Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread
Scroll to see replies
Do we have to define all the OAPA? -_-
Original post by GFEFC1
Am i right in thinking that any AO2 criticism can be applied to any Question 2? it seems so anyway...
Pretty much
Original post by Morgan_123
Do we have to define all the OAPA? -_-
I don't believe so! We haven't been told too, you just state S.47 or S.20 etc
Posted from TSR Mobile
does ayone have a template they are using for question 2?
Original post by RHobbs
I don't believe so! We haven't been told too, you just state S.47 or S.20 etc
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Okay good thank you!
Original post by SilverHorsey
does ayone have a template they are using for question 2?
Basically I'm just starting with a basic intro of what consent is and the effect it has on the law/offences. Then a paragraph on how it must be informed etc and the exceptions. Then paragraphs on the exceptions with links to the title and critical comment
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RHobbs
Basically I'm just starting with a basic intro of what consent is and the effect it has on the law/offences. Then a paragraph on how it must be informed etc and the exceptions. Then paragraphs on the exceptions with links to the title and critical comment
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
when you say exceptions the 5 exceptions from brown? what about the other topics such as children and consent etc?
How did everyone find it?
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rhiannaf
How did everyone find it?
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah I thought it was ok. Was glad it was Dica, didn't really like Q2 and thought to problems were ok. Very glad it's all over!!!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rhiannaf
How did everyone find it?
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm glad Q1 was about Dica.
Q2 was a weirdly worded question but I liked it.
Q3 was difficultish because by that point, I only had 20 minutes left so was rushing. The third scenario was hardest, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Q1- good.
Q2- my teacher only gave me material on how defence has developed according to thr public policy and the question was totally different. I however discussed whether the defence should be based on individual cases or general propositions by saying why it's good and why it allows judges too many powers meaning injustices could result.
Q3- Didnt like the fact that in part A the offence was not given, but I assumed abh since tattoo causes some harm in strict sense. In part C the defencr clearly was available dur to horseplay, but then I said the harm was clearly intentional and not in public policy to allow the defence here.
Not too sure how it went if i'm honest. Question 1 was great, wrote tonnes for question 2 but not sure if it was even answering the question as it was worded horribly, what did people put? And question 3 
i had 10 minutes left and only roughly done two of the scenarios. they seemed pretty easy as well!
i had 10 minutes left and only roughly done two of the scenarios. they seemed pretty easy as well!Original post by GFEFC1
Not too sure how it went if i'm honest. Question 1 was great, wrote tonnes for question 2 but not sure if it was even answering the question as it was worded horribly, what did people put? And question 3 i had 10 minutes left and only roughly done two of the scenarios. they seemed pretty easy as well!
i had 10 minutes left and only roughly done two of the scenarios. they seemed pretty easy as well!2 of the scenarios were nice, but the 3rd one was weird.
There were 2 guys who agreed to throw darts at each other and 1 of them got a dart in the face, blinding him. It seemed like a rough horseplay, but at the same time it is not in the public policy to allow deliberate infliction of harm.
Original post by qwertypoiop
2 of the scenarios were nice, but the 3rd one was weird.
There were 2 guys who agreed to throw darts at each other and 1 of them got a dart in the face, blinding him. It seemed like a rough horseplay, but at the same time it is not in the public policy to allow deliberate infliction of harm.
There were 2 guys who agreed to throw darts at each other and 1 of them got a dart in the face, blinding him. It seemed like a rough horseplay, but at the same time it is not in the public policy to allow deliberate infliction of harm.
I haven't seen the paper. However, there is case authority that 'horseplay' isn't a crime.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
Original post by qwertypoiop
2 of the scenarios were nice, but the 3rd one was weird.
There were 2 guys who agreed to throw darts at each other and 1 of them got a dart in the face, blinding him. It seemed like a rough horseplay, but at the same time it is not in the public policy to allow deliberate infliction of harm.
There were 2 guys who agreed to throw darts at each other and 1 of them got a dart in the face, blinding him. It seemed like a rough horseplay, but at the same time it is not in the public policy to allow deliberate infliction of harm.
How much were we expected to write for each scenario? I really rushed the first two because of time but felt like i got all the AO1 in there and applied it to the scenario.
Original post by GFEFC1
How much were we expected to write for each scenario? I really rushed the first two because of time but felt like i got all the AO1 in there and applied it to the scenario.
About half a page in a relatively small handwriting, however the 3rd one took me almost whole page.
Original post by Mimir
I haven't seen the paper. However, there is case authority that 'horseplay' isn't a crime.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
I wrote about horseplay, but in cases where consent succeeded the actions themselves were relatively innocent and harm was inadvertent. The scenario specified that D threw 2 darts at the V's stomach and this made V hurt, the 3rd one flew in his face blinding him. If for example kids are playing around and throwing each other into the air and catch them, the activity itself is causing no harm and it was not meant to cause harm, even if by accident one of them fails to catch another, thus causing injuries. However, I argued that throwing darts at another is in itself a harmful activity, thus denying consent.
Original post by Mimir
I haven't seen the paper. However, there is case authority that 'horseplay' isn't a crime.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
Hi, I too haven't seen the paper but I think that the case you are referring to is Lamb. However, the main issue here wasn't D's MR but was the fact that V didn't fear violence from D meaning that even the criteria for an assault wouldn't even have been satisfied... Let alone UAM (which was one of the charges). The defendants MR wasn't an issue because he was still very much subjectively reckless when playing with the gun. This point in isolation would allow his guilt for a basic intent offence such as assault or manslaughter. However the not guilty verdict was due to the lack of fear on the V's behalf.
In regards to consent could you not have argued horseplay such as in the cases of Jones and Aitken? After all, it could be argued that the D in this scenario had a "mistaken but genuine belief in consent". In Aitken this led to D's conviction under s.20 OAPA being quashed... Therefore intended/ reckless serious injury can still give rise to a defence of consent due to the special considerations in such horseplay scenarios. This may well carry over to the darts scenario in the exam. However, in order to achieve all 10 marks you will probably have been expected to give both sides and also explain that V cannot usually consent to bodily harm if not in public interest (AG's reference no. 6) and therefore there may be no defence of consent. Just a thought...
I simply outlined the offence, usual issues, and principles from several authorities off the top of my head. I could of course give a post-graduate level answer, but I doubt that is useful to A Level students. However, you have confused yourself with Lamb, as so many do, so I shall expand:
Your point about R v Lamb is partially correct, it is one of the authorities for the three requirements for the Actus of assault - that 'the defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force.'
In Lamb, the Bench held that the Victim did not believe the gun with which they were playing would fire. (Therefore the AR was not fulfilled and the offence would not be made out).
However, you then err in your second point asserting that Lamb does not pertain to the Mens Rea, and in your discussion of a basic intent offence, in the same way that the trial judge did at first instance.
Remember: R v Lamb [1967] 3WLR 888 is itself an appeal, on the grounds that the trial judge had not directed the jury to consider whether Lamb had the Mens Rea for the offence of assault.
At first instance, the trial judge, like yourself, fell to error as to determining the meaning of 'unlawful' - he asserted that the pointing of the revolver and the pulling of the trigger was something which could of itself be unlawful even if there was no attempt to alarm or intent to injure. The Mens Rea, an essential ingredient in manslaughter (Andrews v DPP; R v Church) could not in Lamb be established in relation to the first ground (the defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force) except by proving that element of intent (one of the elements of the Mens Rea) without which there can be no assault.
The judgement by LJ Sachs in Lamb was made on correction of a point of law, and an emphasis that simply waving this pistol was not in itself 'unlawful' therefore could not be a "technical assault" as the judge described at first instance. IE: There was no unlawful act because there was no Mens Rea. No unlawful act means no assault.
Be careful with Lamb, it can be used for both AR and MR (albeit loosely).
Your third point considers recklessness:
I have addressed the point that this cannot be the case as it is not a basic intent offence. Concerning recklessness, this is a quagmire, especially for Lamb since it was decided using R v Cunningham, which was the authority before the current test, R v G.
R v Cunningham (and Lamb, considering recklessness only) is technically no longer "good law" since the test is incomplete.
It was held in A-G's Ref No.3 of 2003 that R v G is of general application for all statutory offences requiring recklessness within the meaning of s1 CDA 1971.
Therefore, don't consider the reckless aspect of Lamb, you'll just get confused. Stick with AG's Ref No3 for an example of how R v G should be applied, and don't consider the 'old' test in Cunningham unless the scenario is pre-2004.
Original post by tome97
Hi, I too haven't seen the paper but I think that the case you are referring to is Lamb. However, the main issue here wasn't D's MR but was the fact that V didn't fear violence from D meaning that even the criteria for an assault wouldn't even have been satisfied... Let alone UAM (which was one of the charges). The defendants MR wasn't an issue [...]
. This point in isolation would allow his guilt for a basic intent offence such as assault or manslaughter. However the not guilty verdict was due to the lack of fear on the V's behalf.
. This point in isolation would allow his guilt for a basic intent offence such as assault or manslaughter. However the not guilty verdict was due to the lack of fear on the V's behalf.
Your point about R v Lamb is partially correct, it is one of the authorities for the three requirements for the Actus of assault - that 'the defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force.'
In Lamb, the Bench held that the Victim did not believe the gun with which they were playing would fire. (Therefore the AR was not fulfilled and the offence would not be made out).
However, you then err in your second point asserting that Lamb does not pertain to the Mens Rea, and in your discussion of a basic intent offence, in the same way that the trial judge did at first instance.
Remember: R v Lamb [1967] 3WLR 888 is itself an appeal, on the grounds that the trial judge had not directed the jury to consider whether Lamb had the Mens Rea for the offence of assault.
At first instance, the trial judge, like yourself, fell to error as to determining the meaning of 'unlawful' - he asserted that the pointing of the revolver and the pulling of the trigger was something which could of itself be unlawful even if there was no attempt to alarm or intent to injure. The Mens Rea, an essential ingredient in manslaughter (Andrews v DPP; R v Church) could not in Lamb be established in relation to the first ground (the defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force) except by proving that element of intent (one of the elements of the Mens Rea) without which there can be no assault.
The judgement by LJ Sachs in Lamb was made on correction of a point of law, and an emphasis that simply waving this pistol was not in itself 'unlawful' therefore could not be a "technical assault" as the judge described at first instance. IE: There was no unlawful act because there was no Mens Rea. No unlawful act means no assault.
Be careful with Lamb, it can be used for both AR and MR (albeit loosely).
Your third point considers recklessness:
The defendants MR wasn't an issue because he was still very much subjectively reckless when playing with the gun
I have addressed the point that this cannot be the case as it is not a basic intent offence. Concerning recklessness, this is a quagmire, especially for Lamb since it was decided using R v Cunningham, which was the authority before the current test, R v G.
R v Cunningham (and Lamb, considering recklessness only) is technically no longer "good law" since the test is incomplete.
It was held in A-G's Ref No.3 of 2003 that R v G is of general application for all statutory offences requiring recklessness within the meaning of s1 CDA 1971.
Therefore, don't consider the reckless aspect of Lamb, you'll just get confused. Stick with AG's Ref No3 for an example of how R v G should be applied, and don't consider the 'old' test in Cunningham unless the scenario is pre-2004.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Mimir
I haven't seen the paper. However, there is case authority that 'horseplay' isn't a crime.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
It all hangs on intention - did he intend, was he reckless, was it reasonably foreseeable.
One case hangs on this where two boys were playing with a pistol. One accidentally shot the other and killed him. NG since there was no intent. Obviously difficult to prove.
Same in sports injuries, unless the injury/harm is so serious as to go beyond the remit of the rules or spirit of the activity or game.
So the answer, at common law, would be if there was no intention, he would be NG. It is not for the courts to interfere with the minutia of day-to-day life - a good argument could be made for public policy to be unaffected.
Yesss! This is what I applied anf everyone told me Ii was wrong! I spoke about Aitken and Jones and said that they could not prove intention whilst the powers of horseplay as a defence of consent extend to severe and serious situations and therefore it is likely that it would be avaliable here!
Original post by GFEFC1
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.
Not necessarily actually! Due to the state of the law it could be interpreted differently depending on how you interpret the threat depending on the words. In Tuberville V Savage he said 'if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you' making it undoubtedly clear he was not going to attack at this point in time but in Light he says 'if it weren't for the bloody policeman I would take your head off' suggesting as soon as the policeman leaves he will attack therefore not negating the threat. Therefore me and many of my friends and others interpreted Sandra's comment as suggesting if she chooses to take her trainers off or as soon as they do come off she will attack thus not negating the attack however, others may have interpreted it differently. In these cases very often as long as you have explained your opinion and point of view you should get the mark
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AS Level Law paper 1 OCR
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- SQE2
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- OCR A-level law 2023 paper 1
- 1000+ A2-Level Biology Exam Questions
- Self-teaching Chemistry A-level (as a private candidate)?
- Official University of Wolverhampton 2023 Applicant Thread
- A-level Law Study Group 2023-2024
- Police Officer to Solicitor…
- Choosing a University
- OCR GCSE Geography A Paper 1 (J383/01) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- Law Commission Research Assistant 2022
- How best to prepare for the LNAT?
- Child and crime
- SQE2 prep course ULaw vs Barbri for SQE2 April 2023
- OCR GCSE Geography B Paper 1 (J384/01) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- what is double liability ?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
