The Student Room Group

AQA Law AS Level Unit 2 2nd June 2015

Scroll to see replies

Original post by .JC.
You need to know about Thabo Meli too.

In Thabo meli, two men had the intention of killing another man. They beat him until they believed he was dead, and threw him over the side of a cliff. He later died of exposure.

They argued that they didn't have the mens rea for his death at the time he died. The courts stated the whole series of events existed as one continuous act, therefore AR and MR coincided at that point, thus they were convicted.


No, I'm pretty sure one case would do for the coincidence rule, e.g Fagan v MPC.
Reply 41
Attached my criminal notes from my undergrad diploma in law i did last year, and removed most out of a-level specification information. Still a few things that we don't need to know in there, but thought i'd post them up incase anybody finds them useful.
Reply 42
Original post by Boffin0121
No, I'm pretty sure one case would do for the coincidence rule, e.g Fagan v MPC.


Fagan v MPC would probably be sufficient however, introducing Thabo Meli further demonstrates the courts flexible approach to the contemporaneity rule. Not only have the courts taken a flexible approach that the AR can be a continuing act, they also considered a series of continuing acts to establish AR with MR present throughout. If you have the time, use them both - only going to guarantee yourself full marks.
Reply 43
Original post by Boffin0121
No, I'm pretty sure one case would do for the coincidence rule, e.g Fagan v MPC.


It's up to you, but I have written a short, concise answer with 2 cases (one where the AR is continuing, one where the MR is continuing) and got full marks.
Reply 44
Original post by A.J.H
Fagan v MPC would probably be sufficient however, introducing Thabo Meli further demonstrates the courts flexible approach to the contemporaneity rule. Not only have the courts taken a flexible approach that the AR can be a continuing act, they also considered a series of continuing acts to establish AR with MR present throughout. If you have the time, use them both - only going to guarantee yourself full marks.


Quote from the June 2013 examiners report regarding the question on the contemporaneity rule:

'Answers to this question were varied. Some students did not attempt the question, others discussed strict liability instead. Most dealt with Fagan with varying degrees of success often identifying the continuing act with mens rea occurring during the continuance of that act. Fewer dealt with the idea of a series of connected acts through which the mens rea could continue as in Thabo Meli. The best answers included both approaches thereby giving a complete explanation of the rule in action.'
Original post by .JC.
It's up to you, but I have written a short, concise answer with 2 cases (one where the AR is continuing, one where the MR is continuing) and got full marks.


I mean I don't fully get it if I'm honest. The question is likely to be this: Explain the meaning of the coincidence (contemporaneity) rule. (7 marks).

Are you just supposed to write this: "The AR and the MR coincide with each other at a certain point thus making the defendant guilty - this is known as the continuing act. A case example is: Fagan v MPC...

Isn't the coincidence rule just the continuing act?
Reply 46
Original post by Boffin0121
I mean I don't fully get it if I'm honest. The question is likely to be this: Explain the meaning of the coincidence (contemporaneity) rule. (7 marks).

Are you just supposed to write this: "The AR and the MR coincide with each other at a certain point thus making the defendant guilty - this is known as the continuing act. A case example is: Fagan v MPC...

Isn't the coincidence rule just the continuing act?


Outline the events of the case, and state the MR is formed when he decides to leave to car on the Policeman's foot. Then argue that there is one continuing act, therefore the AR and MR coincide at the point he decides to leave it there, therefore he is guilty.

Similarly, in Thabo Meli you point out that they had the MR throughout the act, therefore the MR is continuing so when they carry out the AR, the MR coincides, thus they are convicted.
Reply 47
Original post by Boffin0121
I mean I don't fully get it if I'm honest. The question is likely to be this: Explain the meaning of the coincidence (contemporaneity) rule. (7 marks).

Are you just supposed to write this: "The AR and the MR coincide with each other at a certain point thus making the defendant guilty - this is known as the continuing act. A case example is: Fagan v MPC...

Isn't the coincidence rule just the continuing act?


The coincidence rule is a principle of english law that the AR and MR must coincide. The rule stops people being convicted of crime they didn't commit. If A goes out to kill B on friday, but doesn't and then A accidently runs over B on saturday, without realising its him, A cannot be criminally liable.

Explain courts flexible approach to this using Fagan v MPC as a continuing act (AR); explain Thabo Meli as a serious of continuing acts (MR present throughout).
Original post by .JC.
Notes on all of the criminal side of unit 2, non fatal offences, court procedure etc.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlqn60h8fl3vzy8/law%20unit%202%20criminal.docx?dl=0

Several pages to learn, but that's all the knowledge you need, the rest is application and beefing your question out.


Do you think it's possible to learn this in around 2 hours haha?
Original post by A.J.H
The coincidence rule is a principle of english law that the AR and MR must coincide. The rule stops people being convicted of crime they didn't commit. If A goes out to kill B on friday, but doesn't and then A accidently runs over B on saturday, without realising its him, A cannot be criminally liable.

Explain courts flexible approach to this using Fagan v MPC as a continuing act (AR); explain Thabo Meli as a serious of continuing acts (MR present throughout).


But what do you mean by flexible? Weren't both defendants guilty of the crime they committed? So where's the flexibility in that?
Reply 50
Original post by SunDun111
Do you think it's possible to learn this in around 2 hours haha?


The exam is in the afternoon, so you will have tomorrow morning to revise it if you get up early.

I used that to revise for a mock the evening before, and managed to get an A. I would recommend maybe making some revision cards for each sub topic, and learning them that way. Failing that just read the sheet aloud over and over again.
Original post by .JC.
Notes on all of the criminal side of unit 2, non fatal offences, court procedure etc.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlqn60h8fl3vzy8/law%20unit%202%20criminal.docx?dl=0

Several pages to learn, but that's all the knowledge you need, the rest is application and beefing your question out.


Im quite worried, i havent learned this do you happen to have a file with literally all the information on? if not its understandable, the law textbook dosen't cover half of those cases...
Reply 52
Original post by SunDun111
Im quite worried, i havent learned this do you happen to have a file with literally all the information on? if not its understandable, the law textbook dosen't cover half of those cases...


I don't, sorry.

I made those notes using a booklet of model answers I have. They were written by an AQA law examiner, and I wrote them out in note form, and on revision cards to learn.

Literally learn what is on there. You don't necessarily need to know what happens in the cases, just how they apply. For example, in Woolin (for mens rea) you just need to state that the courts had to decide if the D intended the baby's death, not how he caused it.
Reply 53
Original post by Boffin0121
But what do you mean by flexible? Weren't both defendants guilty of the crime they committed? So where's the flexibility in that?


It's flexible in the sense that if the courts had applied the approach literally in Fagan, there would be no assault as there was no AR when MR was formed and in Thabo Meli, there would be no manslaughter because there was no MR (intention to kill) when they threw him off the cliff as they believed he was already dead.

To avoid such an absurd result and inconsistency in the law, they have taken a flexible approach to the contemporaneity rule - applying common sense
Reply 54
Original post by Boffin0121
But what do you mean by flexible? Weren't both defendants guilty of the crime they committed? So where's the flexibility in that?


Don't stress over that, it isn't important.

According to the rule, if applied literally then both defendants would not be guilty. This is what each of the defendants argued in their cases. However, you can see that they clearly are, therefore the courts treat the AR/MR as continuing so they coincide.
Can anyone explain what factual causation is in tort law?
Reply 56
Original post by Boffin0121
But what do you mean by flexible? Weren't both defendants guilty of the crime they committed? So where's the flexibility in that?


Don't stress over that, it isn't important.

According to the rule, if applied literally then both defendants would not be guilty. This is what each of the defendants argued in their cases. However, you can see that they clearly are guilty, therefore the courts treat the AR/MR as continuing so they coincide.
Original post by .JC.
I don't, sorry.

I made those notes using a booklet of model answers I have. They were written by an AQA law examiner, and I wrote them out in note form, and on revision cards to learn.

Literally learn what is on there. You don't necessarily need to know what happens in the cases, just how they apply. For example, in Woolin (for mens rea) you just need to state that the courts had to decide if the D intended the baby's death, not how he caused it.


Im just worried because I don't know enough information, and where did you get the answers for the AQA examiner? Like for a question on mens rea. I'd just talk about Direct intention, using Mohan, Indirect using Woolin and Recklessness using Cunningham. Will this seriously be enough?
Reply 58
Original post by nathaliaalejaaa
Can anyone explain what factual causation is in tort law?


To decide whether the breach caused the damage, the 'but for' test is used. It must be proved that the claimant would not have suffered damage 'but for' the defendant's breach of duty.

In Barnett v Chelsea Hospital, the claimant would have still died 'but for' the breach of duty, since he had been poisoned with arsenic. As a result, the defendant was not liable.
Reply 59
Original post by SunDun111
Im just worried because I don't know enough information, and where did you get the answers for the AQA examiner? Like for a question on mens rea. I'd just talk about Direct intention, using Mohan, Indirect using Woolin and Recklessness using Cunningham. Will this seriously be enough?


Exactly what you have written there are the 3 points you need for a full mark answer :smile: That's all the mens rea knowledge required for AS syllabus.

Quick Reply