Cambridge AS & A Level Law 9084/22 is the May/June 2026 Paper 2 (Criminal Law), variant 2. It is an AS Level component that lasts 1 hour 30 minutes, is worth 60 marks and is sat by every 9084 candidate. You answer two questions: the compulsory 30-mark source-based Question 1 on handling stolen goods, and one of two 30-mark Section B questions. The biggest single part is the 25-mark Section B evaluation essay, marked separately for knowledge, analysis and evaluation. This guide goes through every question and shows what the official mark scheme credited. The paper and its mark scheme are free on the Tutopiya Learning Portal.

For an overview of all four 9084 papers from this series, see A Level Law 9084 May/June 2026 past papers: what came up and how it was marked.

9084/22 at a glance

Rubric: answer Question 1 in Section A, using only the source material, and one question from Section B, without the source material.

Question	Section	Topic	Marks
1(a)	A (compulsory)	Bella keeps a stolen bracelet after seeing the owner’s appeal	10
1(b)	A (compulsory)	Frank buys a phone he believes is stolen from a police officer	10
1(c)	A (compulsory)	Ranjit buys a stolen watch after a fake receipt calms his suspicion	10
2(a)	B (either)	Mitigating factors when sentencing adult offenders	5
2(b)	B (either)	Evaluate the law on legal causation in the actus reus	25
3(a)	B (or)	Requirements that can be attached to a youth rehabilitation order	5
3(b)	B (or)	Evaluate the effectiveness of s9 Theft Act 1968	25
		Total answered (Question 1 + Question 2 or 3)	60

Question-by-question walkthrough

Section A, Question 1: handling stolen goods (30 marks)

The source material gave s22(1) Theft Act 1968, which defines handling stolen goods (dishonestly receiving goods, or helping to keep, move or dispose of them, while knowing or believing they are stolen), and s22(2), the maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment on indictment. It also summarised three cases:

• R v Pitchley (1972): a father kept his son’s money in a savings account after finding out it was stolen, and was guilty of handling by retaining it.
• Haughton v Smith (1975): stolen goods that the police had intercepted were back in lawful custody, so they were no longer stolen and there was no handling offence.
• R v Moys (1984): a strong suspicion that goods are stolen is not enough; the defendant must know or believe it.

How each part is marked: every part is 10 marks, 2 for AO1 and 8 for AO2. AO1 is 2 marks for identifying and accurately citing most of the relevant law (1 mark for some of it). AO2 has three levels: 1–2 for basic application and a conclusion with no reasoning, 3–5 for partially developed application with a conclusion that may not be fully appropriate, and 6–8 for fully developed application and analysis leading to a developed, logical conclusion. The mark scheme sets each part out the same way: name s22(1), state that the actus reus is handling stolen goods and the mens rea is knowing or believing they are stolen, apply both to the facts, then conclude.

1(a) Bella (10 marks)

• Law: s22(1), with reference to s22(2), Pitchley and/or Moys.
• Application: the bracelet is stolen because Toby took it from Sandra’s shop. Bella handles it by keeping it once she realises what it is and deciding to do nothing, just as the father in Pitchley kept the money. The bracelet is unique and distinctive, and Sandra’s online appeal confirms that Bella knows, or at least believes, it is stolen (Moys). Keeping it in those circumstances is dishonest.
• Conclusion: Bella is guilty of handling stolen goods under s22(1) and liable to a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment under s22(2).

1(b) Frank (10 marks)

• Law: s22(1), with reference to Haughton v Smith and/or Moys.
• Application: the phones seized from Suzy’s shop are now in PC Clara’s lawful custody, so under Haughton v Smith they are no longer stolen and the phone Frank buys is not stolen goods. Frank does have the mental element: he goes in expecting to buy a stolen phone and buys one believing it is stolen (Moys), so he is dishonest.
• Conclusion: Frank has the mens rea but not the actus reus, so he is not handling stolen goods and will not be convicted under s22(1).

1(c) Ranjit (10 marks)

• Law: s22(1), with reference to Moys.
• Application: the watch is stolen because Amir took it from a jewellery shop, and Ranjit assists in its disposal by buying it. Ranjit’s first suspicion is not enough for a conviction (Moys), and once Amir shows him a convincing receipt he is no longer suspicious, so he neither knows nor believes the watch is stolen and is not dishonest.
• Conclusion: Ranjit has the actus reus but not the mens rea, so he will not be convicted under s22(1).

The pattern to spot: each scenario turns on a different element. Bella has both the actus reus and the mens rea; Frank has only the mens rea; Ranjit has only the actus reus. The AO1 marks are only for the law in the source, because the instruction says to use only the source material.

Section B: choose Question 2 or Question 3 (30 marks)

Both questions have a 5-mark part (a) and a 25-mark part (b).

• Part (a), 5 marks, AO1: one mark per correct point, up to 5.
• Part (b), 25 marks: AO1 out of 10, AO2 out of 6, AO3 out of 9, each on its own level grid. The top levels need accurate, detailed knowledge with key cases and statutes (AO1, 9–10), focused, reasoned analysis supported by well-developed use of cases (AO2, 5–6), and reasoned evaluation of most of the relevant issues with a coherent argument (AO3, 7–9).

Question 2: sentencing and causation

• 2(a) Mitigating factors when sentencing adults (5): no previous convictions, genuine remorse, a minor part in the offence, pleading guilty, ready co-operation with the authorities, mental health issues and learning difficulties.
• 2(b) Evaluate the law on legal causation (25):
  • AO1: where the actus reus requires a consequence, the prosecution must prove causation, and most causation cases are homicides. The defendant must be the legal cause (R v Blaue (1975), R v Dalloway (1847)). If the defendant claims the chain was broken, the prosecution must prove otherwise. Medical treatment may or may not break the chain (R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Malcherek and Steel (1981), R v Jordan (1956)); so may the acts of a third party or the victim (R v Roberts (1971), R v Williams and Davis (1992)) and natural, unpredictable events. The thin skull rule means the defendant takes the victim as they find them (Blaue).
  • AO2: contrast Dalloway, where the act did not cause death, with Blaue, where it did. “Thoroughly bad” or understandable treatment did not break the chain in Smith, Cheshire and Malcherek and Steel, but palpably wrong treatment did in Jordan. A victim’s or third party’s reaction that is not daft, or not free, deliberate and informed, does not break the chain (Roberts, R v Pagett (1983)); a victim’s reaction out of proportion to the threat does (Williams and Davis).
  • AO3: points to weigh include that the rules usually produce a fair result; that the tests of an intervening act being “sufficiently independent” and “sufficiently serious” are too vague for a jury to apply objectively; whether holding a defendant liable despite thoroughly bad treatment is unfair to the defendant or rightly protects the emergency services; that it is right for palpably wrong treatment to break the chain; that the thin skull rule fairly protects vulnerable victims; whether Blaue should have been convicted of a lesser offence because the victim chose not to save her own life; and whether the daftness test for the victim’s own acts works fairly.
  • Watch out: the mark scheme gave no credit for factual causation in this question.

Question 3: youth sentencing and burglary

• 3(a) Requirements of a youth rehabilitation order (5): the mark scheme listed activity, supervision, unpaid work, programme, attendance centre, prohibited activity, curfew, exclusion, residence, mental health treatment, drug treatment, drug testing, intoxicating substance treatment and education requirements. Any five earn full marks.
• 3(b) Evaluate the effectiveness of s9 Theft Act 1968 (25):
  • AO1: burglary is a statutory offence with three common elements: entry (R v Brown (1985), R v Ryan (1996)); of a building or part of a building, extended by s9(4) (B and S v Leathley (1979), Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986), R v Walkington (1979)); as a trespasser (R v Collins (1973), R v Jones and Smith (1976)). s9(1)(a) needs an ulterior intent to commit an offence in s9(2), namely stealing, unlawful damage or grievous bodily harm; s9(1)(b) needs theft or GBH, or an attempt at either, after entry. The maximum sentence is 14 years for a dwelling and 10 years otherwise.
  • AO2: entry is not defined in the Act but has been given a wide meaning that includes partial entry (Ryan). A building is not defined either; it includes inhabited vehicles and vessels, but a trailer resting on wheels was not a building (Seekings and Gould). Entering part of a building without permission can create liability (Walkington). A trespasser must know they are not entitled to enter (Collins), and going beyond permission makes someone a trespasser (Jones and Smith). Conditional intention is enough for s9(1)(a) (Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)).
  • AO3: the key terms “enter”, “building” and “trespasser” are not properly defined, so the courts rely on case law, and some argue Ryan strays from Parliament’s intention. In Jones and Smith the victim did not want a prosecution but the defendants were convicted. Having two types of burglary is problematic and they might be merged; s9(1)(a) includes criminal damage but s9(1)(b) does not; s9(1)(a) seems to put property above people, since intending some damage is enough but only intended GBH counts for harm to a person; and s9(1)(b) is easier to prove than the intent in s9(1)(a). On the other side, the higher maximum for domestic burglary fairly reflects its greater emotional impact on victims.

Where the marks are on 9084/22

By assessment objective, for a candidate answering Question 1 and either Section B question:

Assessment objective	Question 1	Section B question	Total
AO1 Knowledge and understanding	6	15 (part (a) 5 + part (b) 10)	21
AO2 Analysis and application	24	6	30
AO3 Evaluation	0	9	9
Total	30	30	60

• Half the paper is application. 24 of the 30 Section A marks are AO2, so most of your Question 1 time should go on applying each element to the facts, not on restating the source.
• All 9 AO3 marks are in one essay. In part (b), evaluation is worth almost as much as knowledge, so every paragraph needs a judgement, not just a case.
• Part (a) is quick marks. Five correct points earn all 5; a sentence each is enough.

How to self-mark 9084/22 with the mark scheme

1. Check the AO1 marks in Question 1 first. Did you name s22(1) and cite the right cases from the source for that person? Accurate citation of most of the relevant law gets 2; some of it gets 1.
2. Tick off actus reus and mens rea separately. For each person, check you decided whether the goods were stolen, whether there was handling, and whether there was knowledge or belief and dishonesty.
3. Test your conclusion. The top AO2 level (6–8) needs a developed, logical conclusion. “Frank is not guilty” on its own is basic; “Frank is not guilty because the phones were back in lawful custody under Haughton v Smith, so the actus reus is missing” is developed.
4. Mark part (a) by counting points, up to 5.
5. Give part (b) three separate marks: AO1 out of 10, AO2 out of 6 and AO3 out of 9. Compare your cases with the mark scheme list, then judge whether your analysis explains how the cases fit together and whether your evaluation forms a coherent argument.
6. Strike out anything off-question, such as factual causation in 2(b), before you decide the level.

Sit 9084/22 as a timed mock

You have 90 minutes for 60 marks, so give each half of the paper about 45 minutes.

Block	Marks	Time
Read the source material and plan Question 1	–	5 minutes
Question 1(a)	10	13 minutes
Question 1(b)	10	13 minutes
Question 1(c)	10	13 minutes
Section B part (a)	5	5 minutes
Section B part (b)	25	36 minutes
Check conclusions and case citations	–	5 minutes

Before you start each Question 1 part, write one line: which element is present and which is missing. That decision drives the conclusion the mark scheme rewards.

Other May/June 2026 9084 papers

• 9084 Paper 12 (English Legal System)
• 9084 Paper 32 (Law of Contract)
• 9084 Paper 42 (Law of Tort)

Practise and download

• Download 9084/22 and its mark scheme on the Learning Portal →
• All 9084 May/June 2026 papers: overview and marking patterns
• Try a free A Level Law quiz

Need help with a 9084 topic? Book a free trial lesson with an A Level Law tutor →

Frequently asked questions

What was the source material on 9084 Paper 22 May/June 2026? +

Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 (handling stolen goods, with its 14-year maximum sentence) and summaries of three cases: R v Pitchley (1972), Haughton v Smith (1975) and R v Moys (1984). You apply only that material to three scenarios in Question 1.

Were Bella, Frank and Ranjit guilty in 9084/22 Question 1? +

The mark scheme concluded that Bella is guilty of handling, because she kept a bracelet she knew or believed was stolen (Pitchley). Frank is not, because the phones were back in lawful police custody and no longer stolen (Haughton v Smith). Ranjit is not, because after the fake receipt he did not know or believe the watch was stolen (Moys).

How is each Question 1 part on 9084/22 marked? +

Each 10-mark part gives 2 marks for AO1, for identifying and accurately citing the relevant law, and 8 marks for AO2 analysis and application. The top AO2 level, 6 to 8, needs fully developed application and analysis leading to a developed, logical conclusion.

What could you choose in Section B of 9084/22? +

Question 2 had 5 marks on the mitigating factors when sentencing adults and 25 marks evaluating legal causation. Question 3 had 5 marks on the requirements of a youth rehabilitation order and 25 marks evaluating the effectiveness of s9 Theft Act 1968 (burglary).

Did factual causation earn marks in 9084/22 Question 2(b)? +

No. The mark scheme said no credit was given for factual causation, because the question was about legal causation. Cases it expected included Blaue, Dalloway, Smith, Cheshire, Malcherek and Steel, Jordan, Roberts, Pagett and Williams and Davis.

Where can I download 9084/22 May/June 2026 and its mark scheme? +

Both are free to download and print on the Tutopiya Learning Portal, on the Cambridge AS & A Level Law 9084 past papers page.

Ready to Excel in Your Studies?

Get personalised help from Tutopiya's expert tutors. Whether it's IGCSE, IB, A-Levels, or any other curriculum — we match you with the perfect tutor and your first session is free.

Book Your Free Trial