Official AQA A2 Law June 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Scenario 2.
Assault - he's coming to 'get' you
Battery - kick in the shin
Wounding s.18 - deep cut discuss s.20
Lawful force/self defence

Murder
Loss of control - sudden rage of anger
Unlawful dangerous act manslaughter

I did the same scenario and included the same points, phew
Although I didn't have time to include battery in the first Q

Reply 301

NHM

Original post by Sian-97

Same here

Do you have any other exams? Good luck!

Nah unit 4 is my last thankfully! Good luck to you too :-)

Reply 302

xFloody

Took me a good 5 minutes to decide what scenario to choose, they were both pretty awful. In the end I picked scenario 2

04-
Assault by Genna.
Battery and GBH s20 by Hannah
Self defence for Hannah, none for Genna (possible intoxication not clear and would fail)

05-
Jayson- Wasnt even totally sure if it was a murder but went with it anyway just so I could write about loss of control.
Lucas - Constructive Manslaughter

Reply 303

GLL1998

i did scenario two and when i discussed murder, he statisifed the AR/causation as he was more than the minimal cause of death (kismey) and but for him walking away Ivo could of survived as he could of helped him out.
MR obliquely intended murder as death was a virtual certainty of Ds actions
Then I discussed loss of control as he had the anger trigger?
I don't understand how people could argue the diminished responsibility, as the D didn't have a recognised medical condition??

Reply 304

trickster254

i did battery for Adam against Brandon and i did abh for Adam against Calvin, would this be ok?

Reply 305

NHM

Original post by shayankurdboy

i did battery for Adam against Brandon and i did abh for Adam against Calvin, would this be ok?

Adam against Brandon - yes you could argue battery/s.47
Adam against Calvin- no it'll probably be max weak clear/clear

Reply 306

Lpurgavie

Do you think it's too risky to learn just morality answer? Or BCI answer, worried I don't have time for both but don't know which to prioritise

Reply 307

NHM

Original post by Lpurgavie

Do you think it's too risky to learn just morality answer? Or BCI answer, worried I don't have time for both but don't know which to prioritise

I'm only doing 2 cause of time :/

Reply 308

NHM

Did anyone talk about self defence in relation to Calvins assault against Adam on the basis of preventing further crimes being committed against his brother? (Cousins)

Reply 309

XxShivani

Original post by sunnyrebecca

I did scenario 2 after debating over both for like 5 minutes!
For Genna against Helen: Assault
Helen against Genna: Battery occasioning Abh + s18/s20 wounding + self defence (Did people give Helen the defence because it could have been out of revenge or not??)

Jayson for murder of Ivo: through ommission + Defence of LOC which would fail due to not grave enough and may have been out of revenge
Lucus for IM of Ivo: Unlawful act (assault) + break in chain of causation due to third party (jayson + own actions) + possible defence of intox

Omg thats exactly what I put!!

Reply 310

sunnyrebecca

Original post by XxShivani

Omg thats exactly what I put!!

Thank god!! Did you let Helen have self defence or not??

Reply 311

Nathan long

Sceanrio 1
A battery by Adam towards Brandon i.e application of unlawful force when he was hit, which occasioned ABH, more than trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

Defence of Consent in relation to sporting activity and rough horseplay in realtion to the above

battery/ABHOffence of battery, occasioning ABH in relation to Calvin, applciation of unlawful force though the push and loss of consciousness (DPP V T).

Self defence/prevention of crime for pre-emptive strik but this would fail as the danger had passed e.g (asleep)argue would not be liable for GBH as it was a NAI

Assault by Calvin to Adam satisfied as he was in fear thats why he attacked him

Q2
Murder for Deon as the causation in fact established (White) , argue the actions of Fillipe may amount to NAI if operative and substantial (Smith). Mens rea to at least intend to cause serious harm (GBH) ether is sufficient (Vickers). It was his MAPD to cause serious harm by squeezing her neck.

Special defence of Diminished Responsibility, vivind halluciantions, RMC = Alcohol Dependant Syndrome (Wood), cant form rational judgement as he thought she was a monsterMention intoxcation, that the courts should ingnore all intoxcation to see if D would still commit the offence (DiDuca)

GNM satisfied easilly, DOC = Vol assumption, Breach = Fell below standard, will be gross and most likely established causation

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 312

XxShivani

Original post by sunnyrebecca

Thank god!! Did you let Helen have self defence or not??

No I failed it, what did u do?

Reply 313

ciarasimpson29

Original post by NHM

Did anyone talk about self defence in relation to Calvins assault against Adam on the basis of preventing further crimes being committed against his brother? (Cousins)

I said that! God knows if the mark scheme will credit it but worth a try haha

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 314

NHM

For scenario 1 I did:
Adam- Brendon = s.47 abh (battery) + consent
Adam-Calvin = s.20 GBH + causation issue
Calvin- Adam = assault + defence of self defence on the basis of prevention of further crimes been committed against his brother following case law (Cousions).

Murder + causation issue = has the AR and MR of murder + DR
GNM (concluded he was GN)

Reply 315

username1294428

Original post by Lpurgavie

Do you think it's too risky to learn just morality answer? Or BCI answer, worried I don't have time for both but don't know which to prioritise

It is as aqa seem to be unpredictable this year with some questions. I'd say learn a justice essay as justice seems to come up every year so I'd prioritise that but would have morals as a back up

Reply 316

Harriet1998

Original post by NHM

I think the use of the word "painful" indicated ABH...

I agree

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 317

Harriet1998

Just to put everyone's mind at rest,
As long as you are on the right track of the correct offences etc. As long as you justify what you have said you will be marked accordingly! :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 318

Valesker

I just cannot comprehend how scenario 2 involved any kind of murder. If you were going to argue that Jayson set about a dangerous situation whereby omission (Miller), he actually didn't considering that it was Lucas' unlawful act which resulted in Ivo's death. It seems like Jayson's LOC is irrelevant considering that he didn't do anything except see Ivo in the canal and walk away, which is completely legal considering this country has no Good Samaritan law. There was no duty of care because he didn't involve himself in the situation so it couldn't even have been gross negligence, he wasn't even involved in the chase. I'm hoping that everything to do with Jayson in the scenario was put there to catch people out because he's completely irrelevant in my opinion.

Reply 319

username1294428

Original post by Valesker

I agree. It's just the exact same with how Helen kicked Genna hard in the shin. I didn't do anything with that as that would certainly not battery as it specified that the kick was hard. They will always add an offence into the scenario that is not meant to be analysed to throw you off. Same with murder, instead of trying to prove his liability, it's more like proving innocence