Grades and Assessment Criteria

Normally we advise students to take examinations in no more than four modules at any examination session, although a faster
pace is possible.

The maximum number of attempts permitted at any examination is 2. 

A mark of less than 40% is a fail.  You can make a second attempt at the examination. You are strongly advised to make the second attempt at a
failed examination after at least one full academic year, rather than at the next possible sitting. E.g. If you fail an exam in May, wait until the
following May.

If you obtain a mark above 40% but less than 50% in any module at a first attempt, this mark may be condoned for your final award, but you may
make a second attempt at the examination for that module.

Grade and Assessment criteria overview

70 or above
 Excellent argumentation; exceptionally good grasp of subject matter; strong command of method; strong capability of critical thinking;
capacity for creativity in applied work; width and depth in use of literature.

60 to below 70
 Clear and consistent argument focused on the question at hand; good critical understanding of theory and method; proficient in applied
work: skilful, competent, insightful and reflective; making full use of required and recommended

readings.

50 to below 60

 An analytical ability to construct a (reasonably) coherent argument that addresses the examination question competently (perhaps mixed

up with lists of points or surveys of ideas located within the broader subject area, but not always strictly relevant to the question);
reflecting a sound understanding of relevant theory and/or method; (when applicable) demonstrating competence in situating the

analysis in an applied context; using the required assigned literature. Note: unevenness and inconsistencies will tend to prevail, but these
should not be such that they seriously detract from the existence and/or coherence of an argument.

40 to below 50
Fairly uneven and often inconsistent; poor attempt to develop a comprehensible argument, with a dominant tendency to list (rather than
argue) relevant theories, methods or cases; lack of understanding of relevant theories and methods; (when applicable) failure to
demonstrate basic skills and competence in applied analysis; inadequate awareness of assigned literature

 
Below 40
 Lack of basic
understanding of subject matter; serious flaws in arguments; inability to carry
out basic applications or demonstrate basic
skills; incomprehensible
argumentation; failure to use required literature; and all cases of plagiarism
or fraud.

Grade and Assessment criteria

details
 

Distinction (70% +)
 An answer falling
into the mark range 70% + has a thoughtful structure and follows a clear
argument displaying personal reflection
informed by wider reading of articles
and/or other commentaries and a good grasp of detail (as evidenced by the
choice of relevant
examples which are well integrated into the answer's
structure). The answer

should be complete,
with no errors or omissions. Distinction-level answers are ones that are
exceptionally good and which excel in several of the
following criteria:

• comprehensiveness
and accuracy

• clarity of
argument and expression

• integration
of a range of materials

• evidence of
wider reading

• insight into
the theoretical issues

• excellent
and fluent use of written

English containing
very few, if any, grammatical errors

Excellence in
several of these areas should be in addition to the qualities expected of an
upper second class answer. A distinction answer is
generally expected to spot
especially complex or difficult points, and to make use of more sophisticated
analysis than an upper second class
answer.

To obtain a very
high distinction mark (i.e. 75%+, there will usually be some evidence of
originality and/or exceptionally sophisticated critical
analysis).

Problem Questions

In addition to the
above, distinction answers to problem questions will also satisfy the following
criteria:

i) All relevant
legal issues must have been spotted

ii) The exposition

and application of the relevant legal rules must be clear, accurate and
comprehensive

iii) The
application of the legal rules and case law must be insightful (i.e., the
candidate must demonstrate that s/he can both distinguish cases on
their facts
and argue by analogy)

iv) There should be

a conclusion that summarises the legal position of the relevant parties

Merit (65 to 69%)

 An answer falling
into the mark range 65 to 69% generally shows a sound understanding of both the
basic principles and relevant details
of the law, supported by examples which
are demonstrably well understood and which are presented in a coherent and
logical fashion.
The answer should be well presented and structured, display
analytical ability and contain no major errors or omissions but need not
necessarily be excellent in any area. Merit-level answers cover a wider band.
Such answers are clearly highly competent and typically
possess the following
qualities:

• accurate and
well informed

• reasonably
comprehensive

• well-organised
and structured

• displaying
evidence of general reading
• evaluation
of material, though these evaluations may be derivative

• demonstrate
a sound grasp of basic principles

• demonstrate
a good understanding of relevant material

• succinct and
cogent presentation

• some
evidence of insight, reflection and analysis

• good
standard of written English with few grammatical errors

One essential
aspect of an upper Meritlevel answer is that it must have competently dealt
with the entire question asked by the examiner.

Problem Questions

In addition to the
above, upper Merit-level answers to problem questions will also satisfy the
following criteria:

i) all the major

issues and most of the minor issues must have been spotted

ii) the application

of the legal rules and case law must be accurate and comprehensive

iii) the
application of the legal rules must be insightful (i.e., the candidate must
demonstrate that s/he can both distinguish cases on their facts and
argue by
analogy)

iv) there should be

a conclusion that summarises the legal position of the relevant parties

Merit (60 to 64%)

 A substantially
correct answer which meets a good number but not all of the above criteria,
including evidencing mastery of the basic
principles. Such lower Merit answers
display an acceptable level of competence, as indicated by the following
qualities:

• generally
accurate answer to the question, though with some omissions and errors

• an answer
that is largely based on lecture material and required reading but without much
evidence of broader reading

• clear
presentation

• some
inadequate development of arguments

• may contain
some material which is not relevant to the question posed

• competent
written English but may contain some grammatical errors

Problem Questions

In addition to the
above, Merit answers to problem questions will also satisfy the following criteria:

v) most of major
issues and minor issues must have been spotted

vi) the application

of the legal rules and case law must be generally accurate and competent

vii) there should

be a conclusion that summarises the legal position of the relevant parties

Pass (54 to 59%)

 
A basic
understanding of the main issues but not coherently or correctly presented.
Such answers demonstrate knowledge or understanding of the
general area but
tend to be weak in one or more of the following ways:

• descriptive
only

• does not
answer the question directly
• misses key
points of information

• contains
significant inaccuracies

• covers
material sparsely, possibly in note form

• contains
assertions not supported by authority or evidence

• displays an
inability to follow an argument throughout

• poorly
structured

• evidence of
lack of wider reading

Problem Questions

 In addition
to the above, although there is some relevant information, an upper Pass answer
to a problem questions is one that:

viii) misses a
relevant legal issue

ix) fails to apply

every relevant legal rule

x) fails to make
good use of the case law

xi) is poorly
structured

Pass (50 to 54%)

 Indicates an answer
which narrowly avoids the fail category. It represents the minimum acceptable
standard for the award of a degree.
There is just sufficient information to
indicate that the student has familiarity with the subject area. Such answers
typically:

• coverage of
the basic material, with numerous errors, omissions or irrelevances

• loose
structure

• poor or
non-existent development of arguments

• poor
standard of English, many grammatical errors

Problem Questions

In addition to the
above, in a problem question, a lower Pass answer is one that:

xii) misses an
important legal issue

xiii) fails to
apply relevant legal rules

xiv) fails to make

good use of the case law

xv) is poorly
structured

Fail (0 to 40%)
Fails to meet the
minimum requirements of the assessment criteria. Such answers typically contain
one or more of the following:

• evidence of
a lack of basic understanding

• many errors
or omissions

• evidence of
a lack of understanding or appropriate reading

• failure to
answer the question posed, by, e.g., answering a different question from that
set by the examiner

• disorganised
presentation

• very poor
use of English, such as poor grammar and spelling and incoherent statements
• fails to complete the examination by answering too few questions In addition to the above, in a problem question, one or more of the following
applies:

xvi) misses several important legal issues

xvii) fails to apply relevant legal rules

xviii) fails to make appropriate use of the case law or is poorly structured.