I have revised and created essay plans for 3 concepts, BCI, Morality, and Creativity - but judging from this thread - is it fine to JUST memorize morality you reckon?
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?
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 😂
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?
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
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?
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 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
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
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)?
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.
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)?