I was looking back through the thread - I don't know whether you still need an answer to this question.
The first thing to bear in mind is that getting a high mark in jurisprudence is going to be different to other aspects of legal studies as it is essentially legal philosophy. You are going to need to do more than to learn a bunch of theorists and reel off their theories and criticisms of them.
Philosophy is a holistic discipline. People who get the highest marks on it tend to take an essay question, focus on what the essay question is asking them, and then synthesise a *few* ideas and theories into a strong argument that answers the question, whilst dealing with objections and criticisms along the way. You need to be brave and commit to a viewpoint, and argue for it consistently throughout.
You also need to be wary of the tendency (I often see this with law students) to 'dump' everything that they know about on the topic on the paper in order to impress the examiner. It is likely that your examiner is a legal theorist, and they will not be impressed by this. They're looking for evidence of highly critical thinking, especially if you want a 1.1, which is so obviously informed by a knowledge of the literature you barely need to express it in the paper. Do not overload your paper with facts, theories and criticisms where it doesn't serve your purpose. Feel free as well, to be creative- come up with your own ideas and criticisms of existing philosophers. That always goes down well. Remember that if you argue from too many different angles you risk not being able to go into enough depth and developing contradictions in your own argument.
Message me if you have any other questions on this!