Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

Original post by GFEFC1

I could probably answer all 3 of them which may mean bad news for Section B! :frown:

thats good! invountary m/s, attempts and theft is my punt for section B

Reply 261

Original post by SilverHorsey

thats good! invountary m/s, attempts and theft is my punt for section B

I hope you are right!

Reply 262

es_103

I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA

Reply 263

Original post by es_103

I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA

Self defence is only three cases isnt it? I would just learn it in case, its only small

Reply 264

null.and.void.

I'm guessing Mens Rea and maybe attempts will pop up in the first section.

Original post by es_103

I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA

You may need to refer to some of the defences in Section B - I'd just get my head around the AO1 of it - to be safe.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 265

Annie.humair

How do I write an essay for strict liability? What 8 key cases do I need to use?

Reply 266

Original post by null.and.void.

I'm guessing Mens Rea and maybe attempts will pop up in the first section.

You may need to refer to some of the defences in Section B - I'd just get my head around the AO1 of it - to be safe.

Mens rea, attempts, intoxication, causation, OAPA .... thats what i'm mainly focussing on for all sections.

Reply 267

If I applied a 'made up' scenario to an AO1 statement will this be AO1 or AO2?

For example, giving a scenario of an ambulance crash when talking about intervening acts to explain what breaking the chain of causation is...

A01

would the two property offences (robbery and burglary, theft) ever be asked in Section C as two seperate questions? because i really doubt i will have enough time to learn them both properly and so was wondering if it would be a risk to leave them both out. thanks

Reply 270

rilkat

Original post by 0123456543210

Don't ignore the mens rea, even if you don't think it makes a great essay, you still would be required to apply some of its principles throughout the problem question, and even Section C ones.
btw. PM if anyone needs any relatively concise notes, I've spent ages typing them up and they seem like a nice way to revise since most of them are structured in such a way that resemble essay answers and include the key principles allowing you to answer section B and C questions.

Hey could you send me the notes please? :smile:

Reply 271

Lawhelp

would theft and robbery+burglary ever come up as two separate questions in the same section?

Reply 272

username1723547

21

I would love either intoxication, diminished responsibility, or insanity to come up. They're quick, easy, and straightforward.

Reply 273

null.and.void.

Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

@09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?

Reply 274

09876543211

Original post by null.and.void.

Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

@09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?

I don't think so, I would rather focus on the point of law in the case. Sometimes mentioning actual outcome only makes things messier. For example: in Adams 1957 the point of law was that the acceleration of V's death will not break the chain of causation, however in fact Adams was not liable.

Reply 275

username1723547

21

Original post by null.and.void.

Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

@09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?

Not @09876543211, but I doubt you have to go into much detail about the case, further than the PoL. You'll be wasting time with somewhat irrelevant information.

Reply 276

Morgan_123

All cases, books etc say that an assault = Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
but the mark scheme says putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful force, so which should we say :/ The mark scheme seems to keep contradicting the law

Reply 277

09876543211

Original post by Morgan_123

All cases, books etc say that an assault = Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
but the mark scheme says putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful force, so which should we say :/ The mark scheme seems to keep contradicting the law

Apprehend= perceive, understand.
Both words imply the same thing, however word 'fear' takes it further by showing that if there was no fear of immediate force, there is no assault. I would use the word apprehend, and then when explaining assault in detail, I would say that V must be genuinely in fear of force to constitute to an assault.

Reply 278

username1723547

21

Original post by 09876543211

Apprehend= perceive, understand.
if there was no fear of immediate force, there is no assault

R v Lamb?

Reply 279

Morgan_123