AQA A2 LAW-Unit 3- REVISION

Original post by Geostar17

Hi, this was true before but this year the exam board has changed it so that you can't just learn one or the other. They have hinted that in this years exam it is likley we will have to dicuss both murder/voluntary manslughter and involuntary manslughter for the same question. Instead of asking about D's criminal liability for the 'murder' of V or the 'involuntary manslaughter' of V it will ask for the 'death' og V so you have to discuss both. Good news is if they do that you won't have to go into as much depth with each and there will be less complex issues.

You are required to know two general defences of your choosing. I would recommend self-defence and consent as they have many points.

Reply 82

Original post by Geostar17

Hi, this was true before but this year the exam board has changed it so that you can't just learn one or the other. They have hinted that in this years exam it is likley we will have to dicuss both murder/voluntary manslughter and involuntary manslughter for the same question. Instead of asking about D's criminal liability for the 'murder' of V or the 'involuntary manslaughter' of V it will ask for the 'death' og V so you have to discuss both. Good news is if they do that you won't have to go into as much depth with each and there will be less complex issues.

I cannot conclude as to whether that would be a good thing or not lol.

Thank you! :smile:

How is your revision going?

Reply 83

Geostar17

4

Original post by Alex-jc123

You are required to know two general defences of your choosing. I would recommend self-defence and consent as they have many points.

I meant for question B

Reply 84

Geostar17

4

Original post by Alex-jc123

I cannot conclude as to whether that would be a good thing or not lol.

Thank you! :smile:

How is your revision going?

Ok I think thanks. I feel confident in terms of knowledge as I have done a lot of revision but I am worrying about the time contstraints as I never seem to have enough time to get in everything I wanted to. Oh well, I write quicker in exams anyway, guess I'll just have to hope for the best. :tongue:

How about you, ready for the exam?

Reply 85

Original post by Alex-jc123

You are required to know two general defences of your choosing. I would recommend self-defence and consent as they have many points.

Consent is not a general defence because it can only be used for the non-fatal offences so you might be best off evaluating self-defence and intoxication.

Just a heads up, because my teacher warned us that if it asks to evaluate 'general defences' consent does not count.

Can I also warn you that there is a strong chance both murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter may come up in the scenarios in the B question. It has happened before on the old syllabus and may happen again so you're probably best off revising involuntary manslaughter too if possible to cover all bases.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 86

King Leonidas

OP

Original post by NeonSkies

Consent is not a general defence because it can only be used for the non-fatal offences so you might be best off evaluating self-defence and intoxication.

Just a heads up, because my teacher warned us that if it asks to evaluate 'general defences' consent does not count.

Can I also warn you that there is a strong chance both murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter may come up in the scenarios in the B question. It has happened before on the old syllabus and may happen again so you're probably best off revising involuntary manslaughter too if possible to cover all bases.

They can't ask you about murder,in/voluntary manslaughter in both of the questions, that would render the whole point of getting to choose what question you want to do. Yes, they might ask you to do a question on murder, in/voluntary manslaughter however, the chances of it being in both the scenario's is very low.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 87

Original post by pinda.college

They can't ask you about murder,in/voluntary manslaughter in both of the questions, that would render the whole point of getting to choose what question you want to do. Yes, they might ask you to do a question on murder/In/voluntary manslaughter however, the chances of it being in both the scenario's is very low.

Yeah, but there is a chance of murder and both types of manslaughter coming up in one scenario, and if the other scenario is about involuntary manslaughter on it's own people who have not revised it at all will have some problems. It's only a possibility and I'm obviously not an examiner but people should still read over invol just in case. I probably should have phrased my last post a bit better because like you say it won't occur in both scenarios.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 88

King Leonidas

OP

Original post by NeonSkies

Yeah, but there is a chance of murder and both types of manslaughter coming up in one scenario, and if the other scenario is about involuntary manslaughter on it's own people who have not revised it at all will have some problems. It's only a possibility and I'm obviously not an examiner but people should still read over invol just in case. I probably should have phrased my last post a bit better because like you say it won't occur in both scenarios.

Fair enough, you're only making people aware that there's a chance of involuntary manslaughter being in both questions :wink:

So how prepared do you feel for the exam, how are you learning the three essays?

Reply 89

Original post by NeonSkies

Consent is not a general defence because it can only be used for the non-fatal offences so you might be best off evaluating self-defence and intoxication.

Just a heads up, because my teacher warned us that if it asks to evaluate 'general defences' consent does not count.

Can I also warn you that there is a strong chance both murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter may come up in the scenarios in the B question. It has happened before on the old syllabus and may happen again so you're probably best off revising involuntary manslaughter too if possible to cover all bases.

Consent is a general defence. My teacher told me something entirely contrary so I do not know what to believe lol :s

Yeah, I am going over involuntary manslaughter tomorrow. I am hoping that battery comes up in the non-fatal offences question!

Reply 90

Original post by Geostar17

Ok I think thanks. I feel confident in terms of knowledge as I have done a lot of revision but I am worrying about the time contstraints as I never seem to have enough time to get in everything I wanted to. Oh well, I write quicker in exams anyway, guess I'll just have to hope for the best. :tongue:

How about you, ready for the exam?

Same. I have learned at least 60 cases and have around 15 moderately long quotes ready to throw on the exam page... But I fear the time allowance lol.

I wrote an essay on the reforms of murder and voluntary manlaughter which I handed in to my teacher recently; if it gets more than 22/25 then I will just spend some of the next few days copying it out and increasing its quality haha :biggrin:

The reforms of non-fatal offences are almost common sense if you consider the flawed OAPA 1861!

Reply 91

Original post by pinda.college

Fair enough, you're only making people aware that there's a chance of involuntary manslaughter being in both questions :wink:

So how prepared do you feel for the exam, how are you learning the three essays?

Yeah you summed it up nicely there, sometimes I just don't make sense :tongue:

I feel quite well prepared it's just case names that need remembering, the rules themselves I can remember quite easily but cases to back it up I struggle with most!

The essays I just bullet point the points and put one point in each paragraph and add a couple of cases in there to justify it - I really hope the defences evaluation comes up though because that's the one that's been learned most thoroughly! Best of luck with your exam :smile:

Reply 92

TimmonaPortella

Original post by pinda.college

For instance, in the cases of Bedder and Camplin. It was held in the case of Bedder that the D’s impotence wasn’t a characteristic to take into account. This was clearly wrong and was established in the case of Camplin. This was amended in the Post-Homicide-Act.

Incorrect. Sorry.
Also, sorry if someone has already corrected this. I'm not reading through the whole thread.

In Camplin examples were given of characteristics that would affect the gravity of the offence. They included: race, ethnic origin, physical disability or infirmity, impotence (as in bedder), an ulcer in the mouth (where the provocation was a slap in the mouth).. etc.
In Morhall it was even found that glue sniffing could be a relevant characteristic of the reasonable man if the thing said was related to it. So, even if the characteristic is discreditable, it could still be relevant.

There was trouble deciding whether characteristics that affect the defendant's powers of self control should be given to the reasonable man. It was decided in Smith that this was the case; however, smith seems to have been overruled by the privy council in Holley. Holley has since been followed in r v Faqir Mohammed and r v James and Karimi.

With the reforms, it is actually defined in the statute what characteristics the reasonable man should take:
'(c)a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.'
s54(1)(c)

edit: or maybe your use of language just confused me and you weren't saying what I thought you were. Whatever, I've made the post now. :awesome:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 93

Original post by Alex-jc123

Consent is a general defence. My teacher told me something entirely contrary so I do not know what to believe lol :s

Yeah, I am going over involuntary manslaughter tomorrow. I am hoping that battery comes up in the non-fatal offences question!

I think it's a bit of a grey area because consent cannot be used for murder or manslaughter, only the non-fatal offences so it cannot be used generally if that makes sense.

I think you could get away with talking about consent but my teacher said it might be best off sticking to self-defence and intoxication or insanity, because those defences can be used for all offences we have gone through in the syllabus.

Reply 94

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Alex-jc123

Consent is a general defence. My teacher told me something entirely contrary so I do not know what to believe lol :s

Yeah, I am going over involuntary manslaughter tomorrow. I am hoping that battery comes up in the non-fatal offences question!

I don't think consent is strictly speaking a defence. If the force is justified there is no crime.

Reply 95

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I don't think consent is strictly speaking a defence. If the force is justified there is no crime.

Really? Consent is the most detailed 'general defence' in my textbooks. So, who is wrong: the examiners who wrote the textbooks, or your teacher (s)?

Reply 96

Original post by NeonSkies

I think it's a bit of a grey area because consent cannot be used for murder or manslaughter, only the non-fatal offences so it cannot be used generally if that makes sense.

I think you could get away with talking about consent but my teacher said it might be best off sticking to self-defence and intoxication or insanity, because those defences can be used for all offences we have gone through in the syllabus.

Ah, I see. The AQA do not actually exclude it from the category of 'general defences' so I am going to take my chances with it :wink:

Reply 97

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Alex-jc123

Really? Consent is the most detailed 'general defence' in my textbooks. So, who is wrong: the examiners who wrote the textbooks, or your teacher (s)?

Lol, my textbook says it's not a defence. It actually uses the words 'strictly speaking'. R v Slingsby agrees. http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_38_invol_uada.htm#Slingsby, R v [1995] Judge J
There can't be a defence if there is no offence.

Besides which, the textbooks on this largely chat crap. Look at how badly gross negligence manslaughter is covered in them.

edit: of course, you can discuss it as a defence. We treat it as one, hence 'strictly speaking'. But in actuality consent means there is no offence, because the force was not unlawful.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 98