The Student Room Group

Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

For unlawful act manslaughter, the case of Goodfellows says that the unlawful act can be towards property. Does this mean we should learn the AR and MR of property offences before going into the Unit 3 exam?
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
battered wife syndrome - diminished responsibility second part of the test


It can be both, BWS is a recognised medical condition which can be used for part A)
It can also be used in loss of control to demonstrate that loss of control does not need to be sudden.
Original post by sonicmailman
It can be both, BWS is a recognised medical condition which can be used for part A)
It can also be used in loss of control to demonstrate that loss of control does not need to be sudden.


i use thorthon for loss of control
Original post by sonicmailman
For unlawful act manslaughter, the case of Goodfellows says that the unlawful act can be towards property. Does this mean we should learn the AR and MR of property offences before going into the Unit 3 exam?


goodfellow sets out the unlawful act manslaughter test
my point of law for goodfellow is that the unlawful act doesnt have to be towards at someone
Having loss of control and that it doesn't need to be sudden are two different points.

You could use Thornton to say there's been a loss of control (I use Cocker) and then go on to say that that it doesn't need to be sudden.
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
goodfellow sets out the unlawful act manslaughter test
my point of law for goodfellow is that the unlawful act doesnt have to be towards at someone



Ahhh ok, thank you
Reply 66
Roughly, how many words are you writing for Q3 (evaluation)?
I have created my own model answer for the NFO evaluation and it's around 500 words, I don't know if I'm writing/including enough.
I have included 3 structural points, 2 language points, 3 points on the AR/MR, and then spoken about reforms (relating to my earlier points).
Original post by Sian-97
Roughly, how many words are you writing for Q3 (evaluation)?
I have created my own model answer for the NFO evaluation and it's around 500 words, I don't know if I'm writing/including enough.
I have included 3 structural points, 2 language points, 3 points on the AR/MR, and then spoken about reforms (relating to my earlier points).


I did pretty much the same thing, 500-550 words of evaluation for 4 main points (AR/MR, language, max sentences issue, structural issues); about 1100 words in total. It got full marks so I'm just hoping I can replicate it in 30 mins :s
(edited 7 years ago)
Is anyone going to risk just learning Non-Fatal Offences Evaluation for Unit 3 and then just learning Law and Morality for Unit 4.
Original post by alexGedgar1
Is anyone going to risk just learning Non-Fatal Offences Evaluation for Unit 3 and then just learning Law and Morality for Unit 4.


I am going to just learn a non fatal then just points for defences
Is there ever just a question on murder or is it always got some sort of manslaughter possibility
Hows everyone feeling for unit 3 and 4?
Reply 72
Predictions.PNGMy predictions table for the JUNE 2016 LAW03/04 exams.
As parts of unit 2 law is relevant to units 3/4, are people going to revise it? If so which bits, and to what level of depth
If ABH comes up in a scenario, do we have to go through Assault/Battery as a separate offence and then treat ABH S47 as another offence they may be liable for? Or would s47 be an offence on it's own?
Reply 75
Original post by sonicmailman
If ABH comes up in a scenario, do we have to go through Assault/Battery as a separate offence and then treat ABH S47 as another offence they may be liable for? Or would s47 be an offence on it's own?


So for a question on S.47 (expect one)

State the AR " there must be an assault or battery and this must cause abh"
State the MR " Intention or recklessness as the the assault or battery"
Define ABH - Miller/ Chan Fook.

Apply to the scenario so for example let me make a scenario up.

" Dave and Pete, his best friend were playing a game of monopoly when Dave hit Pete on his arm due to the fact he was losing, this later caused a slight bruise to appear on Pete's arm." (We have all been in this situation lol.)

My aims in this scenario were to include s.47 + consent (horseplay)

So basically you would say Dave would satisfy the AR of s.47 of ABH, this occurred when he hit Pete in the arm which later caused the slight bruising under the definition in Miller, this would equate to abh. * case*

Dave had the intention as to the battery, his main aim/ purpose was to hit Pete in the arm, this later caused bruising to appear. Dave would therefore be liable for a S.47 offence.

Remember there is not requirement for D to have intended or be reckless as to the injury inflicted!!!

HOPE THIS HELPS!
That definitely helps, thanks!

But where you say he would satisfy the AR of s47, would you then not need to go through the battery cases before going straight to to the ABH?

EDIT: Do we also still need to go through causation for all the NFO questions?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 77
Original post by sonicmailman
That definitely helps, thanks!

But where you say he would satisfy the AR of s47, would you then not need to go through the battery cases before going straight to to the ABH?

EDIT: Do we also still need to go through causation for all the NFO questions?


No to the first point and no to the second :-)
Reply 78
Can you answer the evaluation question first and then go on to answering the scenario questions?
Original post by JPFM
Can you answer the evaluation question first and then go on to answering the scenario questions?


yeah, im pretty sure you can answer it any order you like

Quick Reply

Latest