Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Just state that property must be tangible as per s10(1) and that property in question (e.g. bike, cash, light bulb, kitchen sink) all constitute that. Mention the type of property just to be safe but it doesn't seem to have any effect on answer (based on June 13 Rosa George criminal damage in relation to an electrical socket).

Ok thanks, I assume you do the same for theft, and refer to it being real personal or whatever it is

Reply 401

LukeWeatherstone

Original post by emmapotter392

Hey guys can anyone tell me recent news relating to any morality issues for unit 4?

The "Panama Papers" are a good idea for this, showing how breaking laws is different to breaking morals

Reply 402

NHM

Original post by OrdinaryStudent

which concepts are you going be memorising?

BCI and morality..

Reply 403

_Alicetindale

Original post by Hannah_Catherine

I am pretty sure all 5 from Unit 3 can come up. My teacher taught us to learn maybe 2/3 cases for each, and a brief description so if they do, you have the info ready

No they don't. There hasn't been one unit 4 paper where on the markscheme insanity, automatism and consent have come up. That's like saying duress would come up on unit 3, when its not a unit 3 defence, only a unit 4. Only intoxication and self defence come up on both units.

Reply 404

SunDun111

Just wondering if we have to do know about fraud making off without payment? I have only learned obtaining services dishonestly and be false representation?

Can anyone honestly explain to me why the boundaries are so damn high compared to unit 1 and 2?

Reply 405

OrdinaryStudent

Original post by SunDun111

Yes you do have to know about making off without payment, also I agree grade boundaries are ridiculous

Reply 406

Indiarose98

Yep we do need to know making off without payment

Reply 407

sonicmailman

Original post by SunDun111

Yeah you'll need to learn making off without payment, but it's not that difficult. Just remember

D makes off (this is obvious from the name of the offence) (McDavit)
Goods or services were complete (Troughton) otherwise, what's he making off from? (That's how I remember it anyway)
From the spot (Vincent)

MR
Dishonesty (As this is needed for every Fraud offence)
Knowledge that payment was required/might have been required on the spot
Permanent Intention not to pay (Allen)

It's also handy to know that making off without payment comes under s3 Theft Act 1978, I remember this by just thinking there's an odd one out... This helps you to remember that the other fraud offences are going to be the Fraud Act 2006 e.g. s11 Obtaining services, I remember this easily because I think of it as being the shortest and therefore the highest section number within the fraud offences. I then just +10 and think Blackmail idk why, that's just how I remember it which seems to work, lol.

Check this over though as I might be wrong.

As to why the grade boundaries might be higher... Not a clue.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 408

SunDun111

Original post by sonicmailman

Yeah you'll need to learn making off without payment, but it's not that difficult. Just remember

D makes off (this is obvious from the name of the offence) (McDavit)
Goods or services were complete (Troughton) otherwise, what's he making off from? (That's how I remember it anyway)
From the spot (Vincent)

MR
Dishonesty (As this is needed for every Fraud offence)
Knowledge that payment was required/might have been required on the spot
Permanent Intention not to pay (Allen)

It's also handy to know that making off without payment comes under s3 Theft Act 1978, I remember this by just thinking there's odd one out... This helps you to remember that the other fraud offences are going to be the Fraud Act 2006

Check this over though as I might be wrong.

As to why the grade boundaries might be higher... Not a clue.

Thanks and for burgalry
To be guilty of S9 1(A), is it just enter into part of a building as a trespasser with an intent to steal, cause GBH or unlawful damage. Is that enough do you now actually have to go through with it?

Reply 409

sonicmailman

Original post by SunDun111

Not 100% sure but if you've already gone through the mens rea of say theft, then I guess you just say that they already have the mens rea as discussed. Don't forget intention or recklessness as to entering as a trespasser. Also don't forget that if there's criminal damage, it doesn't come under 9(1)(b) unless property is completely destroyed in which case it would come under Theft instead.

If I see a burglary, I'm probably going to leave that as one of my last offences to talk about, at least then they can't say whether or not intent has been established.

Reply 410

OrdinaryStudent

Original post by SunDun111

Original post by sonicmailman

Burglary 9 1 A is intent to commit theft/GBH - 9 1 B is actually doing it

Reply 411

sonicmailman

Original post by sonicmailman

I forgot to add to my first reply that D also needs to have not paid as required for AR of making off without payment

Reply 412

SunDun111

Guys i am kinda worried about unit 3, was it okay to talk about consent being used as a defence because it was a tennis match? an thanks for the guys above for clearing up my issues with burglary

Reply 413

Jon1234321

For tort, when it comes to proving duty for medical negligence, can you just state there is a precedent situation between a doctor and the patient? Or do you have to state that and go through the 3 part caparo test?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 414

yumikerushi

Original post by SunDun111

Guys i am kinda worried about unit 3, was it okay to talk about consent being used as a defence because it was a tennis match? an thanks for the guys above for clearing up my issues with burglary

Yep, that's what I wrote as well. Apparently horseplay was part of that consent too, didn't see that in the scenario though :frown:

Reply 415

Rust Cohle

Original post by SunDun111

Guys i am kinda worried about unit 3, was it okay to talk about consent being used as a defence because it was a tennis match? an thanks for the guys above for clearing up my issues with burglary

Original post by yumikerushi

Yep, that's what I wrote as well. Apparently horseplay was part of that consent too, didn't see that in the scenario though :frown:

Yes consent will earn credit. You would have to perceptively discuss issues like horseplay, sports, genuineness of the consent given the circumstances.

Reply 416

NHM

For the consent issue above I talked about constent on the basis of sport + the age issue (15 years old.. Can he truly consent?)

Reason I didn't talk about horseplay was because it said Brandon was scared of Adam, didn't indicate they were friends or anything?

Reply 417

NHM

Original post by Jon1234321

Yeah Doctor automatically assumes a duty for his/her patients - no need to go into the caparo crap..!

Reply 418

SunDun111

Original post by NHM

I think if we just talked about one in enough detail it would be ok?
I just mentioned that the case of Barnes and how the court of appeal have set out stipulations which means the rules go beyond consent and an offence is committed.

Surely examiners can't be that harsh at marking to be so specific, they have to be some people that high grades haha.

Reply 419

Rust Cohle

Original post by NHM

Horseplay exception doesn't necessarily require friendship. Besides friendship (at least in Adam's view) could be inferred from them playing together, and the lack of angry response when Adam would hit Brandon repeatedly. Thus can be classed as tomfoolery between pals (from Adam's perspective).

The main thing though is to bring up a few issues and give them contemplation rather than whizz through superficially. Markers will know that to cover everything can't be expected for every element of each offence/defence due to time constraints. Neither are you marked down for what is written or omitted. So all in all its not a big deal if you miss a few things.

Posted from TSR Mobile