[SFCDan]

(Original post by 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.

Ah right Do you have a steady knowledge of all the cases involved? (Not the main 8, but supporting ones, Mitchell, Misra etc) because if you do, then you can wing your way around most questions haha

Yeah, obviously can't be sure if it is or isn't but that's what some teachers are predicting, to be honest I'd much rather see Church come up, but if Lidar does you'll be happy you've revised it now

[Veex]

Yeah i think i know the links quite well.
I just had a plan of making answers for all possible Q's, so i have 8 case answer Q1's and 3 Q2answers, just on the follow through of actually memorising them all, didnt go as planned.
How are they predicting though? Through knowledge of possibly knowing people who know the paper and know whats coming up lol? In that hope i think i'll definitely look at lidar.
Also hope GNM is Q2. UDAM was Q2 in 2000 paper so fingers crossed.
If its SRM well im done for, but theres not enough on SRM to answer a Q of its own ive been told.

[lw:)]

you know when you add a case in do you HAVE to write a description, or is okay what I do by just writing the case name?

[SFCDan]

That's good then, you've got plenty of material and remember that the source booklet also contains a lot itself.

I don't think they have any insider knowledge, but there's one teacher who likes to say he's "good at guessing". It's just a general feeling among teachers, nothing concrete.

I was thinking question two would be based on the "elusive element of unlawfulness" quote, which involves all three forms. But if it's SRM then I think everyone is screwed, there's no way I could get 34 marks from SRM, it'd be like drawing blood from a stone.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by lw:))
you know when you add a case in do you HAVE to write a description, or is okay what I do by just writing the case name?

Writing the name and the ratio is fine, you don't need facts at all

[lw:)]

on q2 , do you all write out the definitions of each of the types of IM at the start?

[Geoff89]

(Original post by lw:))
you know when you add a case in do you HAVE to write a description, or is okay what I do by just writing the case name?

Once again I would advise against describing the facts of these cases, especially for Q1. You might want to mention the facts of one of the 8 main cases in Q2 but the most important thing to remember for both Q1 and 2 is to mention and analyse the legal point(s) that each case establishes.

Q1 has 12 marks for analysis and 0 for description, so you're not going to get anything for case descriptions.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by lw:))
on q2 , do you all write out the definitions of each of the types of IM at the start?

In a way that's linked to the answer. Don't just rattle off like a robot all of the law, link it to the question you're being asked, and then when you've outlined an area of the law, zoom in and elaborate on the main bit the question is asking about.
For example, if the question is based on the "elusive element of unlawfulness", after explaining gross negligence elaborate on the elusive factor - how "gross" the negligence needs to be.

[brigden2009]

(Original post by 1and3)
Could you say Church had a duty of care towards the victim? Slightly confused, just want to make sure before the exam...

Duty has nothing to do with the principals of Church.

Duty relates to GNM.

Church is a constructive manslaughter case.

[brigden2009]

(Original post by SFCDan)
In a way that's linked to the answer. Don't just rattle off like a robot all of the law, link it to the question you're being asked, and then when you've outlined an area of the law, zoom in and elaborate on the main bit the question is asking about.
For example, if the question is based on the "elusive element of unlawfulness", after explaining gross negligence elaborate on the elusive factor - how "gross" the negligence needs to be.

How would you relate the element of unlawfulness back to GNM?

[jimmyatemyworld]

I am praying that Question 1 will be Kennedy and Question 2 will be problems and reform with involuntary manslaughter in general as there is so much more to write than if they decide to only do problems with say, GNM. Hoping question 1 is not about Lidar as we have not be taught hardly any of reckless.. but I guess I know enough for a 16 marker ha.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by brigden2009)
How would you relate the element of unlawfulness back to GNM?

It was explained to me as being that the part of GNM that is unlawful is when the negligence becomes so gross as to amount to a crime etc etc. So the "how gross" bit is the element of unlawfulness, which as it is very unclear (criticised a few times in the source) is elusive. Thus, elusive element of unlawfulness.

[brigden2009]

(Original post by SFCDan)
It was explained to me as being that the part of GNM that is unlawful is when the negligence becomes so gross as to amount to a crime etc etc. So the "how gross" bit is the element of unlawfulness, which as it is very unclear (criticised a few times in the source) is elusive. Thus, elusive element of unlawfulness.

I was taught this is referring to the Unlawful Act of CM...
which isn't particular elusive..

[SFCDan]

(Original post by brigden2009)
I was taught this is referring to the Unlawful Act of CM...
which isn't particular elusive..

That's what I assumed it was, thought that was stupid (as you say, it isn't elusive) so asked my teacher and got that explanation, which makes sense to me. Maybe I didn't explain it well?

[ENI93]

I'm extremely nervous now, I just want another day to clarify it for myself!! My head feels too muddled now to think straight :/

[brigden2009]

(Original post by SFCDan)
That's what I assumed it was, thought that was stupid (as you say, it isn't elusive) so asked my teacher and got that explanation, which makes sense to me. Maybe I didn't explain it well?

Yes. However, these are just somebodies views in this case Professor Smiths.. so we may not agree with them. I guess you could refer to both..

How there has been an attempt to clarify the law.. for instance a civil wrong will not suffice..

Along with as you mention.. Breach being 'supremely a jury question' and that it must be 'so bad' as to justify a criminal conviction. But how leaving a fundamental questions of law to the jury leads to problems of circularity etc.

[SFCDan]

(Original post by brigden2009)
Yes. However, these are just somebodies views in this case Professor Smiths.. so we may not agree with them. I guess you could refer to both..

How there has been an attempt to clarify the law.. for instance a civil wrong will not suffice..

Along with as you mention.. Breach being 'supremely a jury question' and that it must be 'so bad' as to justify a criminal conviction. But how leaving a fundamental questions of law to the jury leads to problems of circularity etc.

I was advised to refer to all three branches of IM, just I only gave one example. But yeah, all that you've said there is relevant. Just don't assume the question refers to UAM alone, just because of the name

Also you can bring up Misra appealing on the basis that the jury test is a breach of human rights article 7 saying that you can't apply a law retrospectively.. saying in effect what the gross test is doing is asking the jury "Here is what they did, should that be a crime?" which would be applying it retrospectively.

European Court of Human Rights said to this "No, it's asking the jury, is what they did gross and consequently criminal". But still worth mentioning.

[Jamesey]

good luck fellows and remember to put in a few precedent points if you get the opportunity.

[gazzz121]

Q1 is either gunna be about 1 of 8 cases. it'll either be church, andrews, adamako, lidar, bateman, goodfellow, kennedy or cato. not much help i know but at least these are the ones to know for the first question. as for q2 it'll be about a quote from the source booklet. possible ones are from source 3 (lines 1-6), source 4(24-27 / 29-30), source 5 (1-5 / 37-39). hope this helps a little

[::SK::]

(Original post by Jamesey)
good luck fellows and remember to put in a few precedent points if you get the opportunity.

Would this be things such as stare decisis, flexibility etc?