Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

R v Lamb?

Hi everyone,
Is anyone else NOT revising any defences? So insanity, automatism, duress and intoxication? I feel like I don't need to, provided that I revise thoroughly for every other topic (which I have). I've looked at every single past paper and in all 3 sections, there's never a whole set of questions that ask you to write about defences - there is always one that doesn't involve defences at all.
What does everybody think? I would revise it but I feel like I haven't got enough time and it's a HUGE topic!
Thanks everyone and good luck for Tuesday!


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hi everyone,
Is anyone else NOT revising any defences? So insanity, automatism, duress and intoxication? I feel like I don't need to, provided that I revise thoroughly for every other topic (which I have). I've looked at every single past paper and in all 3 sections, there's never a whole set of questions that ask you to write about defences - there is always one that doesn't involve defences at all.
What does everybody think? I would revise it but I feel like I haven't got enough time and it's a HUGE topic!
Thanks everyone and good luck for Tuesday!


Posted from TSR Mobile

How can a question not involve defences? If they've committed a crime, which they will have because the scenarios are from criminal law, you list the possible defences available to them. List one or two even if they won't quite be able to use it.

yeah you dont need to list defences to get full marks providing you know the other stuff

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.

I might try to get the basic ideas behind each defence and say at the end of a question: X could use the defence of necessity because of this, this and this. Is that what you mean? Thanks


Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you guys on the OCR board cover the appeals process? (I'm doing WJEC and thought I'd ask for some help here, there isn't much of a WJEC presence. )

Nope, that would be OCR Law - English legal system forums

Yes - my Law teacher said to go through the defence until the logical conclusion. If there's a point which they fail at, there's no need to waste time elaborating any further.

So, if I were to talk about insanity in Section B, would have to talk about these cases of Constanza, Kemp, Sullivan, Windle and etc, or am I fine just mentioning the legal principles?

Does anyone have a second analytical point for Dica? I have one but struggling to find another.

What point have you already got?

Erm, I've spoke about how Dica overruled Clarence in that consenting to sex automatically means you consent to the risk of infection... Dica now states that for consent to be fully informed the victim must be aware of the risk of infection...

Obviously more detail than that though.

Have you gone into how now if you knowingly transmit a disease to someone who is unaware, you can be charged with s.20?

Have you gone into how now if you knowingly transmit a disease to someone who is unaware, you can be charged with s.20?

For question 1 should we completely leave the facts of the case out as we don''t receive any AO1 marks?