Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

I was thinking i should just revise morality

Reply 422

xFloody

Original post by 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

Yeah you can just say there is an established duty of care between doctor and patient

Reply 423

NHM

Original post by SunDun111

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.

True there was this girl who got an A* last year at my sixth form (we used her paper for 'model answers') but imo 2/3 of her answers were weak asf but obviously not otherwise she wouldn't have got the grade 😂

Reply 424

sunnyrebecca

Original post by JPFM

Out of all of the offences which are specific intent and which are basic intent?

Basic Criminal damage, Arson and S9(1)(B) burgulary when they commit GBH (as it must be s20) :smile:

Reply 425

samgriff1998

How would we use the case of Bevans (1998) in a scenario involving s.21 blackmail? Do you just say that gain or loss requires something of some economic value or is there more to it?

Reply 426

BJO97

3

Anyone have a case which failed due to 'policy' when establishing Caparo 3 part test?

Also how many special tests are there for breach my teacher didn't go over it this year and lost my book from last year

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 427

ciarasimpson29

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (concerned with with police's handling of the Yorkshire Ripper case)

Original post by BJO97

Anyone have a case which failed due to 'policy' when establishing Caparo 3 part test?

Reply 428

OP

Original post by samgriff1998

How would we use the case of Bevans (1998) in a scenario involving s.21 blackmail? Do you just say that gain or loss requires something of some economic value or is there more to it?

Yeah that's it. Don't stress it though as Bevans has never come up

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 429

BJO97

3

Original post by ciarasimpson29

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (concerned with with police's handling of the Yorkshire Ripper case)

Already have this case for proximity

Reply 430

samgriff1998

Original post by Rust Cohle

Yeah that's it. Don't stress it though as Bevans has never come up

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?

Reply 431

SunDun111

Original post by samgriff1998

Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?

My teacher said don't bother with definitions? eh

Reply 432

SunDun111

How long is everyone going to stay up to revise for?

Reply 433

samgriff1998

Original post by SunDun111

My teacher said don't bother with definitions? eh

My college's law department is a shambles so I'll take your teachers word for it. One was sacked after 8 weeks and the other went to Russia for two months in the middle of term. Our college is closing next year because it is poor lol

Reply 434

KP.

what are everyones predictions for this exam?

Reply 435

SunDun111

Original post by samgriff1998

My college's law department is a shambles so I'll take your teachers word for it. One was sacked after 8 weeks and the other went to Russia for two months in the middle of term. Our college is closing next year because it is poor lol

Yeab but my teacher might be a shambless.. Our old one left in year 12 who was teaching for 10 years Law straight, the new one this year this was her first ever time teaching! She also marked like every essay I did like 25/25 when It clearly wasnt haha

Reply 436

OP

Original post by KP.

what are everyones predictions for this exam?

One scenario intoxication, the other duress. Every time.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 437

sonicmailman

3

For lawful excuses s5(2)(a)/s5(2)(b) - Do they only apply to criminal damage WITHOUT aggravated damage? Or do they apply to all the criminal damage offences from s1(1) - s1(3)?

Reply 438

OP

Original post by samgriff1998

Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?

Yes you need to be able to define it. e.g. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of prop bta with itpd the other of it.

Then define each element with statutory reference and support with relevant case law. You won't be awarded sound otherwise. You don't need to refer to every aspect of a statue though if not relevant, e.g. no need to refer to s4(3,4) if property isn't wild plant/animal.

Reply 439

OP