For unlawful act manslaughter, the case of Goodfellows says that the unlawful act can be towards property. Does this mean we should learn the AR and MR of property offences before going into the Unit 3 exam?
battered wife syndrome - diminished responsibility second part of the test
It can be both, BWS is a recognised medical condition which can be used for part A) It can also be used in loss of control to demonstrate that loss of control does not need to be sudden.
It can be both, BWS is a recognised medical condition which can be used for part A) It can also be used in loss of control to demonstrate that loss of control does not need to be sudden.
For unlawful act manslaughter, the case of Goodfellows says that the unlawful act can be towards property. Does this mean we should learn the AR and MR of property offences before going into the Unit 3 exam?
goodfellow sets out the unlawful act manslaughter test my point of law for goodfellow is that the unlawful act doesnt have to be towards at someone
Roughly, how many words are you writing for Q3 (evaluation)? I have created my own model answer for the NFO evaluation and it's around 500 words, I don't know if I'm writing/including enough. I have included 3 structural points, 2 language points, 3 points on the AR/MR, and then spoken about reforms (relating to my earlier points).
Roughly, how many words are you writing for Q3 (evaluation)? I have created my own model answer for the NFO evaluation and it's around 500 words, I don't know if I'm writing/including enough. I have included 3 structural points, 2 language points, 3 points on the AR/MR, and then spoken about reforms (relating to my earlier points).
I did pretty much the same thing, 500-550 words of evaluation for 4 main points (AR/MR, language, max sentences issue, structural issues); about 1100 words in total. It got full marks so I'm just hoping I can replicate it in 30 mins :s
If ABH comes up in a scenario, do we have to go through Assault/Battery as a separate offence and then treat ABH S47 as another offence they may be liable for? Or would s47 be an offence on it's own?
If ABH comes up in a scenario, do we have to go through Assault/Battery as a separate offence and then treat ABH S47 as another offence they may be liable for? Or would s47 be an offence on it's own?
So for a question on S.47 (expect one)
State the AR " there must be an assault or battery and this must cause abh" State the MR " Intention or recklessness as the the assault or battery" Define ABH - Miller/ Chan Fook.
Apply to the scenario so for example let me make a scenario up.
" Dave and Pete, his best friend were playing a game of monopoly when Dave hit Pete on his arm due to the fact he was losing, this later caused a slight bruise to appear on Pete's arm." (We have all been in this situation lol.)
My aims in this scenario were to include s.47 + consent (horseplay)
So basically you would say Dave would satisfy the AR of s.47 of ABH, this occurred when he hit Pete in the arm which later caused the slight bruising under the definition in Miller, this would equate to abh. * case*
Dave had the intention as to the battery, his main aim/ purpose was to hit Pete in the arm, this later caused bruising to appear. Dave would therefore be liable for a S.47 offence.
Remember there is not requirement for D to have intended or be reckless as to the injury inflicted!!!