The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 280
Avatar for OSFC98
OSFC98
1
Original post by Paigewhitaker98
I think you'll still get your marks for the loss of control but depending on how much depth you went into for unlawful act manslaughter you probably could have got 17 marks, so it shouldn't be too bad


I went into a lot of detail for unlawful act so it should be a weak sound, will I not get any marks for gross? or will it be Max Clear?
Original post by Rust Cohle
I think ABH and even s20 had to be considered. Red swelling and sting pain is arguably ABH by nature. The repeated kicking compounded by the fact that Brandon was much smaller than Adam gave scope to use Bollom and Brown Stratton for GBH justification.


Posted from TSR Mobile


the kicking was from a random gang on Calvin
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
What do you mean? you missed out Q5 completely?


No I did only half of it. Lukas and his liability for Ivos death by unlawful and dangerous act
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
the kicking was from a random gang on Calvin


Sorry I meant to refer to the tennis ball that repeatedly hit Brandon.
What did people write for the kicking from the gang on calvin?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by OSFC98
I went into a lot of detail for unlawful act so it should be a weak sound, will I not get any marks for gross? or will it be Max Clear?


I'm not sure how the whole weak sound thing works I don't really mark my own papers but I don't think you'll get any for the gross negligence because it's involuntary manslaughter but the first but of the question asked about the liability for Ivo's murder not manslaughter
Original post by WaywardWriter
What did people write for the kicking from the gang on calvin?


Posted from TSR Mobile


It didn't break the chain of causation.
I want to cry. The non-fatal reforms came up (hooray) which I'm happy about, I did scenario 2 and the non-fatal was quite okay (although I only did assault to Helen and s20/18 for Genna).

But then for the murder/invol, I wrote in detail about Lucas's unlawful act manslaughter, and I wrote about the murder through omission for Jayson but then crossed it out because I thought the examiner was trying to trick us into writing about both...I just couldn't see how it was a murder?? If anything it was a gross negligence??
Original post by Rust Cohle
Depends on scheme.

If defences are included in potential content with their corresponding offence, then clear.

If both defences are sperate as a PC(C) then you would have missed it.

Most likely the former.


So would that be around 19 or 20 marks?
Original post by Business Boy
It didn't break the chain of causation.


Yeah thats good i wrote the same thing :smile:. I found prevention of crime for a defence for calvin, some of my friends that adam had the defence of consent. Did anyone write consent?


Posted from TSR Mobile
I did scenario 2 after debating over both for like 5 minutes!
For Genna against Helen: Assault
Helen against Genna: Battery occasioning Abh + s18/s20 wounding + self defence (Did people give Helen the defence because it could have been out of revenge or not??)

Jayson for murder of Ivo: through ommission + Defence of LOC which would fail due to not grave enough and may have been out of revenge
Lucus for IM of Ivo: Unlawful act (assault) + break in chain of causation due to third party (jayson + own actions) + possible defence of intox
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 291
Avatar for JPFM
JPFM
5
How's everyone feeling about unit 4? :K:
Original post by Valesker
I want to cry. The non-fatal reforms came up (hooray) which I'm happy about, I did scenario 2 and the non-fatal was quite okay (although I only did assault to Helen and s20/18 for Genna).

But then for the murder/invol, I wrote in detail about Lucas's unlawful act manslaughter, and I wrote about the murder through omission for Jayson but then crossed it out because I thought the examiner was trying to trick us into writing about both...I just couldn't see how it was a murder?? If anything it was a gross negligence??


I went with gnm, but I think it could be murder due to all the stuff that pointed to loss of self control. They may give more credit to murder approach but I think gnm will still be credited
Reply 293
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by JPFM
How's everyone feeling about unit 4? :K:


****ed... only just started revision.


Nah I'll be fine as long as I get through the essays today :tongue:
So I did scenario 1 and for the murder question I talked about intoxication at the end of it instead of DR (it didn't say anything about vol mans). How many marks would I get for doing this if any?
Reply 295
Avatar for jmh70
jmh70
1
Scenario 2.
Assault - he's coming to 'get' you
Battery - kick in the shin
Wounding s.18 - deep cut discuss s.20
Lawful force/self defence

Murder
Loss of control - sudden rage of anger
Unlawful dangerous act manslaughter
Original post by Jon1234321
So I did scenario 1 and for the murder question I talked about intoxication at the end of it instead of DR (it didn't say anything about vol mans). How many marks would I get for doing this if any?


He thought he was killing an alien so it's obviously DR. If it's a murder essay you never mention a general defence.
Just wondering if for scenario 1 murder did any one go for LOC? I went for DR but seems like you could argue LOC to some extent.
For scenario 1 I did

S47 for swelling
Consent of sport but cannot consent to ABH

S20 for pushing Calvin of bench
Possible s18 but less likely
Briefly mention self defence as Calvin shout at him but likely to fail

Calvin shouting was assault, but not immediate and the defendant wasn't in fear so likely to be not guilty


Murder of his girlfriend , depends whether burrying was a novus actually intervenes
Men's rea may not be satisfied as he intended to kill alien who is not a reasonable person in being

Diminished responsibility
Sufferd silumlatneous from intoxication Dietchsaman
Intoxication cause mental condition wood

Intoxication
Specific- form necessary intent? Prob not because of Lipman

Loss of control briefly mention but harder to prove qualifying trigger to diminished responsibility more appropriate

Gross negligence manslaughter, breach through omission as only briefly looked at her and didn't seek sufficient medical care, jury likely to foresee risk of some harm
Original post by NHM
****ed... only just started revision.


Nah I'll be fine as long as I get through the essays today :tongue:

Same here :s-smilie:
Do you have any other exams? Good luck!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you