate authoritative sources.

Many of the sources that have been identified are authoritative and relevant.

The research trail demonstrates a high level of engagement with the research process.

Most of the sources are authoritative, relevant and of a high quality.

An exemplary ability to research has been demonstrated.

All sources are authoritative, relevant and of a high quality – with evidence that difficult to locate sources have been found.