Aqa Law Unit 3 15th june 2012
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Katerzzz
At least you admit it 
You'll be fine!
UPDATE: GUYSSS....CAN ANYONE GIVE ME SOME QUICK CRITICISMS/REFORMS ON LOSS OF CONTROL AND DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY?!?! HELP MUCH APPRECIATED.
You'll be fine!UPDATE: GUYSSS....CAN ANYONE GIVE ME SOME QUICK CRITICISMS/REFORMS ON LOSS OF CONTROL AND DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY?!?! HELP MUCH APPRECIATED.
Hope so! Need at least 67/70 UMS. What are you aiming for?
Good luck!
Original post by ellie3
Thanks it does. just realised they only ask for reforms for one of the defences so ill add that to the end of my essay 
Just to clarify. were the law commission against injury caused through horseplay and sexual activities? so that means they think Wilson should be classed as wrong too?
Just to clarify. were the law commission against injury caused through horseplay and sexual activities? so that means they think Wilson should be classed as wrong too?
Yup that's right, Wilson was to do with body adornment - and Brown was to do with sexual pleasure. The different decisions for both cases shows incosistency.
Here's a more detailed way of explaining it:
"One of the problems in the law on consent is inconsistency. In the case of Brown, the courts ruled that consent could not be a defence to sado-masochistic behaviour between consenting homosexuals. In Wilson, the courts ruled that consent could be a defence where a husband had branded his wife’s backside with his initials. Causing pain for sexual pleasure is not allowed, but causing pain for body adornment is allowed. The courts seem to be prepared to allow acts between consenting heterosexuals adults, but not where the parties are consenting homosexuals. It seems that the courts may be trying to impose their own moral standards on the law.
The second problem with the law on consent is horseplay. The courts are prepared to accept consent as a defence even when such behaviour results in serious injury (Jones 1986 and Aitken 1992). The legal reason for this is that the aggressor does not have the mens rea for assault. However, the courts have decided honest belief in consent provides a defence even if the victim has not consented. In the cases of Jones and Aitken the courts accepted the defence of consent even though there was a mistaken belief in the existence of consent. Again this seems inconsistent with the refusal of consent in Brown."
Write a critical analysis of two of the general defences (insanity, automatism, intoxication, consent, self-defence/prevention of crime). Include in your answer a consideration of any proposals for reform of one of your chosen answers.
(25 marks)
This is essay will critically analyse the general defences of insanity and consent, and also proposals for reform of insanity.
Insanity is defined in the M’Naghten rules as a person who suffers from a defect of reason, which is caused by the disease of mind causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his act, or that what he was doing was wrong. This in itself is a criticism of insanity as the M’Naghten rules were established in 1843 when our knowledge of mental illness was far less advanced than today. Therefore we need a modern definition of insanity based on modern ideas.
Secondly, many serious mental illnesses do not count as insanity. This can be illustrated in the case of R v Byrne where someone who had tempting desires to kill. This is because the courts have held that the person understands the nature and quality of his act or realise that what they are doing is wrong. Therefore we must question whether it is fair to deny the defence of insanity to those who are seriously mentally ill. The defence of insanity does not recognise an irresistible impulse to commit a crame.
Moving on, the current law on the defence of insanity is based on physical illness. In the case of R v Hennessy the defendant was suffering from diabetes and forgot to take his insulin. This lead to him killing someone; however the courts held that he was insane as the lack of insulin was an internal factor. Another case is R v Burgess, which is where the defendant was sleep walking due to an internal cause and attacked his girlfriend. Again because there was no external factor such as a blow to the head, the courts held that he was insane. Lastly, in the case of R v Sullivan, the D suffered from epilepsy and in the fit attacked an old woman. He was deemed to be insane rather than allowing the defence of automatism.
The justification for this is that a finding of insanity will enable these illnesses to be treated, so that they do not cause trouble in the future. However on the other hand, it is unfair to describe someone as insane when they are not mentally ill.
The word insanity carries a social stigma therefore a less offensive expression should be invented.
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they are insane. In the cases of other offences, the defendant only needs to raise a reasonable doubt to succeed. For insanity, it needs to be positively proved. Therefore this is a possible breach of article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lastly, it is often criticised that the ordinary lay jury do not understand the difficult medical and psychiatric issues involved in a plea of insanity. Instead it would be better if a panel of medical experts decided the question of insanity.
The next defence that will be critically analysed is the general defence of consent. There are several problems with the defence of control.
Firstly, we must look at the difficultly to reconcile cases of Brown and Wilson as the defence of consent was allowed in Wilson even though in brown the injuries were more serious. This proves that the courts are more prepared to condone acts between adult’s heterosexuals rather than consenting adult homosexuals. This means that the courts are imposing their moral values on the law, which is why the defence of consent can be criticised. In contrast however, the courts did allow consent in the case of Wilson despite the wife needing medical treatment.
Within cases that involve heterosexuals there are still contradiction such as Emmett and Wilson. In Emmett, the courts did not allow consent as high risk sexual activity led to the woman suffering bleeding to her eyes and burns to her breast.
One of the exceptions, which were, mentioned in the Attorney General’s Reference 6 1981 was ‘horseplay’. However there have been some issues in this area. In the case of Brown the courts did not allow room for consent despite the injuries being minor and not lasting long. In Jones however the injuries were more serious yet the defence was allowed. The argument in the case of brown was that it interferes with the freedom of adults to do what they want in private.
Lastly there is the issue of consent and the issue on euthanasia with the most important case being Pretty. Mrs pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease. Therefore she could not commit suicide herself so she applied for a declaration so her husband could do the killing however the courts rejected her application and said that her husband will be criminally liable should he proceed.
Next the reforms for insanity will be proposed.
In 1953, the royal commission on capital punishment argued in effect that the defence of insanity should be extended to those who were suffering from ‘irresistible impulse’. Therefore people like the Anders Breivik should be found to be insane.
Secondly, in 1975, the Butler Committee proposed that the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be changed to a verdict of not guilty on evidence of mental disorder. Therefore this resolves the social stigma of people being called insane in society and thus being judged on by society for an unnecessary reason.
Thirdly, in 1989, the Law Commission’s draft code proposed that a defendant should not be guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or sever mental handicap.
Lastly, the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 now gives judges’ flexibility in sentencing in insanity cases. So other than murder where the judge needs to give a hospital order, judges can for lesser crimes draw on a wide range of options for sentencing.
(25 marks)
This is essay will critically analyse the general defences of insanity and consent, and also proposals for reform of insanity.
Insanity is defined in the M’Naghten rules as a person who suffers from a defect of reason, which is caused by the disease of mind causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his act, or that what he was doing was wrong. This in itself is a criticism of insanity as the M’Naghten rules were established in 1843 when our knowledge of mental illness was far less advanced than today. Therefore we need a modern definition of insanity based on modern ideas.
Secondly, many serious mental illnesses do not count as insanity. This can be illustrated in the case of R v Byrne where someone who had tempting desires to kill. This is because the courts have held that the person understands the nature and quality of his act or realise that what they are doing is wrong. Therefore we must question whether it is fair to deny the defence of insanity to those who are seriously mentally ill. The defence of insanity does not recognise an irresistible impulse to commit a crame.
Moving on, the current law on the defence of insanity is based on physical illness. In the case of R v Hennessy the defendant was suffering from diabetes and forgot to take his insulin. This lead to him killing someone; however the courts held that he was insane as the lack of insulin was an internal factor. Another case is R v Burgess, which is where the defendant was sleep walking due to an internal cause and attacked his girlfriend. Again because there was no external factor such as a blow to the head, the courts held that he was insane. Lastly, in the case of R v Sullivan, the D suffered from epilepsy and in the fit attacked an old woman. He was deemed to be insane rather than allowing the defence of automatism.
The justification for this is that a finding of insanity will enable these illnesses to be treated, so that they do not cause trouble in the future. However on the other hand, it is unfair to describe someone as insane when they are not mentally ill.
The word insanity carries a social stigma therefore a less offensive expression should be invented.
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they are insane. In the cases of other offences, the defendant only needs to raise a reasonable doubt to succeed. For insanity, it needs to be positively proved. Therefore this is a possible breach of article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lastly, it is often criticised that the ordinary lay jury do not understand the difficult medical and psychiatric issues involved in a plea of insanity. Instead it would be better if a panel of medical experts decided the question of insanity.
The next defence that will be critically analysed is the general defence of consent. There are several problems with the defence of control.
Firstly, we must look at the difficultly to reconcile cases of Brown and Wilson as the defence of consent was allowed in Wilson even though in brown the injuries were more serious. This proves that the courts are more prepared to condone acts between adult’s heterosexuals rather than consenting adult homosexuals. This means that the courts are imposing their moral values on the law, which is why the defence of consent can be criticised. In contrast however, the courts did allow consent in the case of Wilson despite the wife needing medical treatment.
Within cases that involve heterosexuals there are still contradiction such as Emmett and Wilson. In Emmett, the courts did not allow consent as high risk sexual activity led to the woman suffering bleeding to her eyes and burns to her breast.
One of the exceptions, which were, mentioned in the Attorney General’s Reference 6 1981 was ‘horseplay’. However there have been some issues in this area. In the case of Brown the courts did not allow room for consent despite the injuries being minor and not lasting long. In Jones however the injuries were more serious yet the defence was allowed. The argument in the case of brown was that it interferes with the freedom of adults to do what they want in private.
Lastly there is the issue of consent and the issue on euthanasia with the most important case being Pretty. Mrs pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease. Therefore she could not commit suicide herself so she applied for a declaration so her husband could do the killing however the courts rejected her application and said that her husband will be criminally liable should he proceed.
Next the reforms for insanity will be proposed.
In 1953, the royal commission on capital punishment argued in effect that the defence of insanity should be extended to those who were suffering from ‘irresistible impulse’. Therefore people like the Anders Breivik should be found to be insane.
Secondly, in 1975, the Butler Committee proposed that the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be changed to a verdict of not guilty on evidence of mental disorder. Therefore this resolves the social stigma of people being called insane in society and thus being judged on by society for an unnecessary reason.
Thirdly, in 1989, the Law Commission’s draft code proposed that a defendant should not be guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or sever mental handicap.
Lastly, the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 now gives judges’ flexibility in sentencing in insanity cases. So other than murder where the judge needs to give a hospital order, judges can for lesser crimes draw on a wide range of options for sentencing.
This is my retake, going to start revising tonight.
So all I'm going to learn is
-Murder
-Involuntary Manslaughter
-Voluntary Manslaughter
-2 Defences, 1 Reform
-Non-fatal offence against the person
Will that be okay, or should I skim over Murder problems/reforms just in case?
So all I'm going to learn is
-Murder
-Involuntary Manslaughter
-Voluntary Manslaughter
-2 Defences, 1 Reform
-Non-fatal offence against the person
Will that be okay, or should I skim over Murder problems/reforms just in case?
Original post by Executioner
This is my retake, going to start revising tonight.
So all I'm going to learn is
-Murder
-Involuntary Manslaughter
-Voluntary Manslaughter
-2 Defences, 1 Reform
-Non-fatal offence against the person
Will that be okay, or should I skim over Murder problems/reforms just in case?
So all I'm going to learn is
-Murder
-Involuntary Manslaughter
-Voluntary Manslaughter
-2 Defences, 1 Reform
-Non-fatal offence against the person
Will that be okay, or should I skim over Murder problems/reforms just in case?
you'll be fine i dont think murder reform will come up.
I know my defences and NFO evaluations perfectly but I am still yet to revise the myrder evaluation but I'm considering not revising it at all, is this a foolish thing to do?
Original post by charliekills
I know my defences and NFO evaluations perfectly but I am still yet to revise the myrder evaluation but I'm considering not revising it at all, is this a foolish thing to do?
AQA are just one of those exam boards you can never be sure of, they could thrown in murder evaluation just for the hell of it. But I very much doubt it . General defences seem most likely to come up.
I really hope general defences come up because I'm not revising Murder 
Hopefully luck will be on our side tomorrow.
Hopefully luck will be on our side tomorrow.
Original post by Executioner
I really hope general defences come up because I'm not revising Murder
Hopefully luck will be on our side tomorrow.
Hopefully luck will be on our side tomorrow.
Lol I hope so to. Taking such a big gamble with this exam, its actually exciting
Ahhhhhh....to think that our papers are in the school already, questions all set!
If non fatal offences comes up in the first 2 questions ( like in january) with the criticisms and reform question being on general defences I'll hopefully "rape" that exam paper.
Original post by jewels55
Hi guys, what does involuntary manslaughter mean? can someone please post 10+ A grade essays ASAP as my exam is in the next few hours. good luck everyone!! YAY!!!!
Involuntary manslaughter includes all types of homicide (unlawful killing) committed without malice aforethought (specific intention to kill or commit GBH).
Three categories for InvM:
- manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
- manslaughter by gross negligence
- reckless manslaughter
By evaluating the defences do we only talk about the problems and reforms or do we have to write about how to prove e.g. insanity?
Just finished the exam I'm feeling 10x more positive than last time! Although my evaluation on Non-Fatals is not as strong as the one I had prepared for General Defences, it is still a lot better than the murder evaluation I wrote in the last exam.
I answered the first scenario which I assumed was assult occasioning ABH for Alice and then S18/S20 for Jean and discussed issues of transferred malice. I had no idea what the defence could be for Gavin which startled me. However, I spoke about the automatism of Brian due to Gavin throwing the bike at him meaning he would not be liable for the injuries on Jean. Although I don't this is write, I didn't want to make a similar mistake as last time I sat the exam.
For the murder question I thought it was quite straightforward. I discussed the unlawful killing as well as causation due to Harry choking on his own vomit. I said he did not satisfy loss of self control as it was due to revenge because of the gangs earlier acts to Alice and Jean in the neighbourhood. I assumed he satified Diminished Responsiibility and said this offence would be successful.
I'm feeling 10x more positive than last time! Although my evaluation on Non-Fatals is not as strong as the one I had prepared for General Defences, it is still a lot better than the murder evaluation I wrote in the last exam. I answered the first scenario which I assumed was assult occasioning ABH for Alice and then S18/S20 for Jean and discussed issues of transferred malice. I had no idea what the defence could be for Gavin which startled me. However, I spoke about the automatism of Brian due to Gavin throwing the bike at him meaning he would not be liable for the injuries on Jean. Although I don't this is write, I didn't want to make a similar mistake as last time I sat the exam.
For the murder question I thought it was quite straightforward. I discussed the unlawful killing as well as causation due to Harry choking on his own vomit. I said he did not satisfy loss of self control as it was due to revenge because of the gangs earlier acts to Alice and Jean in the neighbourhood. I assumed he satified Diminished Responsiibility and said this offence would be successful.
Very glad non fatal offences came up for reform as I knew that pretty much inside out. Rest of it was ok but was quite distracting when lightening hit the exam hall roof setting the fire alarms off just as we were finishing. 
Original post by charliekills
Just finished the exam I'm feeling 10x more positive than last time! Although my evaluation on Non-Fatals is not as strong as the one I had prepared for General Defences, it is still a lot better than the murder evaluation I wrote in the last exam.
I answered the first scenario which I assumed was assult occasioning ABH for Alice and then S18/S20 for Jean and discussed issues of transferred malice. I had no idea what the defence could be for Gavin which startled me. However, I spoke about the automatism of Brian due to Gavin throwing the bike at him meaning he would not be liable for the injuries on Jean. Although I don't this is write, I didn't want to make a similar mistake as last time I sat the exam.
For the murder question I thought it was quite straightforward. I discussed the unlawful killing as well as causation due to Harry choking on his own vomit. I said he did not satisfy loss of self control as it was due to revenge because of the gangs earlier acts to Alice and Jean in the neighbourhood. I assumed he satified Diminished Responsiibility and said this offence would be successful.
I'm feeling 10x more positive than last time! Although my evaluation on Non-Fatals is not as strong as the one I had prepared for General Defences, it is still a lot better than the murder evaluation I wrote in the last exam. I answered the first scenario which I assumed was assult occasioning ABH for Alice and then S18/S20 for Jean and discussed issues of transferred malice. I had no idea what the defence could be for Gavin which startled me. However, I spoke about the automatism of Brian due to Gavin throwing the bike at him meaning he would not be liable for the injuries on Jean. Although I don't this is write, I didn't want to make a similar mistake as last time I sat the exam.
For the murder question I thought it was quite straightforward. I discussed the unlawful killing as well as causation due to Harry choking on his own vomit. I said he did not satisfy loss of self control as it was due to revenge because of the gangs earlier acts to Alice and Jean in the neighbourhood. I assumed he satified Diminished Responsiibility and said this offence would be successful.
SAME! I thought I was going mad...glad I'm not the only one xD I didn't discuss Brian's automatism...but mentioned something about causation. I think I threw in causation for all three situations.
Here's hoping we all do well!!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- AQA A Level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- GCSE 2023 Grade Boundaries (All Exam Boards)
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- NEED HELP with KC equilibrium question please!
- AS chemistry past paper help
- btec applied science extended certificate aqa
- Sociology Help Thread
- AQA A Level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Help For AS AQA Psychology Students
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- aqa a level chemistry in 3 months
- Go ahead in time as far as possible
- A-Level law
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Turner and Townsend Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
