The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

I did scenario one and i got:

1. Theft of the papers-pretty straight forward

2. Theft of the £20 000 from Anna
Appropriation- volunatarily given the money issue (Rv Hinks)
Property-no issues
Belonging to another-was given for a specific reason by anna
Dishonest-he did believe he was 'entitled to money'
Ipd-no issues

3. Buglary i did 91a and 91b for the theft and GBH

I didnt do robbery(didnt think he used force in order to steal)-but i believe you can put this it just wouldn't satisfy the in order to steal bit.

Briefly mentioned blackmail because in the scenario it was only a line

For question 2
1.fraud by false rep-pretty straight forward

2.criminal damage of the window and furniture + aggravated

3. I put criminal damage for Dan as well. + lawful excuse. didn't put arson for it because he didn't create the fire himself.

I mentioned intoxication for the whiskeys

Seems i screwed up pretty bad
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Valesker
That definitely wasn't scenario 2
Scenario 2 question 1 was: theft of the money, burglary 91a and 91b for the trespassing and stealing from the part building, robbery for the use of force against Fatima and he could have raised duress but it would have failed for criminal association.Question 2 had no intoxication, it was theft of the money, theft of the card, fraud of the card and obtaining services


Oops I know. I did scenario 1. Didn't think when writing it here


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 582
Avatar for axs
axs
6
Original post by Humerashaikhh
I did scenario one and i got:

1. Theft of the papers-pretty straight forward

2. Theft of the £20 000 from Anna
Appropriation- consent issue
Property-no issues
Belonging to another-was given for a specific reason by anna
Dishonest-he did believe he was 'entitled to money'
Ipd-no issues

3. Buglary i did 91a and 91b for the theft and GBH

I didnt do robbery(didnt think he used force in order to steal)
Briefly mentioned blackmail because in the scenario it was only a line

For question 2
1.fraud by false rep
-pretty straight forward

2.criminal damage of the window and furniture + aggravated

3. I put crimjnal damage for Dan aswell. + lawful excuse

I mentioned intox

Seems i screwed up pretty bad



Was the 20,000 not false by false rep?? That's what I put omg :frown:
Original post by axs
Was the 20,000 not false by false rep?? That's what I put omg :frown:


personally i put fraud by false representation for saying that he's going to develop the software if Anna gives him money and that he lied about that and then spent it on the car. and i put fraud by false rep for the fact that he said that the papers were his own.

so you're not wrong. he did make a false rep that he was going to develop the software if anna gave him the money.

i just dealt with the 20 000 also as a theft singularly
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
yeah lol most people do property, hope it went well though

Cheers man
Original post by Humerashaikhh
personally i put fraud by false representation for saying that he's going to develop the software if Anna gives him money and that he lied about that and then spent it on the car. and i put fraud by false rep for the fact that he said that the papers were his own.

so you're not wrong. he did make a false rep that he was going to develop the software if anna gave him the money.

i just dealt with the 20 000 also as a theft singularly


Wasn't Anna part of question 2


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rust Cohle
Wasn't Anna part of question 2


Posted from TSR Mobile


i do believe you maybe are right now that i think about it.
I don't remember what the question said. Because if it was just Tom then i guess i did it wrong then.

god dammit
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Humerashaikhh
i do believe you maybe are right now that i think about it.
I don't remember what the question said. Because if it was just Tom then i guess i did it wrong then.

god dammit


its fine dont be too worried, examiners are not stupid im sure they will understand!!
Did anyone do tort scenario 1
Original post by OrdinaryStudent
its fine dont be too worried, examiners are not stupid im sure they will understand!!


do you think so?

for that question i only have burglary and theft now because the theft of the money is irrelevant.

is that marked as two potential content then?

idk how this works
Original post by Glennyg1
Did anyone do tort scenario 1


I did! Thought it was pretty easy to be honest.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Did anyone add obtaining services dishonestly in Q1 as well as fraud by false rep due to it being Anna's job?
I did criminal law scenario 1:

Please tell me if you identified the same offences!!

Q1. Burglary s9 (1) (a) and s 9 (1) (b)
Blackmail
Theft

Q2. Harry to Anna:
Fraud by false representation
Fraud by obtaining services distinctly ( i'm unsure if i got this correct , i think it should have been theft of the £20,000) What do you guys think?
Defense of intoxication

Tom to Harry:
basic criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage and arson

Dan to Harry:
Basic criminal damage, defense of lawful excuse.
Tort was a pretty good paper, ended up going with scenario 2.

Law and morals was great too :smile:
Original post by sunnyrebecca
Did anyone add obtaining services dishonestly in Q1 as well as fraud by false rep due to it being Anna's job?



Yeh I did, but now i'm reevaluating it. i think it may have been theft of the money and also fraud by false representation.
Reply 595
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
Original post by xFloody
Tort was a pretty good paper, ended up going with scenario 2.

Law and morals was great too :smile:


I thought scenario 2 looked awful so went with 1 what was on it??
Original post by Studybuddy5721
I did criminal law scenario 1:

Please tell me if you identified the same offences!!

Q1. Burglary s9 (1) (a) and s 9 (1) (b)
Blackmail
Theft

Q2. Harry to Anna:
Fraud by false representation
Fraud by obtaining services distinctly ( i'm unsure if i got this correct , i think it should have been theft of the £20,000) What do you guys think?
Defense of intoxication

Tom to Harry:
basic criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage and arson

Dan to Harry:
Basic criminal damage, defense of lawful excuse.


I did the exact same just theft instead of OSD but it seems like you basically got the same as me and all my law group:smile:
Yeah well I included all 3 so hopefully one of them is right hahaha!
Now thinking about it, I think it's theft because they clearly put the fact that Harry believed 'he felt he was entitled' to the money received and therefore wanting us to use S2(1)(a) under Dishonestly :smile:
Original post by ciarasimpson29
I did! Thought it was pretty easy to be honest.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Did you do

Negligent mistatments
General rules of negligence
Psychiatric injury

Private nuisance
Private nuisance
Rylands v fletcher
Original post by Glennyg1
Did you do

Negligent mistatments
General rules of negligence
Psychiatric injury

Private nuisance
Private nuisance
Rylands v fletcher


Yeah I did that exactly


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you