Jurisprudence 2017 – the examination from UoL
London Law Lectures has posted a notice about the Jurisprudence examination at the Uni of London. It raises a question about a prohibition on the exam which disallows choosing a question if it would “substantially” overlap with an answer from the set question. The question is, of course, what constitutes “substantially”?
This year, for the first time part A of the Jurisprudence examination will include three questions on a ‘set case’ and candidates will be required to answer one of them. The set case for this year is R v R (rape: marital exemption)  1AC 599;  4 All ER 481 and the Module Convenor has stated that the questions will be drafted from the following three ‘perspectives’:
1. Theories of Adjudication and their implications for the nature of law
2. Natural Law (including Fuller’s Rule of Law theory)
3. Feminist Legal Theory.
Part B of the 2017 examination can potentially include any of the other syllabus topics except those specifically excluded (this year the topics in chapters 12,16 and 17 are excluded).
And the Chief Examiner warns:
“Substantive issues contained in the three perspectives set out in Part A could potentially [also] appear in Part B but you are not permitted to answer the relevant question(s) if you will be repeating, substantially overlapping or duplicating your answer from Part A.”
A number of us have concerns regarding this prohibition particularly in relation to the expression ‘substantially overlapping’.