AQA LAW03 Revision for June re-sit

OP

Original post by Waqar Y

Did scenario two:

Talked about ABH, s20 GBH (infliction of GBH, couldn't be wounding as there was no breaking of the layer of skin) - this was in relation to george.
For Janet, it would be Assault(s39) and ABH(s47) - the depression anxiety etc.. following ChanFook

Defences: insanity and also Consent(bigger issue)

The murder one was decent.. i missed out nedrick and woolin to, did talk about intent to cause serious harm.. :| anyway talked about diminished responsibility and self-defence(possible-? but would fail)

If there was no beaing of the skin, there how did 'blood-poisoning' emerge?

I did not think that Janet's mental culminations were severe enough to warrant a psychiatric injury.

Reply 43

AntoniaRose

1

Surely using a knife to carve into the skin would classify as breaking of the skin? It must have gone deep enough for the blood poisoning...

Reply 44

OP

Original post by AntoniaRose

Surely using a knife to carve into the skin would classify as breaking of the skin? It must have gone deep enough for the blood poisoning...

Exactly. Although this thread has got me worried about what I put, because I forgot to mention the possibility of ABH and I only referred to section 18 wounding instead of 20 :frown:

(Harry specifically intended for George to be wounded).

Reply 45

OP

Did anyone else argue provocation for scenario 2? I did so because it said that the two were exchanging insults, and Matt had been flirting with Harry's girlfriend frequently ('things done or said').

Reply 46

AntoniaRose

1

Original post by Alex-jc123

Did anyone else argue provocation for scenario 2? I did so because it said that the two were exchanging insults, and Matt had been flirting with Harry's girlfriend frequently ('things done or said').

I argued provocation too. Both the kiss and the insults.

Reply 47

OP

Original post by AntoniaRose

I argued provocation too. Both the kiss and the insults.

Ah, not just me then :biggrin:

I was literally writing non-stop for 90 minutes! I did not get to finish my concluding sentence on provocation; but I managed to get to the end where I used the objective 'reasonable man' test in Holley (2005) to argue that Harry acted in the same way that the reasonable person of the same age and sex would have.

I do not see how some people argued diminished responsibility though. Harry was not suffering from an abnormal development of the mind or any inherent diseases/injuries :s-smilie:

I did argue insanity for the first question though. I made it clear that automatism would not be available too.

Reply 48

Original post by Alex-jc123

Exactly. Although this thread has got me worried about what I put, because I forgot to mention the possibility of ABH and I only referred to section 18 wounding instead of 20 :frown:

(Harry specifically intended for George to be wounded).

Don't worry I argued S18 wounding predominantly as well. I think that this is correct personally as opposed to S18, although i did mention at the end of my answer if the court couldnt satisfy S18 then they could certainly fall back and argue S20. Considering the fact that R v Saunders stated that GBH can just be serious harm, I think that by using a knife to carve into the back of someones neck is sufficient to amount to 'serious' harm. If not then at least i've mentioned S20. Other than this bit i thought the paper was perfect, Murder, DR, and Provocation couldnt have been a better combination, and the first question was pretty easy too other than that one dubious element!! :biggrin:

. Hoping for that A*!

Reply 49

MessyLJH

I thought the first line said that harry had brain damage caused by drug abuse? That's where I got diminshed responsibility from as it was an injury? Who knows, it's done now, I just wish I could go back and change it!!!

Reply 50

OP

Original post by JackT180

Don't worry I argued S18 wounding predominantly as well. I think that this is correct personally as opposed to S18, although i did mention at the end of my answer if the court couldnt satisfy S18 then they could certainly fall back and argue S20. Considering the fact that R v Saunders stated that GBH can just be serious harm, I think that by using a knife to carve into the back of someones neck is sufficient to amount to 'serious' harm. If not then at least i've mentioned S20. Other than this bit i thought the paper was perfect, Murder, DR, and Provocation couldnt have been a better combination, and the first question was pretty easy too other than that one dubious element!! :biggrin:

. Hoping for that A*!

The 'brain damage' was only relevant to the first question, you know? Hence why question two specifically asked for an explanation of liability in the context of the incident in the street and cafe.

I thought the application was OK; but the reforms question was not to my preferences. I was hoping for murder!

Reply 51

Original post by Alex-jc123

Ah, not just me then :biggrin:

I was literally writing non-stop for 90 minutes! I did not get to finish my concluding sentence on provocation; but I managed to get to the end where I used the objective 'reasonable man' test in Holley (2005) to argue that Harry acted in the same way that the reasonable person of the same age and sex would have.

I do not see how some people argued diminished responsibility though. Harry was not suffering from an abnormal development of the mind or any inherent diseases/injuries :s-smilie:

I did argue insanity for the first question though. I made it clear that automatism would not be available too.

He did, it said that he had brain damage as a result of an earlier drug addiction and this caused him to have very bad mood swings or disorders or something.

Reply 52

WDGardiner

I picked scenario 1, but I regret it, question 2 was a bit of a nightmare. I touched on quite a few topics, it was certainly my weakest part of the exam. I think I did relatively well with OAPA, so glad general defences came up, as soon as I opened up that paper I was very relieved when I saw OAPA.

Bring on LAW04 now \o/

Reply 53

Original post by Alex-jc123

The 'brain damage' was only relevant to the first question, you know? Hence why question two specifically asked for an explanation of liability in the context of the incident in the street and cafe.

I thought the application was OK; but the reforms question was not to my preferences. I was hoping for murder!

I'm talking about scenario 2?

Reply 54

MZB1993

So for question 4: we had to talk about abh as well as S.20 or S.18 in regards to Harry's conduct with George? Crap. There was already

S.20
Consent
and in relation to Janet:
Assault (although this could have been part of S.47 as I did it)
S.47

so with the ABH on George it's 5 separate parts in all!?

That can't be it surely?

Reply 55

Original post by MZB1993

So for question 4: we had to talk about abh as well as S.20 or S.18 in regards to Harry's conduct with George? Crap. There was already

S.20
Consent
and in relation to Janet:
Assault (although this could have been part of S.47 as I did it)
S.47

so with the ABH on George it's 5 separate parts in all!?

That can't be it surely?

No, the areas were:

S18/20 in relation to the wounding against George
S20 GBH in relation to the blood poisoning of George
Consent
S47 assault occ. ABH in relation to the injuries suffered by Janet.

So 4 in all which is realistic for them to ask, my teachers confirmed these at the end of the exam.

Reply 56

OP

Original post by JackT180

I'm talking about scenario 2?

I know. 'Brain damage' was not mentioned in the second paragraph, so you could not mention it in your discussion of murder/voluntary manslaughter.

Reply 57

OP