Aqa Law Unit 3 15th june 2012

What do u want me to do with that? There is no June 2012

How do you expect there to be grade boundaries when the exam was only sat today?

When I saw non-fatals, my heart dropped But because of the work I had done on it before, it wasn't that bad and I was surprised that I remembered so much! Scenario 1 was a dream combo lol I think the grade boundaries have gone down because they went up in Jan, so fingers crossed!

My heart dropped when i saw it too as i only flicked over it before the exam but with the exam pressure things popped in to my head an fingers crossed it has gone okay
I got really confused about him having a personality disorder which meant that he suffered anger and agression i was thinking is that diminished respinsbility or loss of self control? to be on the safe side i quickly wrote them both out just incase so just keeping fingers crossed

I put Diminished Responsibility due to the fact his disorder was a recognised medical condition then addressed the other issues surrounding the DR defense. I never put loss of self control due to the fact that it didn't appear he was fearing anything or anything had been said or done. If you miss out one of the issues it doesn't matter that much you aren't expected to address every bit, just the majority or a certain number!

I put Diminished Responsibility due to the fact his disorder was a recognised medical condition then addressed the other issues surrounding the DR defense. I never put loss of self control due to the fact that it didn't appear he was fearing anything or anything had been said or done. If you miss out one of the issues it doesn't matter that much you aren't expected to address every bit, just the majority or a certain number!

Yeah thats exactly how i looked at the question and the DR i used in the same way as you
When i was going through the scenerio i could not differ and decided which one to do because i would love an A so i didnt want to miss a vital part out, but i put in loss of self control just incase
But i hope that i dont loose marks for putting in loss of self-control just for the sake of it i used it as a discussion point

You are supposed to discuss it, even if it won't be successful. Murder essays are murder and voluntary manslaughter. There was fear of serious violence to the V or another identifiable person (Alice), the things said or done were the events that took place in the neighbourhood earlier in the day but I said they did not create circumstances of being unjustifiabley wronged and were not of an extremely grave character then concluded he could not use the partial defence as it was due to revenge. Then I discussed diminished responsibility, concluding it as successful.

OMG thats exactly what i did :P I concluded that it will be successful but im a bit worried cuz there was something about him Colin being drunk or something like that. Doesn't that make the defence of diminished responsibility unsuccessful?

No because you can relate it to the cases of Dietschmann, Robson and Hendy where it was held that if they had an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition; substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature of his conduct/form a rational judgement/exercise self control; and provided an explanation for his act and omission in doing or being a party to the killing (so everything was answered yes) then even if he was intoxicated then he would still be able to use this defence as he already had this abnormality of mental functioning...hope that made sense.

Hi, I did scenario 2 as well for the Criminal law. For the first question with Jameela I said that she could be charged with S20 GBH for the injuries to the old man using saunders for 'serious harm' and R V Bollom for the age of the victim can be taken into account and also that she may have the mens rea for s18. I also said that she could be convicted of s47 for the assault on Iris and that the heart attack would be serious enough for the injury to be considered under S20 with the mens rea of recklessness. I then used the defence of insanity. For Leah I said S20 for the wound caused to Jameelas lip and that she could if used the defence of prevention of crime.

For part two I said gross negliegnce mansluaghter with a duty existing as a driver to other pedestrians and this duty was breached as he did not drive as a reasonably competent motorist, then considered causation issues of doctors with cases of jordan and smith and using smith to state would not be broken. then I said unlawful act manslaughter in regard to tina with the unlawful act of battery which i probably should of said ABH/S20. Then I said he would use the defence of Automatism but it would be likely to fail because he was not acting totally involuntary as he still had some awareness.
Hope thats ok!! What did you put?

I need to get an A. got 90% average at AS so need to get a low B

did no one else do contract?

Yes i did contract! ive been looking for a fourm for it but couldnt find one. which scenario did you chose? i did the first one and thought the answer was past consideration and intention to create legal relations for the first question and misrepresentation for the second question, how did you do?