Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

AQA alevel law unit 1 and 2

Scroll to see replies

There isn't much money in criminal law

Maybe it's not about the money for her. Maybe she's passionate about the career she'd like to get into as there's people out there who are fine with receiving average pay then maybe working their way up further which increases their salary. Plus it's not like all the people with professions concerning criminal law/Justice are broke with no money. It depends on what job you are doing and also on your experience/ how long you've been in the job.

Reply 101

liluziboiibz

I was just stating a fact, and I didn't say that criminal lawyers were broke did I? :smile:

Reply 102

blu3

Original post by liluziboiibz

I was just stating a fact, and I didn't say that criminal lawyers were broke did I? :smile:

true, you doing unit 2 tomorrow?

Reply 103

helena1999

Original post by Bruce267099

I thought i did it wrong, because my teacher always you need to seperate your points from appeals from magistrate and crown, but i did it generically and explained what each one could do and whether they hear conviction, sentence or point of law.

Sorry for the poor grammar guys I'm not with it today. :biggrin:

Mine was really badly structured but because it wasn't an AO2 marked question I just wrote as many points as I could in the best form I could!

Reply 104

helena1999

My teacher predicts omission, coincidence rule, assault, gbh, aims of sentencing, either way procedure and standard of proof
For contract - differences between offer and invitation to treat, intent to create legal relations halted with another aspect of offer, stages of negotiation, damages, breach of contract and 3 track system

Reply 105

love-vogue

Has anyone else been told of predictions? Law 02 and contract :smile:

Reply 106

Tan3000

Original post by love-vogue

Has anyone else been told of predictions? Law 02 and contract :smile:

My teacher predicts
Contemp. Rule
Breach
Res ipsa
Actus Reus
Causation
Issuing a claim in civil

Reply 107

blu3

Original post by Tan3000

My teacher predicts
Contemp. Rule
Breach
Res ipsa
Actus Reus
Causation
Issuing a claim in civil

thats helpful thanks! and good luck for tomorrow guys! :smile:

Reply 108

liluziboiibz

Original post by blu3

true, you doing unit 2 tomorrow?

Yeah cri, and I have English literature in the morning so my hand is gunna be broken lol

Reply 109

blu3

Original post by liluziboiibz

Yeah cri, and I have English literature in the morning so my hand is gunna be broken lol

Aww I'm sorry! I wish you the best of luck! 😊

Reply 110

love-vogue

Original post by Tan3000

My teacher predicts
Contemp. Rule
Breach
Res ipsa
Actus Reus
Causation
Issuing a claim in civil

You diamond!

Reply 111

helena1999

Original post by Tan3000

My teacher predicts
Contemp. Rule
Breach
Res ipsa
Actus Reus
Causation
Issuing a claim in civil

What is 'res ipsa' :redface:

Reply 112

AndrewMCV1

Original post by helena1999

What is 'res ipsa' :redface:

Proof of breach- ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’

In most cases the burden of proofrests with C who has the task of amassing the evidence. This is known as the standard of proof, which is: ‘on the balance ofprobabilities’, i.e. 51% is required to prove that D was negligent. In rare circumstances, C will receive assistance in discharging that burden ofproof and the court is prepared to invoke ‘res ipsa loquitur’, whichmean ‘the facts speak for themselves’. ERLECJ set out the following parameters of the legal maxim in Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks [1862] finding Dnegligent when bags of flour fellout of the upper window of a warehouse injuring C. Itmust be established: 1. The ‘thing’ [bags of flour] has to be under themanagement of D. In Mahon v Osborne (1938)the hospital could not offer an explanation of why a swab i.e. ‘a thing’had been left inside C’s body which resulted in death. =]In Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co [1893] C fell through a train doorshortly after the train left the station. As there was no opportunity by a third party D remained liable. HOWEVER, if D is not in control of the situation then thedoctrine cannot be invoked. Thus, in Easson V London and NorthEastern Railway [1944] the railway company was exonerated from liability. At the time of the accident the train wasseven miles beyond its last stopping place and the door might have been openedby a passenger, rather than by one of the Ds’ employees..2. It has tobe shown that such accidents do notoccur in the ‘ordinary course of things’if propercare is observed. Thus in Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] it was held that when apatient entered hospital for a minor operation on 2 stiff fingers, but left hospitalwith four stiff fingers there must have been negligence at some point on thepart of the doctors. Similarly, in Chaproniere v Mason [1905]it was held that a stone in a bun could only have been there throughcarelessness 3. An absenceof explanation by D will ‘afford reasonable evidence …that the accident arose from want of care’. Therefore, if there is directevidence of what caused the damage, the courts will examine that, ratherthan inferring it from the facts alone.In Barkway v [1950] there was evidence that the bus company should have told drivers toreport any signs of defective tires – BUT they had not done so.. The court heldthat it should have examined this evidence rather than rely on RIL

Effect of the doctrine of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’

Althoughthe PC in NG Chun Pui v LeeChuen Tat [1988]stated that the burden of proof remains withC throughout the case, it is generally accepted the burden of proof is reversed and D is required to provide a reasonableexplanation of how the accident could have occurred without negligence on hispart. Thus, in Ward v Tesco Stores [1976] C slipped on some spilled yoghurt on thefloor. Although the store claimed tohave operated an efficient scheme of patrolling the store to look for spillagesthey could not explain how long the yoghurthad been on the floor [cffryer]. However, if D is able to provide a reasonableexplanation of how the accident could have occurred without negligence on hispart, C goes back to square one and must prove on the balance of probabilitiesthat D has been negligent. Hence, in Pearson v NorthWestern Gas Board [1968] the Ds were able to show that they hadtaken all reasonable precautions to deal with gas leaks in the form of regularinspections and a 24-hour emergency call-out teams and therefore not negligentwhen a gas mains exploded, killing C’s husband. It has also been argued that if res ipsa loquiturreverses the burden of proof then paradoxically C who relies on the maximwill be in a better position than a claimant is not. HOWEVER, in Fryer v Pearson [2000] the court didacknowledge that sometimes freak accidents occur for which the maxim does not apply and no blame can be attributed. The mere fact a bottle had fallen at asupermarket checkout was insufficient to raise the inference of negligence.

Reply 113

liluziboiibz

Original post by blu3

Aww I'm sorry! I wish you the best of luck! 😊

Thank you ☺️

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 114

erzrocks

Any thoughts on the grade boundaries for law guys?

Reply 115

erzrocks

Any thoughts on the grade boundaries for law guys??

Reply 116

Breynolds2671999

Original post by erzrocks

Any thoughts on the grade boundaries for law guys??

There not particularly great, i thought unit 2 would be a mark or two lower and unit 1 is a bit extreme. It could go either way tomorrow, all i know is that I'm on the borderline of an A, but i think i just fell short.

What do you think about them?

Reply 117

NHM

How did everyone do? I managed to get an A* in my final A2 exam for law! If you guys need any model answers feel free to request them :smile:

Reply 118

BR1999

Original post by NHM

How did everyone do? I managed to get an A* in my final A2 exam for law! If you guys need any model answers feel free to request them :smile:

I did pretty well, my UMS for unit 1 was very low i got 67 (but thats getting remarked because my teacher thinks it's an error) and i got 84 UMS on unit 2 so i got a high B overall.

Have you got any model answers for judicial creativity for unit 4 and manslaughter for unit 3 it's all I've learned for A2 so far :tongue:

Reply 119

NHM

Original post by BR1999

For unit 4 I have Morality, BCI and fault!
Unit 3 I have all of them, if you forward me your email address I will send them you!

And well done, yes it is strange you got higher on unit 2 than 1 but good luck with the remark!