The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by BJO97
when talking about a main offence such as both manslaughters and murder aswell as non fatal offences (not defences) how many cases do you think is needed when talking about just one offence? I seem to only have 2/3 cases for each?


Not really a limit- I know for murder/DR and LOC I'm using about 9
Original post by NHM
Not really a limit- I know for murder/DR and LOC I'm using about 9


For the 3rd part of diminished responsilbity 3. impaired d's ability to do 1 of 3 things ... excercise self control, make a rational judgement and understand the nature of his conduct. What case are you using? R v Lloyd?
Reply 122
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
For the 3rd part of diminished responsilbity 3. impaired d's ability to do 1 of 3 things ... excercise self control, make a rational judgement and understand the nature of his conduct. What case are you using? R v Lloyd?


Yes but instead of putting (Lloyd) I'm putting the impairment needs not be total but must be more than minimal - something like that anyway
I feel like I've gone through unit 3 countless times, I just want this dry exam to be over with.
Original post by sonicmailman
I feel like I've gone through unit 3 countless times, I just want this dry exam to be over with.


haha me too! Although I prefer this exam much more than unit 4 thats one boring exam
Reply 125
Avatar for JPFM
JPFM
5
Is everyone hoping that non fatal offences comes up as the evaluation essay?
Original post by JPFM
Is everyone hoping that non fatal offences comes up as the evaluation essay?


If either NFO or defences turns up I'll probably have to take the L with murder
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
haha me too! Although I prefer this exam much more than unit 4 thats one boring exam


Yeah true :P

Quick question, for diminished responsibility and intoxication - Would we only need to go through cases such as Dietschmann, Tandy and Wood... Or would we also need to use the defence of intoxication? Cases like Sheehan and More, Gallagher, DPP v Majewski, Kingston and Hardie?
I feel like the only one who is still struggling with Unit 3 :colondollar: - most people claim it's easy. I struggle with defences. In most scenario questions will there be a defence you need to apply?
In murder, it can be one of the two partial defences such as diminished responsibility or loss of control? Could the other 5 defences ever be relevant to a murder scenario (for e.g. insanity or something??)
Original post by sonicmailman
Yeah true :P

Quick question, for diminished responsibility and intoxication - Would we only need to go through cases such as Dietschmann, Tandy and Wood... Or would we also need to use the defence of intoxication? Cases like Sheehan and More, Gallagher, DPP v Majewski, Kingston and Hardie?

You shouldn't need them as DR has no MR which is what intoxication requires.

I think a good way to do that is open with Di Duca: "intoxication voids a DR claim." Then follow with Dietschmann: "however, if the AMF SI D's mental reasoning then the DR may still be available, as in Hendy and Robson". Discuss then the extent of the intoxication, debating whether or not intoxication aggravated his RMC.
Original post by Sian-97
I feel like the only one who is still struggling with Unit 3 :colondollar: - most people claim it's easy. I struggle with defences. In most scenario questions will there be a defence you need to apply?
In murder, it can be one of the two partial defences such as diminished responsibility or loss of control? Could the other 5 defences ever be relevant to a murder scenario (for e.g. insanity or something??)


yes
Original post by Sian-97
I feel like the only one who is still struggling with Unit 3 :colondollar: - most people claim it's easy. I struggle with defences. In most scenario questions will there be a defence you need to apply?
In murder, it can be one of the two partial defences such as diminished responsibility or loss of control? Could the other 5 defences ever be relevant to a murder scenario (for e.g. insanity or something??)


With murder liability the only defenses available are DR and LOC. It could be both in one question, usually where there's two people involved in a death. DR is basically the insanity defence for murder. The 5 general defences won't apply to murder
Original post by Rust Cohle
You shouldn't need them as DR has no MR which is what intoxication requires.

I think a good way to do that is open with Di Duca: "intoxication voids a DR claim." Then follow with Dietschmann: "however, if the AMF SI D's mental reasoning then the DR may still be available, as in Hendy and Robson". Discuss then the extent of the intoxication, debating whether or not intoxication aggravated his RMC.


Wow, thanks! I can't believe I forgot intoxication as a general defence relies on MR. Woops.
I'm glad you've told me about Di Duca as I'd not come across that before.
Original post by Rust Cohle
With murder liability the only defenses available are DR and LOC. It could be both in one question, usually where there's two people involved in a death. DR is basically the insanity defence for murder. The 5 general defences won't apply to murder


In relation to Niccy and Owen, analysis of the defence of diminished responsibility:abnormality of mental functioning (substantial impairment of ability to form a rationaljudgment?); recognised medical condition (delusional – probably schizophrenia, thoughprecise identification unnecessary); provides explanation. Discussion of insanity as anadditional or alternative defence: defect of reason; disease of the mind; (probably) does notknow that what she is doing is wrong.
guys for non fatals where the D is intoxicated when he commits all the offences how would you go about this? Would you do a paragraph in the end of intoxication and state whether he will be granted it for each offence? e.g. if offences are gbh s.18 abh and assault and the intoxication is voluntary, you would state its only applicable to s.18 gbh following Majewski?
How would you go about wording the standard of self-control and circumstances of D?

Atm, I'm thinking of saying...

It most be proved that D fell below the standard of self control. The standard is based on "a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint" The case of Camplin says only sex and age should be considered and no personal characteristics can be considered as confirmed by AG- for Jeresy v Holly (Then I'll apply to scenario facts). Circumstances of D can influence the standard expected, Gregson/Hill (Then I'll apply). Lastly, the D must have acted in the same or similar way to a normal person in the same circumstances Van Dongen (apply)

I'm not sure if this is worded well at all tbh, I'm kinda stuggling
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
In relation to Niccy and Owen, analysis of the defence of diminished responsibility:abnormality of mental functioning (substantial impairment of ability to form a rationaljudgment?); recognised medical condition (delusional – probably schizophrenia, thoughprecise identification unnecessary); provides explanation. Discussion of insanity as anadditional or alternative defence: defect of reason; disease of the mind; (probably) does notknow that what she is doing is wrong.
The problem with using insanity in place of DR is that insanity won't always be there for the same credit.
Original post by Rust Cohle
The problem with using insanity in place of DR is that insanity won't always be there for the same credit.


True but if insanity 100% applies im sure you must consider it? But I do understand how insanity overlaps very heavily thus making it difficult to differentiate between DR and insanity
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
guys for non fatals where the D is intoxicated when he commits all the offences how would you go about this? Would you do a paragraph in the end of intoxication and state whether he will be granted it for each offence? e.g. if offences are gbh s.18 abh and assault and the intoxication is voluntary, you would state its only applicable to s.18 gbh following Majewski?


I would probably do a paragraph at the end. What I'm unsure of though is what happens if the D is voluntary intoxication and is charged with s18. It's a specific intent offence and therefore DPP v Majewski wouldn't apply. Would we just go onto cases such as Gallagher and Sheehan and Moore? Or do we say that there's usually a fallback offence so that it becomes s20 and thus Majewski is applied to make the defendant liable?
Original post by sonicmailman
I would probably do a paragraph at the end. What I'm unsure of though is what happens if the D is voluntary intoxication and is charged with s18. It's a specific intent offence and therefore DPP v Majewski wouldn't apply. Would we just go onto cases such as Gallagher and Sheehan and Moore? Or do we say that there's usually a fallback offence so that it becomes s20 and thus Majewski is applied to make the defendant liable?


Majewski states that voluntary intoxication can only be used for specific intent crimes, thus it would apply to s.18 GBH as it is a specific intent crime, after this you would consider the the D's mens rea

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you