[SFCDan]

Why would you? Church is unlawful act manslaughter, duty of care only matters for gross negligence.

[ENI93]

Church is a Unlawful Act Manslaughter, it's looking at dangerousness, and brought about the objective definition. Hope this is some help

[Etoiliege]

In terms of recklessness and the objective test for dangerousness.. Do we need to go into detail on Caldwell/Cunningham?

[Geoff89]

(Original post by Etoiliege)
In terms of recklessness and the objective test for dangerousness.. Do we need to go into detail on Caldwell/Cunningham?

I would advise against doing this for Q1, if its CHURCH as its likely to ask about the importance/ development in the law specifically for Constructive manslaughter.

However this would be perfect for Q2 if they talk about "vagueness/ uncertainty/ harshness"

[SFCDan]

Ah man.. if question one is on Lidar, what actually is there to write about? How can you squeeze 16 marks from that?

[marcell_]

(Original post by SFCDan)
Ah man.. if question one is on Lidar, what actually is there to write about? How can you squeeze 16 marks from that?

Let me sift through my notes...

Lidar (2000), appeal on misdirection of the jury.

1st CP: Reckless manslaughter had thought to have been eradicated - brilliant quote in Source 5 to illustrate this.

2nd CP: Kept the subjective test while the other elements of IM developed following the case of R v G and Another (2003). - Led to criticism as it is argued that subjective recklessness is more difficult to prove for the jury.

3rd CP: Lidar made clear that "recklessness" and "gross negligence", despite being used interchangeably, do infact "represent two distinct conditions of fault." - Helped to overcome ambiguity despite not having precise definitions for these terms.

Then additionally:

Still widely debated, in spite of Lidar.... 2006 Law Commission report suggested that the boundaries of GNM to accomodate cases such as Lidar.

...I have loads of Lidar, none so for the rest though!

[SFCDan]

Brilliant, thanks

[marcell_]

(Original post by SFCDan)
Brilliant, thanks

No problems. If you need anymore I'd be more than happy to oblige.

[Etoiliege]

(Original post by Geoff89)
I would advise against doing this for Q1, if its CHURCH as its likely to ask about the importance/ development in the law specifically for Constructive manslaughter.

However this would be perfect for Q2 if they talk about "vagueness/ uncertainty/ harshness"

Thanks (:
Question 2 I'm sorted with. Question 1, however, may kill me. Question 3 seems ridiculously simple for A Levels..

[lw:)]

(Original post by Etoiliege)
Thanks (:
Question 2 I'm sorted with. Question 1, however, may kill me. Question 3 seems ridiculously simple for A Levels..

same

[marcell_]

What kind of structure will you use in Q2? I always struggle with laying that particular question out. It all goes wrong after defining the area of the law!

[Veex]

Start listing the cases on how they deveolped the law is whatd id do.
Ummm anyone have any idea which case Q1 will be? And Q2...?
Is anyone thinking Q2 will be gross negligence manslaughter seeing as in 2000 (only similar past paper according to my teacher) the question was on constructive manslaughter?

[SFCDan]

I've heard from teachers the general belief is that it will be Adomako or Lidar, but this is in no way certain so don't focus your revision solely on them.
EDIT - For Q1, this is

[Psychology:)]

I am sooo Scared for this exam.
I really don't think 1 and a half hours is enough to fit all the stuff in I will probably run out of time

[Veex]

Thank youu!!! Im actually bricking it.
And i hate lidar.
I hate that theres 8 cases dammit!!!
Adomako came up in that 2000 paper..... just no idea if it'll be sods law and they ask a Q on it this year.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by Veex)
Thank youu!!! Im actually bricking it.
And i hate lidar.
I hate that theres 8 cases dammit!!!
Adomako came up in that 2000 paper..... just no idea if it'll be sods law and they ask a Q on it this year.

Out of the 8, there's only 4 (Adomako, Church, Lidar, Kennedy) that it's likely to be on (or so I've been told!) because Church, Adomako and Lidar are the key three in each of the sections, and Kennedy is a massive clarification on drug law so there's a lot to say about that. Of course, it can be any of the other 4, just hopefully not!

[lw:)]

(Original post by SFCDan)
Out of the 8, there's only 4 (Adomako, Church, Lidar, Kennedy) that it's likely to be on (or so I've been told!) because Church, Adomako and Lidar are the key three in each of the sections, and Kennedy is a massive clarification on drug law so there's a lot to say about that. Of course, it can be any of the other 4, just hopefully not!

how would you explain Lidar in q1 ?

[Veex]

Oh bugger. Thats what i thought but on some paper from ocr that our teach gave us it listed the 8 cases :\ and i didnt wanna take my chances.
I usually predict from past papers what'll come up and this ones just got me going mental.
Right im just gonna hope for a miracle i guess
In hope to become a barrister its fantastic that this exam revision is going well.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by lw:))
how would you explain Lidar in q1 ?

Look at post 26, Marcell explained it to me there

(Original post by Veex)
Oh bugger. Thats what i thought but on some paper from ocr that our teach gave us it listed the 8 cases :\ and i didnt wanna take my chances.
I usually predict from past papers what'll come up and this ones just got me going mental.
Right im just gonna hope for a miracle i guess
In hope to become a barrister its fantastic that this exam revision is going well.

It's always better to be safe than sorry, revising all 8 is obviously a better plan than hoping that one of the big four will come up. If revision is going well I'm sure you'll be fine, good luck

[Veex]

Lol i was being sarcastic in that it isnt going well. :P
Good luck to you too! Thanks for the directing in it could possibly be lidar, cos i was going to leave lidar cos i hate it.