OCR Criminal Law Special Study

Very good information, this is how I have done it. Didn't he also gave support to the continuing danger theory as well?

I have a feeling it is going to ask about Quick as it is mentioned a lot in the source.

Lord Diplock in Sullivan suggested a test based upon the likelihood of recurrence. So, you could say it supported the continuing danger theory.

But don't you think they could have done that on purpose so students believe that what is mentioned a lot will come up? However, the two cases I feel most confident about are M'Naghten and Burgess. Not too far now from the exam.

It's just that apparently in the past papers, question one has always been about a case which is mentioned a lot on the source.

In Burgess, are you going to mention recent cases like Lowe, Thomas and Mason?

Also are you going to speak about sexomnia? Like Bilton, Ecott, Luedecke. Oh yeah and Parks, the canadian case?

I didn't know that, if that is the case can you please tell me what you've written about Quick? I don't feel too confident with it.

Yes, I am mentioning them but very briefly. Just remember that everything you write has to relate to the case in question, don't just write everything you know because as my teachers have told us you only need one link to a case in Question 1's and I have like a minimum of 3-4 in all my written answers. What is the case of Luedecke about? I haven't done that.

Also are you going to speak about sexomnia? Like Bilton, Ecott, Luedecke. Oh yeah and Parks, the canadian case?

Sexsomnia does annoy me as it's viewed as automatism but it's basically sleepwalking - which is seen as insanity because it's internal. Also why was it not seen as a continuing danger? I would say having something called Sexsomnia is a danger which is likely to recur So why is it not insanity?

But sleepwalking cases are also now using automatism, in Thomas the 'night terrors' where an external cause resulting in automatism.

No, don't link it to Hennessy, I wouldn't mention the fact that he was on medication, you just need to briefly say he suffered from night terrors. It is confusing, but the night terrors is considered external. The prosecution wanted him to be found insane at first, but dropped the case and the judge ruled that they didn't see him as a danger, which could be another reason why they let him off. Sleepwalking is very ambiguous, it's annoying how it's hard to find useful stuff about it!

I would link it like this:

Quick first used the external factor theory "Malfunctioning of the mind (source 1, lines 14-16) R v T further extended it ruling that rape was an external factor, and later cases R v Bilton (sexomnia) and R v Thomas (Night terrors) further extended the range of external factors.

Does anybody have any information on how to write and structure Q3?
I did a mock at college and only got 2/30 marks on Q3

You start by stating what condition/illness they have
Explain what area of law it comes under e.g. insanity, automatism, self induced
Why is the defence appropriate e.g. disease of the mind, caused him not to know what he is doing, and you also have to explain why the other defence, e.g. automatism, is not appropriate.
Try to throw in some cases to illustrate the point, but you dont need to describe them
You dont need to source reference.
If one of them was insanity, you need to explain why, was there a defect of reason, was it caused by a disease of the mind and did he know what he was doing? E.g. Dave had a defect of reason because he had no control over what he was doing, and he is unaware of what he is doing and that it is wrong.
If it was automatism, you need to say, his act was involuntary, there was an external factor causing a loss of mental faculties, making D blameless, obviously you have to relate these to the scenario.
Sometimes it may be conflicting, it could be both, both I have been taught that if medical evidence is involved you state that the jury are more likely going to be convinced by the medical evidence.
Always end with a mini conclusion. e.g. the likely defence the jury will consider is automatism/insanity

Hope this helps.

With Quick I
State facts of case, explain what hypoglycemia is.
Explain that the court adopted the external factor theory, Lord Lawton claimed that a malfunctioning of the mind, caused by an external factor cannot be said to be due to a disease of the mind (source 1, lines 14-16)
In this case, the insulin was the external factor and not the diabetes itself, (source 1, lines 21-22)

Followed Bratty in that automatism is an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind source 5, lines 6-9)

Explain why it was important in developing the law - brought diabetes due to hypoglycemia within automatism.

Link to Hennessy, definitely use the word distinguish - relating to precedent, say why it was different in this case

Thats all I know really, I struggle with the structuring of this question, we've not really been taught how to very well.

All you really need to know about Luedecke is that it was a canadian case, he man raped a woman in his sleep and it was automatism, could be persuasive etc.

Does anyone have any model answers for Q1?

Dreading this exam so much! I'm on 98% after AS but I'm nowhere near as confident with this as I feel I should be.

I also got 98% at AS but I've neglected law this year as I've been concentrating more on maths so i'm not atall confident going into this exam.