Law AQA Unit 3 OFFICIAL THREAD 12th June 2014

Did anyone do scenario 2? For George did people put wounding or GBH? I wasn't sure whether there was actually a cut so I did GBH instead

it could be possibly be wound but i went with s.47 ABH battery, because it doesnt say he bled but only said penetrated and caused great pain.

you could have definitely gone with s.47 ABH

Original post by chlomoore

I wrote unlawful act and gross neg for question 2 scenario 2.

same.

I think i messed up on the nfo question tbh, i learn defences essay word for word and learnt one and half pages.

my handwriting was messy :frown:

was that a problem for anyone else too?

Reply 41

emilz

Original post by AthiaKarim

Hey everyone how did you find the exam?

If you answered scenario one, how did it go and what did you write?

Thanks x

Wrote about assault abh, gbh then self defence.
Completely failed 2 thought it was darrel who took him to the hospital but it was it was beck only realised half way through so wrote a sentence on transferred malice. And then I wrote about loss of control and gross negligence. Didn't write unlawful act or diminished responsibility, don't know if I was meant to
defences q forgot all reforms so I made like 2 of them up

Reply 42

chlomoore

Yeah my handwriting was bad!
Was the ABH on George not a S.20 because he was old (he'd been Married for 40 years) and so minor injuries make a GBH on vunerable people (Bollom)

Reply 43

Taylorma.07

Original post by AthiaKarim

Hey everyone how did you find the exam?

If you answered scenario one, how did it go and what did you write?

Thanks x

It was okay!

Q1: - Assault on Aakil by Beck
- ABH on Chas by Aakil in the form of bruising
- Discussion of whether Chas's loss of hearing was GBH or ABH, where I concluded it was GBH S20
- Aakil's defence of self-defence (ie was force necessary/ was threat imminent/ did Aakil believe force was justified/ did Aak have opportunity to retreat/ was the force Aakil used reasonable)

Q2: - Discussion of Darell's murder of Eddie (we were also supposed to discuss transferred malice within this, but I missed it!)
- The partial defence of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to lower Darell's charge to one of voluntary manslaughter (ie Darell suffered a loss of control/ the loss of control had a qualifying trigger/ an ordinary man with reasonable self-restraint and tolerance would have reacted in the same way) (possible discussion of Beck's failure to seek out medical attention for Eddie which might have broken the chain of causation)
- Beck's GNM on Eddie by failing to actually seek out medical treatment (duty of care/ breach of duty/ prove that the negligence was "gross"/ causation/ risk of death)

That's all I can remember that I put/ I should have put! I thought it was okay, I think the grade boundaries will be lower in general because of the lack of January exams and also because there was just so much to write about, but overall I thought it was quite a nice exam because at least there was lots to discuss.

Reply 44

Taylorma.07

Original post by emilz

Wrote about assault abh, gbh then self defence.
Completely failed 2 thought it was darrel who took him to the hospital but it was it was beck only realised half way through so wrote a sentence on transferred malice. And then I wrote about loss of control and gross negligence. Didn't write unlawful act or diminished responsibility, don't know if I was meant to
defences q forgot all reforms so I made like 2 of them up

Nope there wasn't anything about UAM or diminished responsibility, that definitely would have been too much to discuss!!! It sounds like you've done alright considering you nearly completely messed up altogether aha - good recovery!

Reply 45

Akarim11

21

Original post by emilz

Wrote about assault abh, gbh then self defence.
Completely failed 2 thought it was darrel who took him to the hospital but it was it was beck only realised half way through so wrote a sentence on transferred malice. And then I wrote about loss of control and gross negligence. Didn't write unlawful act or diminished responsibility, don't know if I was meant to
defences q forgot all reforms so I made like 2 of them up

Thanks for letting me know! I didn't sit this unit because I'm only doing law 4 but my friend did! She asked me to see what everyone wrote for it!

Reply 46

ryuixyui

7

In scenario 1, Question 2 there was a unlawful act manslaughter? It's clear as day thatDarrell lcommitted murder or whoever killed eddie and the mens rea was implied malice (intending to cause gbh) due to the baseball bat and immediately going to look for beck's gang. I think writing about UAM is unnecessary as you already prove there is murder.

If this question is a 3 potential content grading, I'm screwed.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 47

Taylorma.07

Original post by ryuixyui

In scenario 1, Question 2 there was a unlawful act manslaughter? It's clear as day that Darrell or whoever murdered eddie and the mens rea was implied malice (intending to cause gbh) due to the baseball bat and immediately going to look for beck's gang. I think writing about UAM is unnecessary as you already prove there is murder.

You've kind of contradicted yourself because you said UAM was "clear as day" but then said it's "unnecessary"?! I'm confused...

Reply 48

DarkChaoz95

18

any idea if grade boundaries gunna drop?

also did anyone else miss the defences in the nfo for scenario 2.. i only found one defence involuntary intoxication

Reply 49

Absxx

But there could have been a murder? There was not necessary a murder as the chain in causation may have been broken. Hitting someone with a baseball bat does not necessarily mean s18, so the spec probably will ask you to mention unlawful act.

Reply 50

chlomoore

Original post by DarkChaoz95

any idea if grade boundaries gunna drop?

also did anyone else miss the defences in the nfo for scenario 2.. i only found one defence involuntary intoxication

There was only an involuntary intoxication I'm sure of it!

Reply 51

Absxx

With s.1 I think they will probably ask you to talk about unlawful act manslaughter or loss of control. I doubt they can ask you to do both?

Reply 52

DarkChaoz95

18

Original post by chlomoore

There was only an involuntary intoxication I'm sure of it!

i knew it, but hadnt had time to do it. tbh i rushed the nfo question

Reply 53

ryuixyui

7

Original post by Absxx

But there could have been a murder? There was not necessary a murder as the chain in causation may have been broken. Hitting someone with a baseball bat does not necessarily mean s18, so the spec probably will ask you to mention unlawful act.

Yeah but I remember reading at the end of the paragraph that eddie suffered serious injuries. I think I screwed question 2 and I hope I can get at least 10 out of 25.

Reply 54

qwertyuiopp

Original post by mo712004

Surprised murder and manslaughter didn't come up but was fine with defences essay

anyone do scenario 1.
1. Assault and s20 gbh defence of self defense
2. Murder including transferred malice and gross negligence manslaughter

all in all was great

That's exactly what I put! I really hope it's right then haha

Reply 55

DarkChaoz95

18

for scenario two what did u guys put for fran.. i put s.47 battery because she badly injured her head.

Reply 56

Absxx

Original post by qwertyuiopp

That's exactly what I put! I really hope it's right then haha

I spoke about both s20 and s47 but concluded it was s47 from cps charging standards. Multiple bruising and loss of sensory functions is s.47

Reply 57

JackT95

5

Original post by chlomoore

Did anyone do scenario 2? For George did people put wounding or GBH? I wasn't sure whether there was actually a cut so I did GBH instead

There was no injury. It was only a battery.

Reply 58

JackT95

5

Original post by DarkChaoz95

for scenario two what did u guys put for fran.. i put s.47 battery because she badly injured her head.

I also did s.47.
Started by saying it was an assault.
Or did you go for battery?

Reply 59

chlomoore

For Scenario 2 I got..

Q1) s.20 GBH on George -Recklessness (Old as married for 40 years so minor injuries classify as GBH - Bollom)
S.20 GBH on Fran - Causation rule satisfied (Old so minor injuries classify as GBH - Bollom
Involuntary intoxication

Q2) UAM - unlawful act = Battery, Causation - Act of V (Ivan was drunk) and act of 3rd party (Ambulance)
GNM - Voluntary DOC (Stone v Dobinson) - Breach - (reasonable chef Nettleship v Western) and Think skull rule - doesnt matter than Kate had a pre-existing condition

Law AQA Unit 3 OFFICIAL THREAD 12th June 2014

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you