Law unit 3 Jan 2013 HELP!

Original post by Jordie95

I thought it was horrible :frown:

hated the essay .. Proper screwed up!

Posted from TSR Mobile

The general defences weren't too bad tho!

Reply 61

Jordie95

Original post by xxm

The general defences weren't too bad tho!

I know

I chose insanity and intoxication .. I think I did okay on insanity .. But rubbish on intoxication :frown:

Reply 62

Hey guys do you think I included everything

I answered Scenario 2 and thought the exam was okay, time was the main issue. This is the offences I done:

Question 4
S.47 ABH, I mentioned how intoxication doesn't apply as ABH is basic intent, I then mentioned consent, and how Jim wouldn't be liable as horseplay is a public exception policy.

S.20 GBH, I mentioned how intoxication means that it would be S.20 not S.18.

S.47 ABH, I mentioned how intoxication doesn't apply as it's basic intent. Included DPP V K to show indirect batter.
Also discussed causation issues

Question 5
Murder - Discussed Sir Coke's definition. Intention to cause GBH used Woolin and Vicker.

Diminished Responsibility - Camplin; age and characteristics can be taken into accont.

Loss of Control - Mentioned Aluwali and mentioned how the defendant likley felt seriosoly wronged and feared serious violence.

Question 6

Insanity Problems - M'Naugten rules are outdated created with limited knowledge, social stigma with insane, D has to prove on balance of probabilities which is against EU 'Innocent until proven guilty' overlap with automatism, position of diabetics and other medical conditions. Insanity Reforms - Change to 'not guilty by reasons of mental disorder' and update legal definition to be the same as medical definition.

Consent Problems - Should 'Horesplay' really be a public exception policy, hard for jury to find if consent was true and what if V felt pressure to give consent

Reply 63

Shaker1903

Question 4 - Did s.47 ABH for badly bruised arm - then applied the defence of consent (Horseplay)
Then s.20 for the cuts suffered by Liam as he pushed him into the window.
Then argued s.47 psychiatric for Mary (Chan Fook) but pointed out possible issues over Mens Rea,
Question 5 - Murder (Missed out causation cause I'm a complete and utter fool!) DR - granted. LOC - failed due to reasonable person would not have lost their control/reacted same or similar way. And defence of insanity also failed.
Question 6 - Did insanity critique and reforms, then intoxication.

Overall, think it could have gone worse, don't think I've got the A I need for Uni though! :frown:

Reply 64

Original post by Shaker1903

Question 5 - You don't normally have to mention causation unless there appears to be an issue in it, such as in the baby pram one in question 4, judging by past mark schemes :smile:

Reply 65

Shaker1903

Original post by seana39223

Question 5 - You don't normally have to mention causation unless there appears to be an issue in it, such as in the baby pram one in question 4, judging by past mark schemes :smile:

Oh splendid! What would the causation issue be in 4?

Reply 66

Original post by Shaker1903

Oh splendid! What would the causation issue be in 4?

ABH to the mother of the child who's pram went rolling down the hill, I said that his actions were more than minimal and but for his actions the woman wouldn't have suffered anxiety and therefore he is liable.

I don't know why but the scenario made me really laugh xD

Reply 67

Original post by seana39223

Camplin is associated with LOC not DR?
Also did you talk about causation? Quite a big issue!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 68

Original post by Jordie95

I know

I chose insanity and intoxication .. I think I did okay on insanity .. But rubbish on intoxication :frown:

Intoxication is a confusing one though!

Reply 69

Jordie95

Original post by xxm

Intoxication is a confusing one though!

I know .. I forgot to put about public policies :frown:

Reply 70

Original post by Jordie95

I know .. I forgot to put about public policies :frown:

I had no idea really so I wrote about the 1993 commission report the 1996 and 2009 commission report, the only thing I missed was fall back offences I didn't know what else to include!

Reply 71

Gallifreyan95

I did
Kyle - s47 because of badly bruised
Liam - s20/18 decided on s.20 because it was more recklessness
Mary - s20 because of the severe depression but couldnt remember the case where it was defined as GBH!
Covered the defence of Intoxication which wouldnt work for any of the offences but S.18 and even then it would be moved down to the corresponding basic intent crime of S.20. Overall, dont think this section when too bad - hopefully a 'clear'.

I said Helen would get Voluntary Manslaughter considering the similarities with the case of Allhuwallia. This went pretty poorly because I blanked on Voluntary Manslaughter - I blurred together the meanings of Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Control although got points about the belief in sexual infidelity and also the 'slow burn' and battered wife syndrome which covered the buying the fireworks days earlier.

As for Defences - it was my worst criticism/reform essay. I did Insanity and Self Defence. The Insanity one didn't go too badly, but don't think I got more than a 'some' for Self Defence.

Reply 72

Original post by xxm

Camplin is associated with LOC not DR?
Also did you talk about causation? Quite a big issue!

Sorry I meant to put Camplin with LOC, and I discussed causation but only briefly in relation to murder, saying that legal and factual causation is satisfied.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 73

Original post by seana39223

Sorry I meant to put Camplin with LOC, and I discussed causation but only briefly in relation to murder, saying that legal and factual causation is satisfied.

Sounds good!

Reply 74

Jordie95

Original post by xxm

I had no idea really so I wrote about the 1993 commission report the 1996 and 2009 commission report, the only thing I missed was fall back offences I didn't know what else to include!

There's soo much to write in soo little time :frown:

Reply 75

Original post by xxm

Sounds good!

Thanks, I'm pretty confident (hope that doesn't sound cocky).
I got a new teacher this year who is brilliant, and I'm resitting my AS Unit 2 (I got a C in Unit 2 and a B in the AS Overall) so I'm hopping to get an A

Reply 76

Gallifreyan95

Original post by xxm

Camplin is associated with LOC not DR?
Also did you talk about causation? Quite a big issue!

Which causation point is this?

Reply 77

Original post by Gallifreyan95

Which causation point is this?

Factual and legal have to be proven in any murder case, a defo to include in the exam!

Reply 78