Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

I'm writing an essay on causation for section A and the mark scheme for under the legal causation part states:

"Defendant must not accelerate the victim's death - Adams".

I've never come across this in my textbook, revision guide or any of my lessons. Does anyone know what this means or refers to?

It refers to the fact that if D accelerates V's death that is inevitable in the near future, he still would be guilty of murder. The fact that V would inevitably die does not break the chain of causation. This is seen in Adams 1957 where D (a doctor) overdosed V who was suffering from a terminal illness and would inevitably die in the near future. In fact Adams was acquitted, but don't take it into account since it would complicate matters in an A level exam.

Thanks, that makes sense. Though I'm concerned now that I've only just come across this whilst writing a practise essay. If it were something I didn't write in the exam, would I lose marks for it?

Aah, I know the maths feels. I decided to drop it a few weeks ago (it was my fourth subject and was just too much). Best thing to do is go over it again and again before sleeping - though, I haven't been doing so myself, admittedly.

Yeah, I spoke to my teacher about it and she pretty much said the same thing as I did before I got confused.

Basically, it doesn't matter if D changed his mind on what he wanted to steal - as long as he entered as a trespasser forming the intention to steal before doing so, he is guilty under section 9(1)(a).

Refresh me on what you're confused about and I'll get back to you if what I've said doesn't clear it up.

This is what we have been taught as well, however I am concerned as in the mark scheme they sometimes treat such cases as 2 separate burglaries.

Oh, I would use Pittwood as well, Adomako was just the first case I could remember that is related to a job.
At the moment I am just trying to survive my maths and fmaths exams, but when I flop them up I will read over my class notes and essay answers I have written during the year. I just need to refresh my memory since I constantly read over the law notes throughout the year. I feel like if there was anything to trigger my memory in the exam I could remember anything, but since there is not much guidance given it is quite difficult to recall small details. But, I'm still confused with that situation on burglary. Have you managed to find something out?

Can you remind me what paper that was from, please?

Thanks, that makes sense. Though I'm concerned now that I've only just come across this whilst writing a practise essay. If it were something I didn't write in the exam, would I lose marks for it?

I'm writing an essay on causation for section A and the mark scheme for under the legal causation part states:

"Defendant must not accelerate the victim's death - Adams".

I've never come across this in my textbook, revision guide or any of my lessons. Does anyone know what this means or refers to?

Don't worry, I've never seen that case either
They don't penalize you for missing something out, you can get marks for any other bit of relevant information you write, whether it's on the mark scheme or not (it's just a guide for them)

Once again, I've found a few more things under the mark scheme which I've never covered before, nor is it mentioned in my textbook or revision guide. It states under the chain of causation part: "explain coincidence and doctrine of continuing acts - Thabo, Meli, Church, Fagan v MPC, Le Brun".

I don't understand why this is on the mark scheme if it isn't in the official OCR textbook?

Once again, I've found a few more things under the mark scheme which I've never covered before, nor is it mentioned in my textbook or revision guide. It states under the chain of causation part: "explain coincidence and doctrine of continuing acts - Thabo, Meli, Church, Fagan v MPC, Le Brun".

I don't understand why this is on the mark scheme if it isn't in the official OCR textbook?

There are many that imply the same thing, but the most clear one is the January 2012 Q7 where the mark scheme clearly says that 9(1)a is complete at the point of entry. http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/64635-m...aw-january.pdf

How do people answer Section C Questions? I've been told to state MR, AR, whether these have been complete and then if the statement is accurate or inaccurate.

If the defendants from Smith and Chesire were found guilty, why was the defendant from Jordan not found guilty? Essentially, they all died as a result of negligent and improper medical treatment, yet D from Jordan escaped liability for murder?

Well for acts of doctors / medical professionals to break the chain of causation they must be extremely grave, essentially the "palpably negligent" sort of thing from gross negligence manslaughter. In Cheshire the surgery done was normal and the doctors did not do anything untoward, it was essentially unluckiness that caused V to die then. In Smith I find it hard to justify D being found guilty but I would equally say that the acts of the medical teams were not considered so beyond the norm as to be palpably wrong. Whereas in Jordan, V was first given antibiotics that he displayed an allergic reaction to, they were halted and the effect was noted in his patient notes. The next day a different doctor gave him a larger dose of the same antibiotics that resulted in his death, the sort of reasoning behind this being sufficient to break the chain is that it was very negligent on the second doctor's part as medical records showed the patient was allergic and it was an unnecessary act for the doctor to therefore administer the antibiotics and V was healing from his stab wounds. Basically medical interference breaks the chain when it's palpably wrong and so invalidates the defendant's initial act, V in Jordan would have been unlikely to die without the wrong antibiotics being administered, although I don't believe the term is used specifically the principle is similar.

Also has anyone got any tips about answering the questions for the special study? Our law teacher left in December and we've had a substitute for the rest of the year who's been less than useful in preparing us for the study.