People, don't forget Andrews could also come up for Q1, as it had a lot to do with clarifying the 'beyond a matter of mere compensation' test, i.e. there has to a 'very high' degree of negligence. Before Andrews it wasn't clear what 'gross' negliegence was. Generally you're expected to be able to talk about how one of the cases from the source has developed the law, be able to perhaps briefly say the state of the law before that case, and in the mark scheme it stresses you MUST cite another case after the given case to show clarification. Also, whoever said Lidar introduced reckless m/s in to the law, that's a tad incorrect. Lidar merely said that there was no evidence that Adomako had abolished reckless m/s. As for question 2, it will always be on the criticisms of the law, i.e. what is wrong with unlawful act m/s, what is wrong with gnm etc. January's paper in fact reqired the student to talk about the faults with gnm, unlawful act m/s, reckless m/s AND involuntary m/s as a whole. It will always give some sort of phrase from the source, however don't let it fool you - question 2 is always just about evaluation and reform, it just asks it in different ways. I.e. in January they said what are the difficulties with the definition of invol. m/s or something to that effect. If you think about it, that is just asking you, what is wrong with it? The facts we have to learn for q2 don't change, just the way they ask it. 1and3, you could well reason that a duty arising from the creation of a dangerous situation in Church was present, or that the COA in Khan and Khan have eluded to a duty to summon medical assistance POSSIBLY occuring, at leas tin drugs cases anyway. However, you would mainly talk about Church with regards to unlawful act m/s, but the exam board are fine with giving reasons as to how uch situations COULD be gnm, technically. That is a problem with the law on involuntary m/s.