AQA Law AS Level Unit 2 2nd June 2015
Scroll to see replies
I was also stuck on the question about ABH but luckly I left it for later and eventually did ABH for the shooting and GBH s18 for the brain damage.
Original post by AlexMc123
Isn't the mens rea for S20 intention or recklessness to cause "some harm". That's all that confused me but I can see how it should have been abh.
Exactly! The mens rea for s20 is to cause some harm, but the actus reus is to cause really serious harm. Mowatt says that you don't need intention for the unexpected severity of the harm.
However, in the scenario we were given, he potentially had the mens rea for s20 in that he might have realised he might cause some harm, but the actus reus isn't complete because he only caused some harm, which is ABH. (Chan Fook, harm not so trivial as to be insignificant)
Criminal section: the two offences what did you guys write? For the shooting that caused a slight bleed and for the brain damage?
Original post by annbelltrouser
Exactly! The mens rea for s20 is to cause some harm, but the actus reus is to cause really serious harm. Mowatt says that you don't need intention for the unexpected severity of the harm.
However, in the scenario we were given, he potentially had the mens rea for s20 in that he might have realised he might cause some harm, but the actus reus isn't complete because he only caused some harm, which is ABH. (Chan Fook, harm not so trivial as to be insignificant)
However, in the scenario we were given, he potentially had the mens rea for s20 in that he might have realised he might cause some harm, but the actus reus isn't complete because he only caused some harm, which is ABH. (Chan Fook, harm not so trivial as to be insignificant)
Our teacher told us that the actus reus was maliciously inflicting GBH which is why I didn't even think of the seriousness of the attack. Definitely going to blame my teacher for failing hahah!!
Original post by AlexMc123
Our teacher told us that the actus reus was maliciously inflicting GBH which is why I didn't even think of the seriousness of the attack. Definitely going to blame my teacher for failing hahah!!
I see! GBH is defined as 'really serious harm' in DPP v Smith, which makes the actus reus 'maliciously inflicting really serious harm', for future reference.
Anyone put mowatt and grimshaw she discussing the potential alternative of s20 hopefully that will be credited
Original post by annbelltrouser
I see! GBH is defined as 'really serious harm' in DPP v Smith, which makes the actus reus 'maliciously inflicting really serious harm', for future reference.
Oh yeah I see, thank you anyway I'll keep that in mind for when I'm resorting next year hahah!!
For the first part I did S20 and S18 for the second. 1 hour and a half isn't enough. I didnt even have time to think it through properly I didnt even think of ABH for the first part of the scenario
The exam was quite hard overall. For those who did conract, did anyone even know what to have put about the burden or proof?
The exam was quite hard overall. For those who did conract, did anyone even know what to have put about the burden or proof?
Original post by 4004
For the first part I did S20 and S18 for the second. 1 hour and a half isn't enough. I didnt even have time to think it through properly I didnt even think of ABH for the first part of the scenario
The exam was quite hard overall. For those who did conract, did anyone even know what to have put about the burden or proof?
The exam was quite hard overall. For those who did conract, did anyone even know what to have put about the burden or proof?
It's on the claiment & it's left 'to the balance of probabilities' don't see how you can get 5 marks out of that to be honest
Original post by imsylar
Were we supposed to mention causation when talking about the first section? I didn't mention causation at all.
I don't think there was causation because the evidence shows he suffered from brain injuries from being hit, It did't say anything about hospital treatments etc
Well I didn't do it anyways
Original post by Chloe-w
surely It was fast track?
Is this for contract? I said it was fast track as well?
Original post by SunDun111
Guys im really nervous about the boundaries. In june 2013 it was 61 for a C... I'mnervousnervous
Posted from TSR Mobile
I wouldn't worry too much, it was 64 for an A in 2010!
Original post by jampot98
Posted from TSR Mobile
I wouldn't worry too much, it was 64 for an A in 2010!
I wouldn't worry too much, it was 64 for an A in 2010!
Yeah but how hard was this exam? I feel most people found it ok..
Messed up on timing big time, and quickly went through the answers, trying to answer everything, but not in detail at all! Gutted :| The shooting question, could be both. More of abh because they mentioned 'slight bleed', but personally I wrote s.20 gbh for both scenario questions, oops 
Original post by SunDun111
Guys for recklessness I put that is when the dependent commits an offence and dosent forsee the potential consequences therefore is reckless, then quoted Cunningham, is this right?
For recklessness it would be that they saw an unjustifiable risk and went ahead with it anyway. Dont take my word for it though, thats just how I've learnt it
Original post by camlin
For recklessness it would be that they saw an unjustifiable risk and went ahead with it anyway. Dont take my word for it though, thats just how I've learnt it
Isn't that the same as what I said? They take a risk, when they could be a consequence?
I decided to put it as S20 GBH for the shooting as there was blood, which meant both layers of the skin has broken, which would suggest really serious harm. I used R v Eisenhower as the example because only one layer of the skin had broken, meaning that there wasn't really serious harm caused. Then for the MR I used DPP V A where you only have to prove the D would have foreseen some harm to be reckless, and aiming shoot near his feet would be foreseeing some harm, meaning he was reckless in causing the bleeding, is that correct?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- AQA A Level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- Bio chem and maths textbooks for AS 1st Yr and A level 2nd yr
- WELSH GCSE EXAMS - 2024 Discussion thread
- AQA A Level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- oxfordAQA chemistry papers
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- Required practicals chemistry A level
- btec applied science extended certificate aqa
- AQA Chem Unit 1 May 22nd 2015 *OFFICIAL THREAD*
- Changes to the A-Level course?
- GCSE 2023 Grade Boundaries (All Exam Boards)
