The Student Room Group

Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
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??)


When it's a murder question stick to DR and LOC! Never talk about insanity of any other defence you will get a max weak clear (D) take it from me I've been getting 90%+ on practice questions and mocks..
Original post by sonicmailman
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
Case law is not recommeded/required for LOC because those cases all apply to the old law of provocation. You need to be referring to the new statutory provisions of law in s54 CJA 2009.

s54(1)(c) someone with the same age and sex of D with the normal degree of self restraint and tolerance reacting similar in the circumstances
s54(3) other characteristics can be considered too, so long as the don't affect the bold parts above.

Asmelash (2013) shows that intox doesn't strictly void LOC, however it can't be factored in s54(3) because it affects the bold parts above.
Reply 142
Original post by sonicmailman
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


You're making it more complicated than it has to be!
Reply 143
why has the exam time changed from 1:20/30 to 9:00??
Original post by KP.
why has the exam time changed from 1:20/30 to 9:00??


what do you mean? It was 9am to begin with
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
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
Thing is that if you have insanity, you definitely have DR.

But the other way round, you may run into problems. E.g. if there's suspicion that D understood nature and quality/knowledge of wrongdoing then your answer can suffer. With DR, you can fall back on the inability to exercise self control.
Reply 146
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
what do you mean? It was 9am to begin with


ours was 1:20 to begin with?
Often forgotten are transferred malice and contemporaneity so here they are.

Coincidence/Contemporaneity

Crimes require the concurrence of actus reus and mens rea. Two methods of establishing this where they wouldn't otherwise:

-Actus reus regarded as continuing act in order to coincide with mens rea (Fagan).
-Series of linked acts and omissions can be used to coincide mens rea with actus reus (Thabo Meli, Church).

Transferred Malice

Ensuring D's liability in instances where the mens rea for an intended victim is inadvertently transferred to an unintended victim, as in Latimer.

Malice cannot be transferred between two remote offences (Pembilton)

No requirement for malice to be directed at V (Mitchell)
Original post by c146
might be a dumb question, but can loss of control and diminished responsibility only be used for a murder charge? in other words, they can't be used for a charge of involuntary manslaughter?
Yeah only murder because they're partial defences, not general.
Reply 149
Original post by c146
might be a dumb question, but can loss of control and diminished responsibility only be used for a murder charge? in other words, they can't be used for a charge of involuntary manslaughter?


If you are asking this before the day of the exam its awfully worrying- no they cannot.
Original post by NHM
If you are asking this before the day of the exam its awfully worrying- no they cannot.


This - those defences are what reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Original post by c146
i understand you think its worrying and i agree, but i'm the kind of person to make huge errors under pressure so just wanted to quadruple check so i don't lose marks for an idiotic mistake such as this. please don't make me more stressed than i already am by commenting on how unprepared i may seem. thank you


If it's murder, go with DR/LoC.

If it's not murder but it's a specific intent crime, intoxication may be available.

Duress isn't available to murder.

Someone should make a big tick-box chart showing what defences can be used for each offence.
Reply 152
Original post by mactotaur
this - those defences are what reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.



dr and loc reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

You cannot reduce involuntary manslaughter any more than it actually is.
Reply 153
Original post by c146
i understand you think its worrying and i agree, but i'm the kind of person to make huge errors under pressure so just wanted to quadruple check so i don't lose marks for an idiotic mistake such as this. please don't make me more stressed than i already am by commenting on how unprepared i may seem. thank you


Soz dude didn't mean to come across that way. If you need help with anything just pm me!
Original post by NHM
dr and loc reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

You cannot reduce involuntary manslaughter any more than it actually is.


Yeah, because involuntary manslaughter is an actual offence you have tests for (UAM and GNM).
Original post by NHM
dr and loc reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

You cannot reduce involuntary manslaughter any more than it actually is.


it can be reduced completely with a defence of insanity which has a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
it can be reduced completely with a defence of insanity which has a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'


It's not used very often in murder cases, though, at least in real life.
Original post by Mactotaur
It's not used very often in murder cases, though, at least in real life.


He said involuntary so i thought he meant manslaughter.

How many reforms are you learning for the exam?
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
He said involuntary so i thought he meant manslaughter.

How many reforms are you learning for the exam?


For the evaluative essay? I'm trying to learn about three points for each, except involuntary manslaughter because it won't come up per the syllabus. I haven't yet done all of the reforms/evaluation for consent or intoxication.
GNM

Duty of care and breach of duty::
-Neighbour principle. Do not use Caparo
-The 6 omissions
-Complicity in crime (Wacker)
-Contribution to life threatening state of affairs (Evans)

Risk of death:
-Must be risk of death, not injury (Misra)
-"reasonably prudent person would have forseen risk of death" (Singh)

Cause of death:
-Causation

Grossly negligent:
Four things to look out for (in relation to the risk) laid out in Adomako
-Indifference to an obvious risk
-Foresight of the risk
-Appreciation of risk with intention to avoid it
-Inattention or failure to address a risk

Asserting that D's conduct is grossly negligent and that it is a matter for the jury to concern = dodging the question:

On the other hand,candidates were usually able to give an accurate explanation of the test to be applied by the juryin determining whether the negligence was sufficiently gross, though this was often by referenceto the Bateman case, rather than by reference to the specific words used by Lord MacKay inAdomako. Stronger candidates then attempted to provide some rational explanation for theview a jury might be expected to take. Weaker candidates tended to content themselves withthe observation that it was purely a matter for the jury.
-
Most students adopted the Bateman test for the ‘grossness’ of the negligence and many assertedthat, by that test, no matter how circular (a defect applying equally to Lord MacKay’s version of thetest), Beck was grossly negligent. Disappointingly, many students declined to consider what facts might support a conclusion about ‘grossness’ and sheltered behind the undoubted truth that, asLord MacKay emphasised, this was “supremely a jury question”
-
Once again, most candidates attemptedsome discussion of the requirement that the conduct be ‘so bad in all the circumstances’,usually citing the case of Bateman, but very few used the facts of the scenario seriously toquestion whether it could be satisfied.
-
Studentsinvariably recognised the requirement for proof that the negligence was ‘gross’, though theydid not always quote the Adomako description of that requirement, or one of its earlierversions (Bateman, Andrews v DPP). However, application was rather weaker, restinggenerally on simple assertion rather than on an attempt to identify what exactly it was aboutthe facts that made the conduct of James ‘so bad in all the circumstances ...’

Quick Reply