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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have revised and created essay plans for 3 concepts, BCI, Morality, and Creativity - but judging from this thread - is it fine to JUST memorize morality you reckon?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was thinking i should just revise morality
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jon1234321)
    For tort, when it comes to proving duty for medical negligence, can you just state there is a precedent situation between a doctor and the patient? Or do you have to state that and go through the 3 part caparo test?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah you can just say there is an established duty of care between doctor and patient
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunDun111)
    I think if we just talked about one in enough detail it would be ok?
    I just mentioned that the case of Barnes and how the court of appeal have set out stipulations which means the rules go beyond consent and an offence is committed.

    Surely examiners can't be that harsh at marking to be so specific, they have to be some people that high grades haha.
    True there was this girl who got an A* last year at my sixth form (we used her paper for 'model answers') but imo 2/3 of her answers were weak asf but obviously not otherwise she wouldn't have got the grade 😂
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPFM)
    Out of all of the offences which are specific intent and which are basic intent?
    Basic Criminal damage, Arson and S9(1)(B) burgulary when they commit GBH (as it must be s20)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How would we use the case of Bevans (1998) in a scenario involving s.21 blackmail? Do you just say that gain or loss requires something of some economic value or is there more to it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone have a case which failed due to 'policy' when establishing Caparo 3 part test?

    Also how many special tests are there for breach my teacher didn't go over it this year and lost my book from last year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (concerned with with police's handling of the Yorkshire Ripper case)
    (Original post by BJO97)
    Anyone have a case which failed due to 'policy' when establishing Caparo 3 part test?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samgriff1998)
    How would we use the case of Bevans (1998) in a scenario involving s.21 blackmail? Do you just say that gain or loss requires something of some economic value or is there more to it?
    Yeah that's it. Don't stress it though as Bevans has never come up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ciarasimpson29)
    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (concerned with with police's handling of the Yorkshire Ripper case)
    Already have this case for proximity
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rust Cohle)
    Yeah that's it. Don't stress it though as Bevans has never come up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samgriff1998)
    Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?
    My teacher said don't bother with definitions? eh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How long is everyone going to stay up to revise for?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunDun111)
    My teacher said don't bother with definitions? eh
    My college's law department is a shambles so I'll take your teachers word for it. One was sacked after 8 weeks and the other went to Russia for two months in the middle of term. Our college is closing next year because it is poor lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what are everyones predictions for this exam?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samgriff1998)
    My college's law department is a shambles so I'll take your teachers word for it. One was sacked after 8 weeks and the other went to Russia for two months in the middle of term. Our college is closing next year because it is poor lol
    Yeab but my teacher might be a shambless.. Our old one left in year 12 who was teaching for 10 years Law straight, the new one this year this was her first ever time teaching! She also marked like every essay I did like 25/25 when It clearly wasnt haha
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KP.)
    what are everyones predictions for this exam?
    One scenario intoxication, the other duress. Every time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For lawful excuses s5(2)(a)/s5(2)(b) - Do they only apply to criminal damage WITHOUT aggravated damage? Or do they apply to all the criminal damage offences from s1(1) - s1(3)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samgriff1998)
    Ok cheers. My teacher also stressed the importance of learning the definitions within the different statutes, such as that of s.1(1) TA68. Is that actually important or is just knowing the elements of the offence enough?
    Yes you need to be able to define it. e.g. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of prop bta with itpd the other of it.

    Then define each element with statutory reference and support with relevant case law. You won't be awarded sound otherwise. You don't need to refer to every aspect of a statue though if not relevant, e.g. no need to refer to s4(3,4) if property isn't wild plant/animal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sonicmailman)
    For lawful excuses s5(2)(a)/s5(2)(b) - Do they only apply to criminal damage WITHOUT aggravated damage? Or do they apply to all the criminal damage offences from s1(1) - s1(3)?
    All.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

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.