Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

How did Jayson lose his control ?? And who had dr??

I did scenario 2 and missed out intoxication and self defence because of time will I still be able to get a good grade??

Didn't do this scenario, but doesn't affect the grade really you can still get 21/25.. (
A)

I did scenario 2 and missed out intoxication and self defence because of time will I still be able to get a good grade??

No I failed it, what did u do?

It never specified anywhere in the scenario that anyone was drinking so to put intoxication wouldn't be necessary. Self defence was to be mentioned for Helen but even if you didn't do it you can still get a maximum of 21 marks

i did scenario 1 but didnt have time to write down the defences, i would have rather missed those out than missed out murder or GNM. how much of a difference will this make???

Without defences you're looking at a maximum of 21/25

I did scenario 2 and I am so confused how some people got the answers they did.
For the OAPA;
Battery,and s20/s18 discussion in regards to wound and discussion of self defence/prevention of crime/protection of another under s3 CLA 1967
Then the question specifically says murder so some discussion of murder via omission HAS to occur with a potential discussion of Loss of control
Unlawful act was assault and the main discussion based around the causation issues. Mentioning intoxication was reaching for marks because we are not told drinking or drug taking occurred. Just because they were at a bar does not mean drinks were consumed. Some like tap water. Ngl i mentioned it sort of
Hope everyone did well and lets smash unit 4!

I chose scenario two, and did this:

2 counts of assault from Genna to Helen - the verbal threat, and the act of opening the windows and doors as the second type.

I then discussed battery and s47 for the kick, and weighed up that if there was bruising it would probably be s47. And s20 wounding for the deep forehead cut because for it to be deep I assumed that meant the second layer of skin would have been groken, but I did mention this was required.

For Ivo, Lucas, and Jayson I said yes Jayson could be guilty of murder due to his owing Ivo a duty of care because he created a dagerous situation (co-created) and that it was his ommission which was a more than more than minimal cause of death.

For Lucas I did subjective reckless manslaughter because I thought that the dangerous act required in UAM had to be physical, and he was only chasing him, and hadnt actually used the knife, but I explained that this was why I made that choice.

I didn't do defences in either question.


What question do we think are going to come up in LAW04 Tort?