Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmh70)
    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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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 :-)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i did battery for Adam against Brandon and i did abh for Adam against Calvin, would this be ok?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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 :/
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XxShivani)
    Omg thats exactly what I put!!
    Thank god!! Did you let Helen have self defence or not??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunnyrebecca)
    Thank god!! Did you let Helen have self defence or not??
    No I failed it, what did u do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I think the use of the word "painful" indicated ABH...
    I agree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    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
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.