Yep exam is at 9am, wish it was in the afternoon however. You answer either scenario 1 or 2 if your doing criminal OR if your doing tort/negligence then you answer either scenario 3 or 4.
Finally you would answer 1 question out of the three choices you are given in section C
It's advised that you spend 15 minutes planning your answer to the essay but roughly an hour and 10 minutes or so for section C and about 50 minutes on section A so 25 minutes per question in the scenario of your choice. I.E a minute per mark.
I think I'm ok with it because I did Judicial Precedent in Unit 1 which I resat this year so I'm feeling fresh about that but just gotta add other bits in like Statutory Interpretation and stuff .... You'll be fine once you get into to it.
I think I can waffle through it. But unlike BCI, it's really unstructured. There's so much to write about it. And I need to plan my answers in advance because I'm planning to do concepts first. So if JC comes up, I'll have to do scenarios first and then waffle through the JC question. >.<
I think I can waffle through it. But unlike BCI, it's really unstructured. There's so much to write about it. And I need to plan my answers in advance because I'm planning to do concepts first. So if JC comes up, I'll have to do scenarios first and then waffle through the JC question. >.<
Yeah I understand your point im in the exact same situation with L&M
Wait, how would you use the "as discussed above" rule. If the person in the second question is guilty of Theft, would you say "He is guilty of Theft, as discussed above as he satisfied the AR (as discussed above) and also the MR (as discussed above)" >.< Is that enough? or will I need to apply the facts?
Can some one please explain the hart-fuller debate I was only taught the hart-devlin debate! help please!
Hart-Fuller debate discusses the validity of legal rules which conflict with moral rules while Hart-Devlin is centred on the extent to which legal rules should be based on morals
our teacher made us a little guidebook for the exam but said that we should spend 30 mins on the concepts question in Section C and 45 mins each on scenarios... we're doing property offences
surely that isn't right? if the concepts question is 35 marks surely we should spend more time on that?! helpppp
Wait, how would you use the "as discussed above" rule. If the person in the second question is guilty of Theft, would you say "He is guilty of Theft, as discussed above as he satisfied the AR (as discussed above) and also the MR (as discussed above)" >.< Is that enough? or will I need to apply the facts?
I'd apply the facts specific to the question but I wouldn't state out theft again if you get me.
Hart-Fuller debate discusses the validity of legal rules which conflict with moral rules while Hart-Devlin is centred on the extent to which legal rules should be based on morals
How important is it to learn detail such as specific ssections something is in?
For Fraud, my teacher said that learning the subsections aren't that important. But for defences, like CDA 5(1)(a) or 5(1)(b) - that's quite important. Also, for Burglary 9(1)(A) or 9(1)(b) as there is a big difference between them.
For Fraud, my teacher said that learning the subsections aren't that important. But for defences, like CDA 5(1)(a) or 5(1)(b) - that's quite important. Also, for Burglary 9(1)(A) or 9(1)(b) as there is a big difference between them.
No, I've learnt everything it's just I haven't learnt the actually numbers such as 51b or 51a etc