The Student Room Group

Aqa law unit 2 *offical thread*

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
Original post by ptracey_
I forgot to refer to the case for duty of care on question 10 what happen will get 6/8


No application = max 5 for an 8 marker just going on previous mark schemes!
Reply 101
Original post by Bruce267099
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
Reply 103
Original post by Bruce267099
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
Because aki didnt go to the hospital straight away do you discuss thin skull rule or vs own actions??
And how what the remoteness questions sly?
Reply 105
Original post by Segsation
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 🤔🤔
Original post by Segsation
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?
Reply 107
Original post by Mireri
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 put for assault Aki had the intent

And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?
Original post by Mireri
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 understand that, but he didn't push him over, he pushed him away. I know it is gbh s20 now but I'll still get a lot of credit.
Original post by NHM
I put for assault Aki had the intent

And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?


I put the same for assault, but that one was pretty obvious :biggrin:

For the gbh, i screwed up and put s47 for mens rea :colone:, what was i thinking in that exam, at least the first half was right.
Reply 110
Original post by Bruce267099
I put the same for assault, but that one was pretty obvious :biggrin:

For the gbh, i screwed up and put s47 for mens rea :colone:, what was i thinking in that exam, at least the first half was right.


AQA come up with the greatest names though... Aki and Binh haha!
Reply 111
Original post by Bruce267099
I understand that, but he didn't push him over, he pushed him away. I know it is gbh s20 now but I'll still get a lot of credit.


They used the phrase "roughly" though?
Reply 112
Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.
Reply 113
Original post by NHM
I put for assault Aki had the intent

And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?


Totally agree with that!
Reply 114
[QUOTE="NHM;64992865"]
Original post by Mireri


Thank you :-) hope you did well!


Well I finished! That's half of the challenge with Unit 2!
Reply 115
Original post by jjcc99
Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.


Ooops! It specificaly said discuss whether a duty was owed to the homeless man (Euan?).
Original post by jjcc99
Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.


I spoke dan and chris what were we actually meant to do.
Reply 117
Original post by Bruce267099
I spoke dan and chris what were we actually meant to do.


apparently my friends said we had to write about the Euan the homeless man but i literally wrote nothing on him!
Reply 118
Original post by jjcc99
Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.


I put a little bit about the homeless man... Only in terms of FJR tho
Original post by jjcc99
apparently my friends said we had to write about the Euan the homeless man but i literally wrote nothing on him!


Who the f**k is euan. I didn't even read the passage lol

Quick Reply

Latest