Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

For self-defence 76(5) drunken mistake, what happens if the D is involuntarily intoxicated?

Just googled the Act: "(5) But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced."

So invol intox means self defense is available.

Reply 181

sonicmailman

Original post by Rust Cohle

Cheers!

Reply 182

pheebz_97

Do you guys have any tips for condensing time when annotating the scenario? I have a feeling I'll go for murder, so picking the scenario is not the problem, I just seem to take an age annotating the offences, despite trying to be quick about it. It really eats into my essay time, which isn't ideal as I struggle with timings anyway :frown:

Reply 183

Rust Cohle

Original post by pheebz_97

How long are you taking to annotate?

Reply 184

pheebz_97

Original post by Rust Cohle

How long are you taking to annotate?

I can sometimes take in excess of 5 minutes annotating. I feel like limiting it to 5 minutes, but is that still too much time? I generally annotate the scenario in 2 halves, too (non-fatal & fatal).

Reply 185

Fivefoot

Original post by Rust Cohle

GNM

Duty of care and breach of duty::
-Neighbour principle. Do not use Caparo
-The 6 omissions
-Complicity in crime (Wacker)
-Contribution to life threatening state of affairs (Evans)

Risk of death:
-Must be risk of death, not injury (Misra)
-"reasonably prudent person would have forseen risk of death" (Singh)

Cause of death:
-Causation

Grossly negligent:
Four things to look out for (in relation to the risk) laid out in Adomako
-Indifference to an obvious risk
-Foresight of the risk
-Appreciation of risk with intention to avoid it
-Inattention or failure to address a risk

Asserting that D's conduct is grossly negligent and that it is a matter for the jury to concern = dodging the question:

On the other hand,candidates were usually able to give an accurate explanation of the test to be applied by the juryin determining whether the negligence was sufficiently gross, though this was often by referenceto the Bateman case, rather than by reference to the specific words used by Lord MacKay inAdomako. Stronger candidates then attempted to provide some rational explanation for theview a jury might be expected to take. Weaker candidates tended to content themselves withthe observation that it was purely a matter for the jury.
-
Most students adopted the Bateman test for the ‘grossness’ of the negligence and many assertedthat, by that test, no matter how circular (a defect applying equally to Lord MacKay’s version of thetest), Beck was grossly negligent. Disappointingly, many students declined to consider what facts might support a conclusion about ‘grossness’ and sheltered behind the undoubted truth that, asLord MacKay emphasised, this was “supremely a jury question”
-
Once again, most candidates attemptedsome discussion of the requirement that the conduct be ‘so bad in all the circumstances’,usually citing the case of Bateman, but very few used the facts of the scenario seriously toquestion whether it could be satisfied.
-
Studentsinvariably recognised the requirement for proof that the negligence was ‘gross’, though theydid not always quote the Adomako description of that requirement, or one of its earlierversions (Bateman, Andrews v DPP). However, application was rather weaker, restinggenerally on simple assertion rather than on an attempt to identify what exactly it was aboutthe facts that made the conduct of James ‘so bad in all the circumstances ...’

What were the 6 omissions you were referring to

Reply 186

Fivefoot

Does anyones else's handwriting go really get bad in this test

Reply 187

alexGedgar1

Original post by Sian-97

I feel like the only one who is still struggling with Unit 3 :colondollar:

- most people claim it's easy. I struggle with defences. In most scenario questions will there be a defence you need to apply?
In murder, it can be one of the two partial defences such as diminished responsibility or loss of control? Could the other 5 defences ever be relevant to a murder scenario (for e.g. insanity or something??)

No! If you think there is insanity for murder you do diminished responsibility. NOT insanity. Also, you can't consent to your own death so that wouldn't be available either.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 188

alexGedgar1

Original post by Mactotaur

If it's murder, go with DR/LoC.

If it's not murder but it's a specific intent crime, intoxication may be available.

Duress isn't available to murder.

Someone should make a big tick-box chart showing what defences can be used for each offence.

Duress isn't on Unit 3 anyway!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 189

OrdinaryStudent

Original post by Rust Cohle

How long are you taking to annotate?

are you learning both gd and nfo?

Reply 190

G0verton23

How much of a risk am I taking not learning murder? I've always preferred doing involuntary manslaughter questions. Also - what are people's predictions on the eval? NFO?

Reply 191

alexGedgar1

Original post by G0verton23

How much of a risk am I taking not learning murder? I've always preferred doing involuntary manslaughter questions. Also - what are people's predictions on the eval? NFO?

Don't risk it AT ALL!! The examiners like putting on mixed question, i.e. Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter for 25 marks!
Honestly, unless you're not aiming for an A or B, I seriously wouldn't risk it all.

Likelihood of NFO being is high, then it is GD and finally Murder/Manslaughter.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 192

G0verton23

Original post by alexGedgar1

If they asked a question on murder and involuntary manslaughter what would the other scenario likely to be on? I do know murder however I'm far more confident on IVM and I'd rather spend the last few hours on evaluations.

Reply 193

Rust Cohle

Try looking through past papers

Reply 194

Boffin0121

Guys I'm really confused about involuntary manslaughter questions because I don't know whether or not you have to talk about murder (e.g. Lord Coke's definition & mens rea malice aforethought etc) or do we just dive into the question by just talking about gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter??? PLEASE HELP! Look at the exeplar on question 2, on the mark scheme it says to get sound on the gross negligence section of question 2, you must have spoken about murder and gross negligence manslaughter but I don't get how that works! Here's the link with the exemplar: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-21603-CEX-CRIMINAL.PDF PLEASE HELP ME!