AQA Law - Monday 2nd June 2014

Hey guys wanted to create a thread for UNIT 2 law exam.
Btw I need help, I don't understand how you apply a scenario to breach of duty, my teacher did not teach us properly so can anyone help me and how would you set the answer out for a breach of duty question, thank you!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Puddles the Monkey

Original post by smiah1

Heya, I'm just going to pop this in the Law forum, as you should be able to get more responses there. :smile:

You should check that forum out to see if there's anything useful for you there :smile:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=225

Reply 2

smiah1

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Heya, I'm just going to pop this in the Law forum, as you should be able to get more responses there. :smile:

You should check that forum out to see if there's anything useful for you there :smile:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=225

thanks.

Reply 3

snikutsmullac

Original post by smiah1

What we was told about breach of duty application questions:

Define the reasonable man - definition is from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Then consider the factors that affect the standard of care of the reasonable man - just use the factors/cases that are relevant to the scenario, e.g. if they are a learner, use Nettleship v Weston, if they are young, Mullins v Richards etc - make comparisons to the scenario throughout

Then discuss any factors that affect the standard of care - just use the factors/cases that are relevant to the scenario, e.g. if the size of the risk is small, if there are benefits to taking the risk... etc. etc. Make comparisons to the scenario throughout

Hope that helps!

Reply 4

CharlSharp04049

I'm a little confused while I'm revising from past papers...
What's the difference between battery and ABH?
In June 2013, Amir was charged with assault, but Carla had ABH injuries due to damage to her wrist. (medical negligence doesn't normally break the chain of causation.)
Why was Amir then charged with assault and not ABH, even tough he had caused Carlas ABH injuries?

Reply 5

snikutsmullac

Original post by CharlSharp04049

Battery - a common law offence. The actus reus of battery is 'the unlawful application of force to another'. This can be touching somebodys clothes, as seen in Thomas, or it can be indirect force, as seen in Haystead. The mens rea of battery is 'proof that the defendant intended to apply the unlawful application of force to another'.

ABH - actual bodily harm. This is found under s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Actual Bodily Harm Was defined in Chan-Fook. 'Actual' - not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. 'Bodily' - can involve a whole manner of injuries, including psychiatric injury if there is evidence of a psychiatric condition.

So, battery is just merely applying force to someone, e.g. touching them. ABH - is where there is actual harm to the victim, but it need not be really serious (that would be GBH).

Amir is liable for assault. The actus reus of assault is 'any act which causes the victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful violence'. You have to recognise that Carla panicked and jumped out of the moving car - she feared violence.

Amir did not cause carlas ABH injuries. There is a novus actus intervenius that breaks the chain of causation - the doctor incorrectly put her wrist in a splint. This permanent injury would not have happened if she had been properly treated. Whilst Amirs assault caused carla to jump out of the car, it was the medical negligence (the splint) that caused the permanent damage.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

smiah1

Original post by snikutsmullac

thank you!

Reply 7

WhoNeedsOne

Guys any predictions?

Reply 8

snikutsmullac

Original post by WhoNeedsOne

Guys any predictions?

Criminal Liability Theory Questions:
-Strict Liability, almost ALWAYS comes up
- How an Omission can form the actus reus

Criminal Liability Application Questions:
- one of the statutory offences, s47, s20, s18 - assault almost always comes up so doubt they will use it again
- never known them to do battery, that could be a possibility

Tort theory questions
- Res ipsa loquitur - came up on the first past paper and has not come up since, so quite likely
- Hoping the test for duty of care comes up

Tort application
- Did the defendant owe a duty of care
- Was the duty breached
- Outline causation, did the defendant cause the claimants damage!

The questions on the courts (civil and criminal) are almost always the same every year: so, procedure, aims of sentencing, types of sentencing, how damages are calculated etc.

Really don't know, but I'm looking forward to it :3

Reply 9

WhoNeedsOne

Original post by snikutsmullac

Thanks will do some extra revision on them. Im not looking forwad to it i have 3 exams on that day

Reply 10

snikutsmullac

Original post by WhoNeedsOne

Thanks will do some extra revision on them. Im not looking forwad to it i have 3 exams on that day

I'm just guessing by looking at past papers mate, I'm as clueless as you! Don't take my word. Try and revise everything if you can.

I'm a law geek :3

Reply 11

FahiimaAkhtar

Original post by smiah1

Hey, I'm also doing the exam on Monday. For the answer of breach of duty (if you have to relate it back to the scenario) is that you need to include the quote from the case of Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks, you will also need to talk about the reasonable man test and how that varies in different situations.

I'm sure you know there are four reasonable man tests, which consist of the ordinary person doing the job (Wells V cooper), the learner (Nettleship V weston), the professional (Bolom) and the young (Mullin V richards). In the scenario you will have to pick what you think it is, however it will be evidently clear so I'm sure you will be able to spot it.

Also after you have figured what test related to the scenario, you will then need to talk about risk factors (but not all, the ones that relate to the scenario). But all the risk factors are size of the risk (Bolton V Stone), Characteristics of the claimant (Paris V stepney Borough council), have all precautions been taken (Latimer V AEC) and the benfits of the conduct (Watt V hertfordshire County council)

Hope that helps and goodluck! Just carry on doing past paper questions :smile:

Reply 12

FahiimaAkhtar

Original post by snikutsmullac

I have a feeling of res ipsa loquitor coming up, it hasn't come up since 2011.

Reply 13

username1177050

resitting this from last year and feeling a lot more confident now as a lot of the cases are used in unit 3 Offences against the person and obviously similar actus reus/mens rea

Reply 14

snikutsmullac

Original post by FahiimaAkhtar

I have a feeling of res ipsa loquitor coming up, it hasn't come up since 2011.

Hopefully it does - id rather it come up than something like remoteness which is more complicated!

Reply 15

CharlSharp04049

So in what cases does medical negligence not break the chain of causation?

Reply 16

Dilsz

Original post by snikutsmullac

Hopefully it does - id rather it come up than something like remoteness which is more complicated!

Remoteness is quite simple compared to everything else

Original post by CharlSharp04049

So in what cases does medical negligence not break the chain of causation?

Medical treatment breaks the chain if it 'palpably wrong' (JORDAN), but it doesn't if the injuries were the operative and substantial cause of death (SMITH)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

FahiimaAkhtar

Original post by FahiimaAkhtar

I have a feeling of res ipsa loquitor coming up, it hasn't come up since 2011.

But I don't know whether it'll come up on the application question or the theory question.

Reply 18

snikutsmullac

Original post by Dilsz

Remoteness is quite simple compared to everything else

Medical treatment breaks the chain if it 'palpably wrong' (JORDAN), but it doesn't if the injuries were the operative and substantial cause of death (SMITH)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Just a matter of opinion!