Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

really not sure, hopefully not too many, thats just my opinion mate, youre answer might be right idk

really dont feel like its worth £60 at all, maybe £6, tops

I believe I interpreted the question as "how is actus Reus of theft easier to prove than other offices" so I think just how elements of actus Reus are easier to prove than others. Did you write about omissions and causation? I got so confused and just wrote about how the actus Reus of theft is eaiser to prove than of other property offences didn't relaise it said "elements of actus Reus " 😭

Obviously I didn't sit this paper, but if your question is the same as what you were asked, then you should have considered:

AR:
Appropriation;
of property;
belonging to another

Easy enough. Work through statute for whether these are fulfilled (remember, appropriation isn't simply "taking"

MR:
With the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
(Difficult)

DISHONESTLY! (Ghosh two-step test)

The MR is far more difficult to prove, as common law illustrates. If that's the question you were asked, that would be the general approach.

Considering the alternative of proving different elements of the AR more easily. It would depend on a scenario:

Property - defined at statute, so quite easy.

Belonging to another - more difficult. Consider who is the 'owner'; have they 'abandoned it'; is is 'in their control'; ought the defendant reasonably known the property was another's etc.

Appropriate - more than simply taking.

Something like that then?

What did you answer for section a ?

intoxication question, the total revision i did for the paper was 3 hours, and gambled on revising intoxication, involuntary m/s and theft, therefore the 20 marker i did no revision on but blagged as well as i could, you?

I did attempts involuntary manslaughter aand insanity

exam was *******s as per ocr standard, ive got economics on thursday and consent on friday, done nothing for them but cba if its like todays

I'm exactly the same I have aqa econ Thursday and then the consent paper Friday but I have business tomorrow aswell so I'm really stressed


Posted from TSR Mobile

exam was *******s as per ocr standard, ive got economics on thursday and consent on friday, done nothing for them but cba if its like todays

With regards to the 50 mark NFO's question... Was the potential assault about the "new shoes" said by Sandra or Talya?

it has to be an unlawful criminal act, and leaving the fire/not summoning emergency is not an unlawful criminal act. what you describe is closer to reckless m/s than it is constructive i.e. Did the D foresee a risk and still decide to run it? (Lidar) yes he did (leaving the cigarette in the ashtray without fully ensuring it was put out is reckless)

I thought it was said by Sandra because I said it would provoke liability for assault as the wording would put Talya in fear of imminent unlawful force then related it to the case of light!

I think I might have written that Talya said this :/
I said on one hand it could be an assault due to possible fear of immediate unlawful personal violence, but in relation to Tuberville it may not be because the choice of words may prevent the act from becoming an assault (I.e. They indicate no violence will be used).

It was not an assault. Words can negate an assault and therefore she could not fear force as Sandra made it clear she would not attack.

Surely it depends on the jury and their interpretation. I was told to always give both sides just in case... Especially as Sandra did then proceed to attack!
Do you think that I will loose loads of marks for putting the wrong person?

It was not an assault. Words can negate an assault and therefore she could not fear force as Sandra made it clear she would not attack.