Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

Yes. Remember, appropriation is a continuing event. (R v Hale talks about when the force can operate, I've summarised below).

AR
- Appropriation of property belonging to anotherUUsing force
On any person
Immediately before or at the time of theft
MRo Dishonestly intention to permanently deprive - Intending to use force to steal

R v Hale
- Hale and accomplice entered V’s house and stolebox of jewellery- Whilst accomplice upstairs grabbing the jewellery,Hale downstairs holding hand over V’s mouth- Accomplice back down the stairs and they bothtied her up before leaving Firstly, putting the hand over her mouth coulditself amount to robbery.Argued the Trial Judge’s instruction could haveled Jury to conclude that robbery had occurred simply at the point where theytied her up. Argued this was impossiblebecause by the time they had tied her up the theft had already taken place.
CA disagreed with this argument: “appropriation is a continuing act. Appropriation does not end when D does onething to assume one right of the owner. There will come a point, on the facts, where appropriation is complete,anything done after that point will not contribute to the theft thereforecannot make theft robbery.On the facts of this case it was open to theJury to decide that appropriation was still continuing when V was tied up,therefore direction correct and Jury entitled to conclude that robbery tookplace taking into account the force used to tie her up.

Hope that helps prove you're definitely right (at least at Postgraduate level, may be different for A-Level).

thanks a lot Actually made my day that I got one of the 5 markers right, totally screwed up on this exam, hopefully consent will be better

Voluntary manslaughter is loss of control and diminished responsibility. I did the involuntary manslaughter and mentioned unlawful act - (Lamb, Lowe, Goodfellow, Dalby and Newbury and Jones) then GNM - (Adomako, Singh and Misra) then reckless - (Lidar)


Posted from TSR Mobile

Very nicely put, my teacher said the same thing.

No you don't as the question was purely involuntary!


Posted from TSR Mobile

That makes me feel much better then! Have you wrote much about reform?

Dangerous act leaving the fire unlawful act not summoning the emergency services

Our teacher predicts the exam and generally gets it spot on. For todays exam he taught us intoxication, murder and general defences. For the Special study Q2, we have been told to learn an essay (i don't even know what the question will be) but the general gist is public policy, its basically talking about;

Implied consent
List of exceptions (properly conducted sports and games, reasonable surgical interference) -->these are necessary in the public interest
Explain valid, true consent--> the person bust be legally capable (e.g., adult)
Exceptional categories:
Properly conducted sports and games- if injured through sport, conviction would not be in the public interest. R v Barnes.
Vigorous sexual activity- consent recognised, but only for an inadvertent infliction injury. Deliberate injury=no consent--> this judgement was made on the grounds of public policy. Talk about R v Wilson in comparison to R v Brown and Others.
Horseplay- can access consent even for serious injury because D lacks any MR for offence. Reflects legal principle, & ironically ignores the fact it is not in the public interest.

Further limitations:
fraud/deception cases- where V does not know the true identity of the D.
Sado-masochism cases: not socially beneficial & no good reason to accommodate it.

Sorry thats so long winded but hope it helps!! I haven't put anything above about reform which i think may come up too.

Our teacher predicts the exam and generally gets it spot on. For todays exam he taught us intoxication, murder and general defences. For the Special study Q2, we have been told to learn an essay (i don't even know what the question will be) but the general gist is public policy, its basically talking about;

Implied consent
List of exceptions (properly conducted sports and games, reasonable surgical interference) -->these are necessary in the public interest
Explain valid, true consent--> the person bust be legally capable (e.g., adult)
Exceptional categories:
Properly conducted sports and games- if injured through sport, conviction would not be in the public interest. R v Barnes.
Vigorous sexual activity- consent recognised, but only for an inadvertent infliction injury. Deliberate injury=no consent--> this judgement was made on the grounds of public policy. Talk about R v Wilson in comparison to R v Brown and Others.
Horseplay- can access consent even for serious injury because D lacks any MR for offence. Reflects legal principle, & ironically ignores the fact it is not in the public interest.

Further limitations:
fraud/deception cases- where V does not know the true identity of the D.
Sado-masochism cases: not socially beneficial & no good reason to accommodate it.

Sorry thats so long winded but hope it helps!! I haven't put anything above about reform which i think may come up too.

Dangerous act leaving the fire unlawful act not summoning the emergency services

**** my life.
Anyone knows whether I would lose marks for putting a wrong statute in passing of a section A essay?
The right one was to put CAA (1981) s1(2) about D being treated on facts as they believed them to be, but due to me being a retarded **** I have put Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) s76.
Help.

Did anybody answer the theft question in section A? Could you please tell me if you were supposed to evaluate how the actus reus elements of theft are easier to prove than the mens rea or how certain actus reus elements are easier to prove than others, thanks!

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)

How many marks do you think i will lose i think i did everything else right in revard to causation and involuntary masnlaughter and referenced around 15 cases to

Everybody use this for the consent paper! Huge help.
http://zigzageducation.co.uk/samplepdf/Law/s6107.pdf

Charges £60 for the official copy, but you can view the example version for free. It gives a guidance on how to answer the questions and what is most likely going to come up!

Did anybody answer the theft question in section A? Could you please tell me if you were supposed to evaluate how the actus reus elements of theft are easier to prove than the mens rea or how certain actus reus elements are easier to prove than others, thanks!