Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Aqa Law Unit 3 15th june 2012

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    well this is how I write my answer for the mens rea.

    This last phrase of the definition “malice aforethought” has been interpreted to mean the intention to kill, R v Maloney or the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, R v Vickers 1957. There does not have to be direct intention, as oblique intentions will exist if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty, R v Woolin and in R v Nedrick the court held that there is intention if it was reasonably foreseeable that death or serious harm would occur. The jury can infer intent from these actions R v Matthews v Alleyne, as satisfying the Mens Rea of the element.

    I personally think it would be because there will be a scenario where there wont be involuntary manslaughter. its either one scenario on murder and one on involuntary manslaughter or one scenario all non fatals and one scenario on involuntary manslaughter and murder and non fatals.
    Oh wow thank you very much. That makes it easier to put down without needing to write so much =]

    Yeah, that is very true. In the Jan 2012 exam which scenario did you do? (If you did that paper?)
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    Oh wow thank you very much. That makes it easier to put down without needing to write so much =]

    Yeah, that is very true. In the Jan 2012 exam which scenario did you do? (If you did that paper?)
    It's cool and then obvs after that you go on and apply it to the scenario.

    I did scenario 2 the one with everything... i should of done scenario 1 because that was all non-fatals and would of been much easier. what about you which one did you do? and what grade did you get?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    It's cool and then obvs after that you go on and apply it to the scenario.

    I did scenario 2 the one with everything... i should of done scenario 1 because that was all non-fatals and would of been much easier. what about you which one did you do? and what grade did you get?
    Yeah, Thanks... =)

    I did Scenario 1 I got a high B, but for uni its not enough so that is why I am retaking it...just can't believe I threw my chances because what happened I started with scenario 2 but then I realised this is far too complicated and had involuntary manslaughter (at least I thought..did it have IVM?) so then I went onto the first scenario and to be honest part b took me by surprise when I later figured out it was fully non-fatal. I just hope part c is defences because I am not really going to revise the non fatal offence reform and I do not like involuntary manslaughter, but at least it narrows it down. They may not ask the same way as they did in January, so one scenario will be murder with manslaughter and the other scenario will be involuntary manslaughter.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    Yeah, Thanks... =)

    I did Scenario 1 I got a high B, but for uni its not enough so that is why I am retaking it...just can't believe I threw my chances because what happened I started with scenario 2 but then I realised this is far too complicated and had involuntary manslaughter (at least I thought..did it have IVM?) so then I went onto the first scenario and to be honest part b took me by surprise when I later figured out it was fully non-fatal. I just hope part c is defences because I am not really going to revise the non fatal offence reform and I do not like involuntary manslaughter, but at least it narrows it down. They may not ask the same way as they did in January, so one scenario will be murder with manslaughter and the other scenario will be involuntary manslaughter.
    ohh thats good i hope i get a high B this time round what did you get for AS? ohh thats annoying yeah i have a strong feeling it will be defences because it has only come up once before in this new syllabus.

    yeah but i dont think they will do that personally because that would mean question 1 would be involuntary manslaughter and question 2 on murder and the third on evaluation. They will want to talk about non fatal offences not just fatal offences. Thats just what i think.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    ohh thats good i hope i get a high B this time round what did you get for AS? ohh thats annoying yeah i have a strong feeling it will be defences because it has only come up once before in this new syllabus.

    yeah but i dont think they will do that personally because that would mean question 1 would be involuntary manslaughter and question 2 on murder and the third on evaluation. They will want to talk about non fatal offences not just fatal offences. Thats just what i think.
    I'm sure you will =] I got high A, so need to maintain that. How about you? Yes same, that is why I am mainly revising defences. Non fatal has already come up three times so I doubt they will make it 4...then again they could be cheeky and give it to us =/

    Oh no that is not what I meant. Have you not noticed that in all the past papers, part a is always a.) non fatal offence question? I suppose in January 2012 for scenario 2 that was not the case. Am I right in thinking that? So what I actually meant was that for example, scenario 1 a.)non fatal offence b.)murder/VM c.)defences reform OR scenario 2 a.)non fatal offence b.)IVM c.)defences reform....that's maybe the setting out I would like so then I would go with scenario 1 =) Hope you understand what I mean....
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    I'm sure you will =] I got high A, so need to maintain that. How about you? Yes same, that is why I am mainly revising defences. Non fatal has already come up three times so I doubt they will make it 4...then again they could be cheeky and give it to us =/

    Oh no that is not what I meant. Have you not noticed that in all the past papers, part a is always a.) non fatal offence question? I suppose in January 2012 for scenario 2 that was not the case. Am I right in thinking that? So what I actually meant was that for example, scenario 1 a.)non fatal offence b.)murder/VM c.)defences reform OR scenario 2 a.)non fatal offence b.)IVM c.)defences reform....that's maybe the setting out I would like so then I would go with scenario 1 =) Hope you understand what I mean....
    yeh same here i got an A too.... yeah i know so in that case which two defences are you gone evaluate an for which one would you do the reforms for?

    yeah i know what you mean but i think it would be really hard for aqa to come up with a scenario where someone has both committed murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time if you get me? so it would be either murder or involuntary manslaughter. Plus there would just be soooo much to talk about that they would not do that. im still pretty sure Murder will always be on its own. its just a matter of whether the part a) question will have non fatal and involuntary or not.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    yeh same here i got an A too.... yeah i know so in that case which two defences are you gone evaluate an for which one would you do the reforms for?

    yeah i know what you mean but i think it would be really hard for aqa to come up with a scenario where someone has both committed murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time if you get me? so it would be either murder or involuntary manslaughter. Plus there would just be soooo much to talk about that they would not do that. im still pretty sure Murder will always be on its own. its just a matter of whether the part a) question will have non fatal and involuntary or not.
    I am going to do insanity and automatism, so the reforms would be for automatism. How about you?

    Ah that is a good point. I just hope they don't ask both scenario's to be IVM =s I don't think part a.) will have involuntary and non fatal. If they asked that in Jan 2012, then they probably won't ask next week and if so, it will only be on one scenario. Oh dear now you have got me scared =/ So lets say that in one scenario it contains murder but could use the partial defence of voluntary manslaughter, how would you tackle this question?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    I am going to do insanity and automatism, so the reforms would be for automatism. How about you?

    Ah that is a good point. I just hope they don't ask both scenario's to be IVM =s I don't think part a.) will have involuntary and non fatal. If they asked that in Jan 2012, then they probably won't ask next week and if so, it will only be on one scenario. Oh dear now you have got me scared =/ So lets say that in one scenario it contains murder but could use the partial defence of voluntary manslaughter, how would you tackle this question?
    well hopefully they wont if they do then im gone do really bad in the exam cuz it really puts me off yeah thats true.... why you scared? dont you mean the partial defence of loss of control and diminished responsibility?

    what i would do is:
    actus reus of murder apply it

    mens rea of murder then apply

    I would summaries see if the D would be guilty of murder or not.

    Then i would go onto the defences.... so if it is partial defence of loss of control i would talk about it mention the triggers and reasonable person test and then i will apply it and see if it will succeed or not.

    Move on to Diminished Responsibility, again talk about it mention everything then apply it to the scenario.

    Also if I have time i will talk about insanity quickly and mention the M'Naghten rules and apply it.

    How do you do it?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    well hopefully they wont if they do then im gone do really bad in the exam cuz it really puts me off yeah thats true.... why you scared? dont you mean the partial defence of loss of control and diminished responsibility?

    what i would do is:
    actus reus of murder apply it

    mens rea of murder then apply

    I would summaries see if the D would be guilty of murder or not.

    Then i would go onto the defences.... so if it is partial defence of loss of control i would talk about it mention the triggers and reasonable person test and then i will apply it and see if it will succeed or not.

    Move on to Diminished Responsibility, again talk about it mention everything then apply it to the scenario.

    Also if I have time i will talk about insanity quickly and mention the M'Naghten rules and apply it.

    How do you do it?
    It is because we only have one more chance at this and I don't know if I can do well on Unit 4 because of the concepts of law part (are you taking this exam?) But yeah, I probably will do exactly as what you have said here. Do the AR and MR of murder explain the definition and apply with relevant cases. If is guilty, but is able to use either defences then I would mention that. Would we have to talk about both though - loss of control and diminished responsibility? And I suppose the insanity part as well or automatism. The point where I get confused it what the M'Naghten Rule is trying to say =/ Could you please explain it to me. Thank you =)
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    It is because we only have one more chance at this and I don't know if I can do well on Unit 4 because of the concepts of law part (are you taking this exam?) But yeah, I probably will do exactly as what you have said here. Do the AR and MR of murder explain the definition and apply with relevant cases. If is guilty, but is able to use either defences then I would mention that. Would we have to talk about both though - loss of control and diminished responsibility? And I suppose the insanity part as well or automatism. The point where I get confused it what the M'Naghten Rule is trying to say =/ Could you please explain it to me. Thank you =)
    yeah i know i know but hopefully the question wont be as difficult and tbh over the next few days im gone revise involuntary manslaughter so i know that in case the scenario is a bit messed up. I more or less know everything on non fatals murder, the partial defences and general defences.

    For the evaluation i know non fatals of by heart and i know insanity of by heart too so i just need to do consent but im not sure if this is the best one to do so i might consider automatism.

    Just a little hint it will always be guilty of murder because otherwise you cant talk about the defences right? so there not gone be stupid and bring a scenario where the accused is not guilty of murder. This is what my teacher told me.

    Well that would depend on the scenario if it is clear that there is no mention of it then no cuz we will get no marks for it. So for example if there is nothing of some sort of mental illness or suffering from depression or a recognised medical condition then no we dont mention diminished responsibility or insanity. however there will most likely be like 2 defences so if there is no diminished responsibility there could be intoxication consent automatism etc...

    Basically the courts go with the M'Naghten Rule in order to determine if someone is insane or not. In your answer you need to mention the rule which is that the courts deem someone to be insane if he suffers from a "defect of reason which was the result of a disease of the mind causing the D not to know the nature and quality of his act that what he was doing was wrong". then you apply all elements to the scenario and conclude whether he would be insane or not if it is not clear just say that it is not clear from the scenario whether he would or not be.

    Hope that is helpful if not tell me.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    yeah i know i know but hopefully the question wont be as difficult and tbh over the next few days im gone revise involuntary manslaughter so i know that in case the scenario is a bit messed up. I more or less know everything on non fatals murder, the partial defences and general defences.

    For the evaluation i know non fatals of by heart and i know insanity of by heart too so i just need to do consent but im not sure if this is the best one to do so i might consider automatism.

    Just a little hint it will always be guilty of murder because otherwise you cant talk about the defences right? so there not gone be stupid and bring a scenario where the accused is not guilty of murder. This is what my teacher told me.

    Well that would depend on the scenario if it is clear that there is no mention of it then no cuz we will get no marks for it. So for example if there is nothing of some sort of mental illness or suffering from depression or a recognised medical condition then no we dont mention diminished responsibility or insanity. however there will most likely be like 2 defences so if there is no diminished responsibility there could be intoxication consent automatism etc...

    Basically the courts go with the M'Naghten Rule in order to determine if someone is insane or not. In your answer you need to mention the rule which is that the courts deem someone to be insane if he suffers from a "defect of reason which was the result of a disease of the mind causing the D not to know the nature and quality of his act that what he was doing was wrong". then you apply all elements to the scenario and conclude whether he would be insane or not if it is not clear just say that it is not clear from the scenario whether he would or not be.

    Hope that is helpful if not tell me.
    OMG this has been such great help for me. Thank you so much! I might revise some of involuntary as well but I am hoping and praying that this exam is not going to be messed up.

    I feel a bit more confident now but I am dreading the unit 4 paper if I must be honest. How are you feeling about this paper?

    So for a murder, the person will always be guilty of murder. But he can use the other defences whether the partial defence of loss of control/diminished responsibility or the normal defences. Just one question. Could the defendant use both loss of control and diminished responsibility? Would that be possible?

    Thank you so much for helping me to understand to much =)
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    OMG this has been such great help for me. Thank you so much! I might revise some of involuntary as well but I am hoping and praying that this exam is not going to be messed up.

    I feel a bit more confident now but I am dreading the unit 4 paper if I must be honest. How are you feeling about this paper?

    So for a murder, the person will always be guilty of murder. But he can use the other defences whether the partial defence of loss of control/diminished responsibility or the normal defences. Just one question. Could the defendant use both loss of control and diminished responsibility? Would that be possible?

    Thank you so much for helping me to understand to much =)
    Yeah i know, hopefully it will be a nice easy exam. yeah im ready for this exam and for the unit 4, im fine on the concepts of law part its just the scenario based questions and tbh by the time the 22nd of june comes i should be ready for it.

    yeah they will always be guilty.... yeah it just depends on the scenario and what aqa wants to test us. Again that would depend on the scenario, sometimes only 1 defence would work and at other times both might be successful. I think the exam board tends to make 1 defence successful and the other unsuccessful but im not 100% sure on this.

    its fine your welcome
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    Yeah i know, hopefully it will be a nice easy exam. yeah im ready for this exam and for the unit 4, im fine on the concepts of law part its just the scenario based questions and tbh by the time the 22nd of june comes i should be ready for it.

    yeah they will always be guilty.... yeah it just depends on the scenario and what aqa wants to test us. Again that would depend on the scenario, sometimes only 1 defence would work and at other times both might be successful. I think the exam board tends to make 1 defence successful and the other unsuccessful but im not 100% sure on this.

    its fine your welcome
    I know I am going a bit off topic, but which concepts of law have you revised? I am just so stuck on how to structure a concept of law question and do we give our opinion? I'm doing Law and Morality, Fault and Balancing Conflict. Hopefully I'll be ready for that exam as well, but I have my maths and chemistry before this exam.

    Oh wow okay that makes it clearer. Well, all I should do now is understand when to use the two partial defences and learn few cases. =]
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    I know I am going a bit off topic, but which concepts of law have you revised? I am just so stuck on how to structure a concept of law question and do we give our opinion? I'm doing Law and Morality, Fault and Balancing Conflict. Hopefully I'll be ready for that exam as well, but I have my maths and chemistry before this exam.

    Oh wow okay that makes it clearer. Well, all I should do now is understand when to use the two partial defences and learn few cases. =]
    I've done judicial creativity, fault and law & morals....I've done balancing conflicts too but not as strong on that one. Yeah I know there's loads of stuff to remember.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    I've done judicial creativity, fault and law & morals....I've done balancing conflicts too but not as strong on that one. Yeah I know there's loads of stuff to remember.
    How are we meant to attack the question? I think for this I have no clue about the exam technique here. Is it like how we answer the reform question in unit 3 or are we making some of our own opinions and backing it up?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    How are we meant to attack the question? I think for this I have no clue about the exam technique here. Is it like how we answer the reform question in unit 3 or are we making some of our own opinions and backing it up?
    You need to prepare a plan beforehand and then you must recall all of it in the exam with cases.... But the thing is that it's stuff we have studied.... For example I. Judicial creativity it's about precedent and statutory interpretation which was covered in AS.... But no don't make up your own opinion just use ur text book there are loads of points in there.


    My teacher told us that the examiners don't care about our opinion. You have to put down facts and back them up with cases and acts.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    You need to prepare a plan beforehand and then you must recall all of it in the exam with cases.... But the thing is that it's stuff we have studied.... For example I. Judicial creativity it's about precedent and statutory interpretation which was covered in AS.... But no don't make up your own opinion just use ur text book there are loads of points in there.


    My teacher told us that the examiners don't care about our opinion. You have to put down facts and back them up with cases and acts.
    That makes a bit more sense. So all we are doing is taking the relevant part of what we have learnt. They won't necessarily ask about the whole chapter For example for Law and Morality they have 3 or 4 sections but we may have to state from 2 sections and answer the question right? Do they ask the same similar questions or do they change it?

    WOW you have been the biggest help ever to me. Thank you so much. Wish you were my law teacher instead XP
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    That makes a bit more sense. So all we are doing is taking the relevant part of what we have learnt. They won't necessarily ask about the whole chapter For example for Law and Morality they have 3 or 4 sections but we may have to state from 2 sections and answer the question right? Do they ask the same similar questions or do they change it?

    WOW you have been the biggest help ever to me. Thank you so much. Wish you were my law teacher instead XP
    Yeah make sure tho that ur essay is not vague and it is actually answering the question. No the question will have a different focus every time...... So for e.g. 1 year it could be to what extent should law reflect on morality. The next year it could be to what extent should law not reflect morality. In essence ur talking about the same thing but the focus is different.

    No worries anytime thanks very much means a lot
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by govarkarim)
    Yeah make sure tho that ur essay is not vague and it is actually answering the question. No the question will have a different focus every time...... So for e.g. 1 year it could be to what extent should law reflect on morality. The next year it could be to what extent should law not reflect morality. In essence ur talking about the same thing but the focus is different.

    No worries anytime thanks very much means a lot
    Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem if I revise =s I'm so bogged down with my chemistry at the moment =s
    By the way, I checked out a few past papers on law and morality (because that is the one that I know best compared to the others) and these are the kinda questions they asked:

    June 08
    Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules. Consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules.
    June 07
    Explain the similarities and differences between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
    June 06
    Explain the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should seek to uphold moral values.

    I understand the first part of the questions but are the second parts asking the same sort of question? =/
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martha=help pls)
    Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem if I revise =s I'm so bogged down with my chemistry at the moment =s
    By the way, I checked out a few past papers on law and morality (because that is the one that I know best compared to the others) and these are the kinda questions they asked:

    June 08
    Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules. Consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules.
    June 07
    Explain the similarities and differences between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
    June 06
    Explain the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should seek to uphold moral values.

    I understand the first part of the questions but are the second parts asking the same sort of question? =/
    Yeah its basically the same question, but the focus is different for each of them.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 22, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.