AQA Law AS Level Unit 2 2nd June 2015

For a question on outlining men's rea, could I talk about subjective and objective tests?

Reply 23

Niall_fitzy98

1

100 % talk about subjective recklessness in Cunningham 1957, but do not talk about objective recklessness unless you are sure that you will have time left at the end as you would not recieve any marks but it is useful in showing off to the examiner :smile:

Reply 24

Original post by hannah smith

criminal
strict liabilty
mens rea
transferred malice(maybe)
assault/battery
section 18(maybe)
pre trail procedure
actual trial procedure for summary offences
factors for sentencing

tort
breach
causation(maybe for knowledge)
duty of care(application)
pre trail
damages

this is just a guess based on what has and hasn't came up before
I've also got loads of revision material. just click on link.
I suggest u take best bits from each and make your own model answers and memorize them!
hope it helped! :h:

dont hesitate to ask questions

are them model answers correct, they dont have as much detail as i'd expect? or am i just writing to much in mine

Reply 25

what are the chances of 'the reasonable man' topic coming up tomorrow?

Reply 26

Original post by nathaliaalejaaa

what are the chances of 'the reasonable man' topic coming up tomorrow?

The reasonable man is part of 'breach of duty', which means it is almost guaranteed to come up, either on one of the first 2 questions with no application, or on an application question or both.

The reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.) is described as what a competent, reasonable man would do in the situation, and how they would view the risks to the claimant. In Nettleship v Western, a learner driver was compared to a 'normal, competent driver' who was described as the reasonable man. Similarly, in Bolam v Friern Hospital, a doctor was compared against a reasonable competent doctor. The Bolam principal can be applied to professions generally.

Reply 27

Original post by .JC.

The reasonable man is part of 'breach of duty', which means it is almost guaranteed to come up, either on one of the first 2 questions with no application, or on an application question or both.

The reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.) is described as what a competent, reasonable man would do in the situation, and how they would view the risks to the claimant. In Nettleship v Western, a learner driver was compared to a 'normal, competent driver' who was described as the reasonable man. Similarly, in Bolam v Friern Hospital, a doctor was compared against a reasonable competent doctor. The Bolam principal can be applied to professions generally.

oh okay great, thank you!

Reply 28

Original post by nathaliaalejaaa

oh okay great, thank you!

You're welcome!

Anything else you need help with? Typing out answers really helps me with revision, so I'd rather help you in the process.

By the way, here is the mark scheme from last year's paper, P14 has the points on reasonable man in case you wanted to refer to them. Condensed version of the answer I wrote.

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-LAW02-W-MS-JUN14.PDF

Reply 29

Original post by creeky95

Does anybody have a model answer for procedure of either criminal offences or negligence offences. Really weak at this part!

There are several different procedures for criminal, depending on the type of offence. I don't think we need to know that for negligence, just about the N1 and N9 claim forms and such.

Generally, a criminal case (following charge) will begin with the defendant being granted bail. Bail can be granted under the Bail act 1976, and the D has a right to bail under s4. If bail is refused (either due to seriousness of the crime or previous offences) then the D must be brought to appear at the 1st possible opportunity. Conditions can be placed on bail, such as if the defendant re-offends whilst on bail he is remanded in custody for the remainder of the pre-trial period. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the D is guilty of the offence. The case begins in the Magistrates court, where they have the early administrative hearing, sort out legal funding and bail arrangements.

You then discuss where the case goes next, which court etc. depending on if the offence is Summary, Triable Either Way, or Indictable.

Reply 30

Original post by .JC.

You're welcome!

Anything else you need help with? Typing out answers really helps me with revision, so I'd rather help you in the process.

By the way, here is the mark scheme from last year's paper, P14 has the points on reasonable man in case you wanted to refer to them. Condensed version of the answer I wrote.

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-LAW02-W-MS-JUN14.PDF

Well now that you mention it, what would you put if there was a question like 'Briefly explain the factors affecting the standard of care?'

Reply 31

Original post by SunDun111

For a question on outlining men's rea, could I talk about subjective and objective tests?

Model answer written by an examiner, and regurgitated by me:

Mens rea is the 'guilty mind' that the defendant possesses when committing an act (the actus reus). The intent for mens rea can be direct or indirect. Direct mens rea is when the defendant intends the result, objective and purpose of an act, as was the case in Mohan. Indirect mens rea is when the defendant may not intend the exact outcome of an act, as was the case in Nedrick. In Woolin, the courts has to decide if the defendant intending the outcome, being the death of the baby.

Recklessness can also fall under mens rea. This is defined as 'conscious risk taking'. In Cunningham, the defendant was not guilty because he did not foresee any risk of the gas leaking. The defendant must be aware of the risk and take it anyway.

Reply 32

Original post by .JC.

Model answer written by an examiner, and regurgitated by me:

Mens rea is the 'guilty mind' that the defendant possesses when committing an act (the actus reus). The intent for mens rea can be direct or indirect. Direct mens rea is when the defendant intends the result, objective and purpose of an act, as was the case in Mohan. Indirect mens rea is when the defendant may not intend the exact outcome of an act, as was the case in Nedrick. In Woolin, the courts has to decide if the defendant intending the outcome, being the death of the baby.

Recklessness can also fall under mens rea. This is defined as 'conscious risk taking'. In Cunningham, the defendant was not guilty because he did not foresee any risk of the gas leaking. The defendant must be aware of the risk and take it anyway.

Could you do a model answer on strict liability? I am really struggling with it, please.

Reply 33

Original post by nathaliaalejaaa

Well now that you mention it, what would you put if there was a question like 'Briefly explain the factors affecting the standard of care?'

I don't think we can be asked that in the exam. However you can bring that into an answer for a question involving risk factors. You could write something like:

Special characteristics of the claimant should be taken into account - for example if the claimant is more vulnerable they would require a higher standard of care. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council the claimant had a higher standard of care since he has already lost one eye. In Haley v LEB the claimant had a higher standard of care because he was blind.

Then link it with the extract if necessary:

Tim would require a higher standard of care because he is only 3 therefore he cannot look after himself. etc

Reply 34

Original post by SunDun111

Could you do a model answer on strict liability? I am really struggling with it, please.

I have included all the cases which the mark scheme awards for, you probably don't need them all to pick up full marks, but if you can remember them all it is best to include them:

In some cases, there is no need to prove that mens rea is present. This is known as 'strict liability' where only the actus reus is required in order for the defendant to be charged. The aim of strict liability offences is to protect society. They are easy to enfore, and often used for regulatory offences such as Speeding. It is often found in statute law, for example Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

In the case of Lemon v Gay news, the D was guilty of blasphemous libel, which under common law was an offence. No mens rea was required and the defendant was charged. Similarly in Alphacell v Woodward, although all precautions were taken, the defendant company could not prevent waste leaking into a river. As a result it became contaminated and the defendants fell ill as a result. The defendant(s) were liable since no mens rea was required. In Smedley's v Breed, again, despite all precautions being taken, a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Under strict liability, no mens rea was required and the defendant was charged. In Harrow v Shah, a shopkeeper sold an underage child a lottery ticket, and was charged with the offence despite no mens rea being present. Finally, in Sweet v Parsley the strict liability was overturned. This was because Mrs. Parsley was unaware of the cannabis that was being grown in her accommodation which was to let, therefore she was not in control of the circumstances.

Reply 35

That's fab thank you!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

Original post by .JC.

I have included all the cases which the mark scheme awards for, you probably don't need them all to pick up full marks, but if you can remember them all it is best to include them:

In some cases, there is no need to prove that mens rea is present. This is known as 'strict liability' where only the actus reus is required in order for the defendant to be charged. The aim of strict liability offences is to protect society. They are easy to enfore, and often used for regulatory offences such as Speeding. It is often found in statute law, for example Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

In the case of Lemon v Gay news, the D was guilty of blasphemous libel, which under common law was an offence. No mens rea was required and the defendant was charged. Similarly in Alphacell v Woodward, although all precautions were taken, the defendant company could not prevent waste leaking into a river. As a result it became contaminated and the defendants fell ill as a result. The defendant(s) were liable since no mens rea was required. In Smedley's v Breed, again, despite all precautions being taken, a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Under strict liability, no mens rea was required and the defendant was charged. In Harrow v Shah, a shopkeeper sold an underage child a lottery ticket, and was charged with the offence despite no mens rea being present. Finally, in Sweet v Parsley the strict liability was overturned. This was because Mrs. Parsley was unaware of the cannabis that was being grown in her accommodation which was to let, therefore she was not in control of the circumstances.

Thank you but I did not know you need to include that much cases, for an answer on how men's rea and actus reus coincide, i only put one case on fagan in it? Would I need more

Reply 37

chelsomer

Does anyone have any advice on answering the non fatal offence questions, I'm really struggling with what content I need to include for the actus reus and mens rea.

My teacher says we need to write about intention (direct and indirect) and recklessness however that seems a lot on top of everything else.

I'm also struggling for time because I seem to be writing too much.

Any advice would be appreciated :smile:

Reply 38

Original post by SunDun111

Thank you but I did not know you need to include that much cases, for an answer on how men's rea and actus reus coincide, i only put one case on fagan in it? Would I need more

You need to know about Thabo Meli too.

In Thabo meli, two men had the intention of killing another man. They beat him until they believed he was dead, and threw him over the side of a cliff. He later died of exposure.

They argued that they didn't have the mens rea for his death at the time he died. The courts stated the whole series of events existed as one continuous act, therefore AR and MR coincided at that point, thus they were convicted.

Reply 39