On the criminal section i completely forgot what the burden and standard of proof on the summary offence question, how many marks would that bit be worth.
1 mark each I should imagine... So 2 in total.
Standard is - beyond reasonable doubt (DPP v Woolington) burden is on the prosecution that must prove D committed and offence.
I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
For the assault question i talked about assault fully, that one went fine.
In the one about GBH it said he may be charged for section 20. I defined the AR of section 20 and explained how he had the AR especially with brain damage being very serious harm. But then i said he did not have intention for any harm not even serious then i explained using the case of parmenter that if he does not see the risk he will be acquitted. Therefore as he only intended the MR for battery he would be charged for ABH. Will i get any marks in the second question?
Not quite. He was at least reckless as to some harm ,as it is forseeable that, if you push someone over, they will come to some harm
also, just a note that only "serious harm" is required for GBH - look up Saunders
I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
Yeah the one about remoteness of damage got me thinking cause it was a generous question for 8 marks!!! But it only asked you to explain remoteness of damage so 🤔🤔
I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
I wrote what I'd usually write, but i made sure the bits being marked were in detail. You know becuase in question 8 it only asked you for the remoteness part, did we have to briefly explain the rules in question 9 again and apply?