Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    really not sure, hopefully not too many, thats just my opinion mate, youre answer might be right idk
    What did you answer for section a ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    really dont feel like its worth £60 at all, maybe £6, tops
    Lol I got mine for free. But I would say it defiantly helps and worth the investment in the long run👀
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahadams98)
    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 " 😭
    Oh god I can't remember the exact wording of the question and it's driving me mad! I interpreted it as how are certain actus reus elements of theft easier to prove than other actus reus elements of theft so I literally just talked about and compared appropriation of property belonging to another but my friend said that she compared the actus reus to mens rea of theft and now I'm absolutely dreading it!! I think section A was just worded badly in general to be honest I didn't even understand what the intoxication question was asking
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mimir)
    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?
    Yes it was something like this thanks for the help!! I just can't remember the exact wording of the question but I know it specifically mentioned actus reus of theft and not mens rea so I only wrote about actus reus but my friend said she wrote about mens rea as well so I'm just really starting to doubt myself as just comparing how easy it is to prove the actus reus of theft does seem too narrow of a question
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    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
    just try and wing it, done any revision?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    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 have got OCR econ on thursday as well. I would advise to focus on econ, since there is not much to remember for consent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    With regards to the 50 mark NFO's question... Was the potential assault about the "new shoes" said by Sandra or Talya?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tome97)
    With regards to the 50 mark NFO's question... Was the potential assault about the "new shoes" said by Sandra or Talya?
    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!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    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)
    Could also be gross negligence manslaughter in regards to the leaving the fire as he set in motion a chain of events and it is likely he had a duty to the victim due to his which he breached causing the death of V as seen through the analogy of Miller but then it has to be judged as to whether the medical negligence broke the chain of causation etc (didn't do this section B as I chose non-fatals instead so I didn't read it all!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethc1998)
    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).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tome97)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the consent paper question one does anyone have critical points and analytical points planned out?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What have people's teachers predicted for the essay question in consent?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by tome97)
    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?
    (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.

    Considering Tuberville v Savage:

    thedefendant placed his hand on his sword and said, 'If it were not assize-time, I would not takesuch language from you'.

    The action of putting his hand on the sword was threatening but wasfound to be negated by his words, which clearly implied that no physical action would betaken because the judges were in the vicinity.

    However, it ultimately all depends on whether the victim apprehended immediate unlawfulpersonal violence. If the X comes across Y in a dark alleyway and Y says ‘If you were notsuch a puny squit, I would punch your face in’. X may well apprehend immediate unlawfulpersonal violence and Y would have committed the actus reus of assault.

    Ultimately, the jury always decides on the basis of fact. Give both sides, then conclude your own opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its negative marking, so any wrong things you put they just ignore and you don't get marked down, but as you thought it was taylor who did the assault you may not get much marks, but marks for right points that you have stated?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 4, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.