AQA A2 LAW-Unit 3- REVISION

Scroll to see replies

Reply 620

slacker07906

90/100 for me :smile:

I did so bad in it aswell :P

Reply 621

epicbrodem

Original post by Caarl

Do you know the IDEA format to answer questions? I have extensive knowledge on evaluation part, however it's very spread on all the topics.

No one seems to have picked up in this post?

Whats this format? Youre just the person i need! Struggling big time on the scenarios

numpty bump

I'm taking the exam in Jan, I've nearly done every past paper since 06, and I'm finding the questions okay tbh, I struggle most with the evaluation ones

Reply 624

Rossatron

Original post by epicbrodem

No one seems to have picked up in this post?

Whats this format? Youre just the person i need! Struggling big time on the scenarios

IDEA is Identify, Define, Explain and Apply.

IDENTIFY is where you will point act what crime has been committed.

E.G "Simon could be liable for a S.20 GBH after he 'pushed Sarah to the ground breaking two of her fingers'"

This is simply identifying what act has been committed and you put a bit of application in showing what had happened.

DEFINE This is where you simply state what the Actus reus and Mens Rea is for that certain offence.

E.G. The Actus Reus of a S.20 GBH is where the defendant causes serious harm. The Mens Rea is where the defendant is reckless about causing some harm to the victim.

This is another simple part of the essay by defining the necessary AR and MR. You don't need to write much about the Identify or the Defining part but will need to go into more detail in the Explain and Apply.

EXPLAIN This is where you start putting your relevant cases in. In Unit 2, you could name a bunch of random cases that weren't relevant to the case study and gain a lot of knowledge marks. In Unit 3, you need to study cases and use ones that are similar to the scenario. For example, you won't be needing to use the case of Dica (Biological GBH) for a case of Parmenter (Throwing the baby in the air didn't realise GBH) because they are simply completely irrelevant.

E.G. "As two fingers has been broken, it is likely the prosecution will try for a GBH. GBH was first established in Cunningham where the serious harm rule was applied. This then changed in Saunders to 'really serious harm'. In the case of Parmenter, the defendant must realise that he/she will cause some harm to the victim. If the D does not realise harm, then there is no evidence of intention in the Mens Rea."

Once again, this may seem short but it is likely in the exam that you will have to write about two non-fatal offences that happen in the first paragraph of the scenario.

Apply This is the final part where you simply apply all what you've written back to the scenario to prove the D is liable or not. You need to say whether the D has the AR and MR and quote where it says it in the case study.

To finish up, non-fatal questions are not the much different to one in Unit 2, but require a bit more application and case relevance. You will obviously need to identify the defence(s) and put that in your final paragraph.

I've got the exam in January and have been hitting 25/25 on non-fatal offences all the time. The only things I have been struggling with is that Defences, Constructive act (Involuntary manslaughter) and the Criticisms.

Hope this helped

Reply 625

King Leonidas

Ahh I remember when I made this thread, good luck with the tough exam people :smile:

Reply 626

SPK123

Hi guys, as non-fatals came up in the Summer 2012 Law unit 3 paper, I dont think it will come up again. Who also agrees with me?

Reply 627

southweststudent

Original post by SPK123

Hi guys, as non-fatals came up in the Summer 2012 Law unit 3 paper, I dont think it will come up again. Who also agrees with me?

I agree....my bet is on defences

Reply 628

xtenshiai

bump. this has useful info

Reply 629

EllenHarper987

Hi guys does anyone have an ideal structure to answering an evaulation question on Non fats? Our tutor said make a point, say if the Law commission or someone agrees and show evidence of this, state where the problem is e.g S.20 OAPA, and then say the reform of this problem?

Is this correct? I'm struggling to get an ideal structure!!