Below are classic and accessible criminal law cases, with key questions for student analysis.

Bree had sex with a woman who had consumed significant amounts of alcohol. She later claimed she had been too drunk to consent. Issue: At what point does intoxication negate the ability to consent? Holding: Conviction for rape upheld. The court stated that a drunk person can still consent. The line is crossed when the victim is so intoxicated that she has "no capacity" to make a rational choice (i.e., unconscious or severely incapacitated). Student Takeaway: This case is a minefield for exam questions. Contrast Bree with R v. Heard (unconsciousness = no consent). Students must argue that capacity is a spectrum. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires a "reasonable belief in consent," but Bree confirms that intoxication does not automatically void consent.

Gnango engaged in a gunfight with another man (Bandana Man) on a public street. During the exchange, a passerby (Magda Pniewska) was killed by a bullet fired by Bandana Man. Issue: Could Gnango be convicted of murder as an accomplice to Bandana Man, even though they were shooting at each other? Holding: Guilty of murder. The Supreme Court held that by engaging in the gunfight, Gnango encouraged Bandana Man to continue firing (mutual encouragement). He was a party to the act of shooting. Student Takeaway: This is a landmark case on "mutual enterprise" or "joint criminal enterprise." It pushes the boundary of complicity. Did Gnango owe a duty to the victim? The court said yes—by creating a deadly zone, each shooter was the other's accomplice. This is a challenging case for essay questions on the limits of secondary liability.

This "grisly" case involves four men shipwrecked at sea. After weeks without food, two men killed and ate the cabin boy to survive.

Criminal law punishes not just completed acts, but attempts, conspiracies, and encouragements. The difficult question: How close must a defendant come to completing the crime?

This case illustrates the limits of criminal liability regarding omissions. It forces students to ask: Who has a duty to act? Does a bystander have a duty to save a drowning child? (Generally, no). Does a parent? (Absolutely).