Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 0123456543210
I am looking at the June 2009 Q5 (re: Maya and Christina) and I only see s39 assault and battery, and GBH s18. Are you sure this is the question?
Generally you need to state the law related to the offences e.g. "s39 assault is where D causes V to apprehend....."; explain what constitutes to an offence; an odd case to illustrate; mens rea. Then apply to the situation e.g. AR happens when D...; D had the necessary mens rea, because..... etc etc.
Then state the law on applicable defences, use cases to illustrate, state to which offences would these defences apply e.g. mistake of self-defence in relation to GBH s18, intoxication to both offences etc. Then say whether they would succeed and what the effect would be e.g. mistake of self defence would not succeed since D was intoxicated at the material time..... cite Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, O'Grady 1987; intoxication would make no effect since s39 is a crime of basic intent- Majewski 1976. Obviously you would need to discuss it in full detail and quote the wording in the question itself to support your arguments e.g. the fact that Ds "drank several glasses of gin" just before arriving to the pub suggests they are still intoxicated at the time of the commission of the acts reus.
Generally you need to state the law related to the offences e.g. "s39 assault is where D causes V to apprehend....."; explain what constitutes to an offence; an odd case to illustrate; mens rea. Then apply to the situation e.g. AR happens when D...; D had the necessary mens rea, because..... etc etc.
Then state the law on applicable defences, use cases to illustrate, state to which offences would these defences apply e.g. mistake of self-defence in relation to GBH s18, intoxication to both offences etc. Then say whether they would succeed and what the effect would be e.g. mistake of self defence would not succeed since D was intoxicated at the material time..... cite Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, O'Grady 1987; intoxication would make no effect since s39 is a crime of basic intent- Majewski 1976. Obviously you would need to discuss it in full detail and quote the wording in the question itself to support your arguments e.g. the fact that Ds "drank several glasses of gin" just before arriving to the pub suggests they are still intoxicated at the time of the commission of the acts reus.
It was my law teacher who spotted all of them defences saying that because the questions states 'may' you have to include battery/s.47/s.20 but I've questioned this, thank you for your help
Original post by xabsx
It was my law teacher who spotted all of them defences saying that because the questions states 'may' you have to include battery/s.47/s.20 but I've questioned this, thank you for your help
You are welcome, finally this thread is being used accordingly to its initial purpose!
. Well, in some cases where it is not very clear you should do a bit of discussion and include all possibilities, so your teacher was right on that e.g. D thinks V is going to hit him, and strikes first, causing V to fall backwards and fracture his skull. In this case it would be arguable "was it s18, since D could foresee the risk of GBH from punching V in the face? Or was it s20 since D could only foresee some harm occurring therefrom?". In the Q5 it was pretty clear.
Oh, wait, actually intoxication would reduce GBH s18 to s20 where D gouged V's eye out with a beer glass; really sorry, how could I miss that? lol. Beard 1920, Sheehan and Moore 1975. Defence of voluntary intoxication is pretty ridiculous in my opinion though, like "Oh, you got ****-faced and mutilated other person by smashing a heavy beer glass on his face, gouging his eye out, sure you did not intend to do it since you were so drunk. Here you go, your worst scenario sentence would be like the one for ABH- 5 years!!!!!"
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 0123456543210
You are welcome, finally this thread is being used accordingly to its initial purpose!.
Well, in some cases where it is not very clear you should do a bit of discussion and include all possibilities, so your teacher was right on that e.g. D thinks V is going to hit him, and strikes first, causing V to fall backwards and fracture his skull. In this case it would be arguable "was it s18, since D could foresee the risk of GBH from punching V in the face? Or was it s20 since D could only foresee some harm occurring therefrom?". In the Q5 it was pretty clear.
Oh, wait, actually intoxication would reduce GBH s18 to s20 where D gouged V's eye out with a beer glass; really sorry, how could I miss that? lol. Beard 1920, Sheehan and Moore 1975. Defence of voluntary intoxication is pretty ridiculous in my opinion though, like "Oh, you got ****-faced and mutilated other person by smashing a heavy beer glass on his face, gouging his eye out, sure you did not intend to do it since you were so drunk. Here you go, your worst scenario sentence would be like the one for ABH- 5 years!!!!!"
. Well, in some cases where it is not very clear you should do a bit of discussion and include all possibilities, so your teacher was right on that e.g. D thinks V is going to hit him, and strikes first, causing V to fall backwards and fracture his skull. In this case it would be arguable "was it s18, since D could foresee the risk of GBH from punching V in the face? Or was it s20 since D could only foresee some harm occurring therefrom?". In the Q5 it was pretty clear.
Oh, wait, actually intoxication would reduce GBH s18 to s20 where D gouged V's eye out with a beer glass; really sorry, how could I miss that? lol. Beard 1920, Sheehan and Moore 1975. Defence of voluntary intoxication is pretty ridiculous in my opinion though, like "Oh, you got ****-faced and mutilated other person by smashing a heavy beer glass on his face, gouging his eye out, sure you did not intend to do it since you were so drunk. Here you go, your worst scenario sentence would be like the one for ABH- 5 years!!!!!"
Top tip - a drunk intention is still an intention (Velumyl) in crimes of specific intent such as Murder ... dunno if you're expected to know that at A-Level.
In practice, the defendant would be guilty of GBH
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Mimir
Top tip - a drunk intention is still an intention (Velumyl) in crimes of specific intent such as Murder ... dunno if you're expected to know that at A-Level.
In practice, the defendant would be guilty of GBH
In practice, the defendant would be guilty of GBH
Wouldn't that only concern cases where D had the preformed intent e.g. Gallagher 1963? In Beard 1920 and Sheehan & Moore 1975 Ds committed crimes of specific intent (murder), yet on the basis of intoxication their convictions were reduced to manslaughter.
Oh, the cases contradict themselves:
Where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved. ... In a charge of murder based upon intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, if the jury are satisfied that the accused was, by reason of his drunken condition, incapable of forming the intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm ... he cannot be convicted of murder. But nevertheless unlawful homicide has been committed by the accused, and consequently he is guilty of unlawful homicide without malice aforethought, and that is manslaughter"
The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 0123456543210
Wouldn't that only concern cases where D had the preformed intent e.g. Gallagher 1963? In Beard 1920 and Sheehan & Moore 1975 Ds committed crimes of specific intent (murder), yet on the basis of intoxication their convictions were reduced to manslaughter.
Oh, the cases contradict themselves:
Where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved. ... In a charge of murder based upon intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, if the jury are satisfied that the accused was, by reason of his drunken condition, incapable of forming the intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm ... he cannot be convicted of murder. But nevertheless unlawful homicide has been committed by the accused, and consequently he is guilty of unlawful homicide without malice aforethought, and that is manslaughter"
The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
Oh, the cases contradict themselves:
Where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved. ... In a charge of murder based upon intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, if the jury are satisfied that the accused was, by reason of his drunken condition, incapable of forming the intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm ... he cannot be convicted of murder. But nevertheless unlawful homicide has been committed by the accused, and consequently he is guilty of unlawful homicide without malice aforethought, and that is manslaughter"
The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
•
unless it was an episode of involuntary intoxication where the drink or food was spiked or laced with drugs.
•
Take a look at R v Hardie (1985) which involved out-of-date valium tablets which the defendant consumed
Original post by Audrey18
•
unless it was an episode of involuntary intoxication where the drink or food was spiked or laced with drugs.
•
Take a look at R v Hardie (1985) which involved out-of-date valium tablets which the defendant consumed
Yep, D had neither intention nor recklessness in Hardie. Yet, in that problem invol is out of question.
(edited 8 years ago)
[QUOTE=0123456543210;63154587
Oh, the cases contradict themselves:
The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
Absolutely spot on.
If cases contradict themselves, so long as they are both "good law" one of them will apply to the question you are asked. But you should still distinguish the other and say why
This is all degree level (CIB??) level stuff I'm pointing out so you might not need to know it.
Oh, the cases contradict themselves:
The relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent. The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution.".....in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant's men's rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant's mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.
Absolutely spot on.
If cases contradict themselves, so long as they are both "good law" one of them will apply to the question you are asked. But you should still distinguish the other and say why
This is all degree level (CIB??) level stuff I'm pointing out so you might not need to know it.
Original post by Mimir
Absolutely spot on.
If cases contradict themselves, so long as they are both "good law" one of them will apply to the question you are asked. But you should still distinguish the other and say why
This is all degree level (CIB??) level stuff I'm pointing out so you might not need to know it.
If cases contradict themselves, so long as they are both "good law" one of them will apply to the question you are asked. But you should still distinguish the other and say why
This is all degree level (CIB??) level stuff I'm pointing out so you might not need to know it.
Yes, this is not an a-level stuff which is quite annoying, I would rather know less, but more accurately and in a greater depth instead of learning a vast array of different offences but superficially. Can't wait to start my degree in september :2euk48l:
People, how many pages do you usually write for Section A, B and C questions and how long does it take you? Exams are approaching, and I still can't write all the info needed for Section A qs in 50 minutes (takes me approximately 1 hour to write 5 1/2 pages)
Can someone explain the differences between the case of Campbell (1990) and the cases of Tostti (1997) and Boyle and Boyle (1987)? Why did Campbell's conviction for attempted robbery get quashed if Boyle and Boyle, and Tosti's conviction was upheld? Surely, if Cambell was let off, it should only seem fair that the other two should have been quashed too..?
Can someone explain the structure of a Section A 50marker to me please?
Original post by fire_and_ice
Can someone explain the differences between the case of Campbell (1990) and the cases of Tostti (1997) and Boyle and Boyle (1987)? Why did Campbell's conviction for attempted robbery get quashed if Boyle and Boyle, and Tosti's conviction was upheld? Surely, if Cambell was let off, it should only seem fair that the other two should have been quashed too..?
Not much difference was seen in these cases, that's the criticism and a decent AO2 point. Narrow application of "more than merely preparatory" was applied in Campbell and hence, resulted in D's acquittal. In Boyle and Boyle, on the other hand, broad application was used, resulting in Ds' conviction. Courts have used both applications inconsistently, making the law re attempts uncertain.
Original post by bxnbrooks
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME WITH CONSENT REVISION?! I know nothing
Consent can be used as a Defence AGAINST the prosecutor.
Consent can NEVER be a defence to Murder or where Serious injury has been caused.
Consent given must be REAL.
1) V must have the CAPACITY to give consent
2) V must be able to comprehend the real NATURE of the offence.
3) Consent must be REAL- If D MISTAKENLY thought there was consent, D has a defence, if it was an honest mistake.
- If V's consent was obtained through DURESS, it is not valid consent.
Consent in Violent sports / Violent Behaviour:
PUBLIC POLICY: A person cannot consent to being HARMED
EXCEPT IN - sports, surgery, tattoos, piercings, horseplay
Consent is NEVER a defence to:
Murder or
Euthanasia or
a Fight or
Deliberate infliction of Bodily Harm
hope i helped
Original post by abcdefghumi
Consent can be used as a Defence AGAINST the prosecutor.
Consent can NEVER be a defence to Murder or where Serious injury has been caused.
Consent given must be REAL.
1) V must have the CAPACITY to give consent
2) V must be able to comprehend the real NATURE of the offence.
3) Consent must be REAL- If D MISTAKENLY thought there was consent, D has a defence, if it was an honest mistake.
- If V's consent was obtained through DURESS, it is not valid consent.
Consent in Violent sports / Violent Behaviour:
PUBLIC POLICY: A person cannot consent to being HARMED
EXCEPT IN - sports, surgery, tattoos, piercings, horseplay
Consent is NEVER a defence to:
Murder or
Euthanasia or
a Fight or
Deliberate infliction of Bodily Harm
hope i helped
Consent can NEVER be a defence to Murder or where Serious injury has been caused.
Consent given must be REAL.
1) V must have the CAPACITY to give consent
2) V must be able to comprehend the real NATURE of the offence.
3) Consent must be REAL- If D MISTAKENLY thought there was consent, D has a defence, if it was an honest mistake.
- If V's consent was obtained through DURESS, it is not valid consent.
Consent in Violent sports / Violent Behaviour:
PUBLIC POLICY: A person cannot consent to being HARMED
EXCEPT IN - sports, surgery, tattoos, piercings, horseplay
Consent is NEVER a defence to:
Murder or
Euthanasia or
a Fight or
Deliberate infliction of Bodily Harm
hope i helped
- I would be especially careful here, consent is only applicable to conduct as the result of which "merely transient harm" is caused i.e. assault, battery. Even if actual bodily harm occurs (could even be a minor bruise) this would negate the defence.
- Also, distinction between 'prize fights' (Coney) and professional sports e.g. boxing, is very important.
- It also could be a defence for harmful sexual activity (Slingsby)
Just to clarify things.
If express malice refers to the intention to kill and implied malice refers to the intention to cause GBH, why does the mark scheme from June 2010 refer to direct intention as "death/GBH is the D's purpose and they set out to bring it about"?
What about the cases of Vickers and Cunningham, surely these fall into implied malice?
Also, there isn't exactly much to write in regards to express malice apart from the definition and the case of Moloney. It's taking up barely four lines. Is this regarded as being enough - considering the question is asking about Mens Rea and express malice is supposed to be one of the key things to be spoken about?
What about the cases of Vickers and Cunningham, surely these fall into implied malice?
Also, there isn't exactly much to write in regards to express malice apart from the definition and the case of Moloney. It's taking up barely four lines. Is this regarded as being enough - considering the question is asking about Mens Rea and express malice is supposed to be one of the key things to be spoken about?
When I sat my A level Law, I found that flash cards were useful, but since starting law at University I came across a Graduate who informed me about CaseRevision.co.uk its like a revision site to help you memorise cases. I found it useful.
does anyone have any Special Study revision notes to share?
Original post by fire_and_ice
Can someone explain the differences between the case of Campbell (1990) and the cases of Tostti (1997) and Boyle and Boyle (1987)? Why did Campbell's conviction for attempted robbery get quashed if Boyle and Boyle, and Tosti's conviction was upheld? Surely, if Cambell was let off, it should only seem fair that the other two should have been quashed too..?
Tosti 1997 and Boyle & Boyle 1987 were convicted of attempted burglary instead of attempted robbery, therefore there are different requirements for the conviction. Tosti and Boyle & Boyle would have already embarked on the crime proper when they entered so the point of more than merely preparatory is different.
Does anyone have any notes on the special study paper to share as I really need help?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AS Level Law paper 1 OCR
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- SQE2
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- OCR A-level law 2023 paper 1
- 1000+ A2-Level Biology Exam Questions
- Self-teaching Chemistry A-level (as a private candidate)?
- Official University of Wolverhampton 2023 Applicant Thread
- A-level Law Study Group 2023-2024
- Police Officer to Solicitor…
- Choosing a University
- OCR GCSE Geography A Paper 1 (J383/01) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- How best to prepare for the LNAT?
- Law Commission Research Assistant 2022
- Child and crime
- SQE2 prep course ULaw vs Barbri for SQE2 April 2023
- OCR GCSE Geography B Paper 1 (J384/01) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- what is double liability ?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
