Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Law Unit 4 14th June 2013 (AQA)

Scroll to see replies

I genuinely think law and morals will be up, if any of you get the AQA law review, for the LAW03 June exam (January one was cancelled due to snow-.-) articles in may published where about reviewing non-fatals and UDAM and they were the exact things on the paper and only last month did they put an article on morality in the UK, they are written by aqa and practically tell you what will be in, just too let you all know, good luck for it!

Posted from TSR Mobile

I re-sat the Law03 paper last week too- and I had revised non-fatal reforms thoroughly thinking they would come up and they did :smile:

I'm hoping that law and morals will come up as that's my strongest answer!!

Reply 201

natasha007a

Original post by emilyjobling

Im getting really confused about section B. I am only revising law and Justice and Law and Morality? You only have to write about One question don't you? will one of those two defiantly come up, so confused! :colondollar:

You have to choose either section A or B and do both of those questions. Then for section C you will only have to answer one question. If you have been taught Law and Justice and Law and Morality, then learn both- we'll have to wait and see what comes up but you only have to answer whichever one you know.
Hope that helps.
Also, have a look on the AQA website for past papers and read the instructions and try doing a whole paper just so you know what you're in for :smile:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 202

djfls

Original post by lauramassey

I'm doing a past paper on tort but can someone help me please!
It basically says ken engaged mike to repair tiles in his pool but then mike slips on a tile, breaks his arm and can't work for two months. Would i talk about occupoers liability or vicarious liability or both?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You'd need to talk about occupiers liability 57 as he's a lawful visitor, but because he's a specialist visitor under s2(3)(b) the nature of the duty under s2(2) will be varied as it may be reasonable to assume a specialist visitor will take care to ensure they protect against risks within their specialism - so you'd need to debate that! use a supporting case like roles v nathan :smile:

hope this helps! good luck

Reply 203

Rupesh94

Original post by lharto

You won't have time to write it out in detail twice so we've been told
Do it detailed once and brief the second time you mention it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ahh Brilliant! Thanks a lot!

Reply 204

ashtonpaige

Original post by seana39223

I'd day my strong point is actually summarizing the defenses.

Help me? hahaa I'm terrible at summarizing! I end up waffling on!

Reply 205

LibertineDan

Quick question: What's the best way of explaining the difference between the different types of burglary? (s9 (1) (a), s9 (1) (b) )

Reply 206

ExamWhizz

Original post by LibertineDan

Quick question: What's the best way of explaining the difference between the different types of burglary? (s9 (1) (a), s9 (1) (b) )

S9 (1) (a) deals with the situation where the D intends to commit an offence of theft, gbh or criminal damage(ulterior offence)at the time he enters the building.

S9 (1) (b) Under S9(1)(b)-after having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser the D commits or attempts to commit either:- Theft or Gbh

Hope that helps in some way, goodluck!

Reply 207

seana39223

Original post by lharto

There are never Law Unit 4 exams in January.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 208

Cryl

Help! I've been revising for other exams and now completely forgot about Law.

Anyway, I have a few questions:

Does one need to actually appropriate the property to be guilty of Theft? E.g. if someone saw a bike that they believed to be theirs, and they tried to take it but then they saw the owner come so they ran off without taking it. Is that theft? They didn't actually take the bike.

Also, does a stadium qualify as a building?

And let's say if someone saw a counter say "Free pies" so that person takes the free pies, when actually it said "Free pies with other purchases". I understand he'd get the 2(1)(a) defence, but how would you deal with it in terms of the second part of the Ghosh test? Would you say that he would not have thought reasonable person would consider his actions to be dishonest since he believed it said "Free pies"?

Reply 209

lharto

Original post by seana39223

There are never Law Unit 4 exams in January.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you read it, it clearly say LAW03 UNIT 3

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 210

seana39223

Original post by lharto

If you read it, it clearly say LAW03 UNIT 3

Posted from TSR Mobile

Woods sorry haha. But the Law Unit 3 exam did go ahead in January as I sat it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 211

ed-

Original post by Cryl

1) Yes, appropriation needs to have taken place - R v Morris. Only one right need be assumed for appropriation to take place. In the scenario you mentioned, the right to possession was taken over, although the mens rea is not there so no theft would have occurred - there's no dishonesty. If someone fails to complete a theft you could mention R v Easom which demonstrates conditional intent.

2) Yes, a stadium counts. Just remember, 'building' implies a degree of permanence.

3) I think the Ghosh test would fail here, so there would be no mens rea but it would be good to discuss that point if you have the time

Reply 212

lharto

Original post by seana39223

Woods sorry haha. But the Law Unit 3 exam did go ahead in January as I sat it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes but my college cancelled it, due to 'snow' everyone else sat it, but my college, damn ex principle

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 213

Cryl

Original post by ed-

Awesome, thanks. Ah, I didn't know about right to possession. So one can "posses" something and "unposess" it but they would still be guilty of Theft.

Original post by ed-

2) Yes, a stadium counts. Just remember, 'building' implies a degree of permanence.

Great. So it does not need four walls and a roof? But a garden cannot be a building?

Reply 214

ed-

Original post by Cryl

Awesome, thanks. Ah, I didn't know about right to possession. So one can "posses" something and "unposess" it but they would still be guilty of Theft.

Well, that's like the case of R v Easom; if they give it back, then it was most likely an attempted theft rather than an actual theft

Great. So it does not need four walls and a roof? But a garden cannot be a building?

I'm not sure how it works exactly.. Maybe because there's shelter in a stadium? Either way, I remember a scenario in class which involved a theft in a stadium and the mark scheme said that it was burglary

Reply 215

kmackenzz

If a question is clearly 9(1)(a) burglary and not 9(1)(b) or visa versa do you still have to mention the other one? Also with criminal damage do we have to learn Arson???

Reply 216

lharto

Original post by Cryl

great. So it does not need four walls and a roof? But a garden cannot be a building?

We've been advised to state the case of Stevens and gourley which defined a building to be 'a structure of considerable size intended to be permanent'

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 217

lharto

Original post by kmackenzz

If a question is clearly 9(1)(a) burglary and not 9(1)(b) or visa versa do you still have to mention the other one? Also with criminal damage do we have to learn Arson???

No to first question ( only when you initially define burglary) and only if the question mentions arson with criminal damage

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 218

Cryl

Original post by ed-

Well, that's like the case of R v Easom; if they give it back, then it was most likely an attempted theft rather than an actual theft

We haven't studied R v Easom, hence not attempted Theft. But I'll take your advice and briefly mention attempted theft if a scenario like this comes up :tongue:

Original post by ed-

Ah, yes. I remember that past paper but it said "He entered a stadium with walls and a metal roof" - so I think roof might be the key. In the specimen past paper, that I'm doing, it simply mentions "he entered a statidum" - so perhaps, it's open to debate.

Thanks for your help.

I have another question for you/anyone else: if Ken steals his dry-cleaning jacket from Norma who dry-cleaned his jacket, I know Norma has a proprietary right to the jacket; but would Ken have intention to permanently deprive Norma of the jacket or the money for the dry cleaning?

Reply 219

kmackenzz

Original post by ed-

Well, that's like the case of R v Easom; if they give it back, then it was most likely an attempted theft rather than an actual theft

I'm not sure how it works exactly.. Maybe because there's shelter in a stadium? Either way, I remember a scenario in class which involved a theft in a stadium and the mark scheme said that it was burglary

It wasn't conditional theft that scenario with the bike the theft was complete though as the appropriation had occurred by touching the bike and therefore one of the rights of the owner were assumed (disregarding the lack of mens rea)