Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    I did
    (Original post by bethc1998)
    Yesss! This is what I applied anf everyone told me Ii was wrong! I spoke about Aitken and Jones and said that they could not prove intention whilst the powers of horseplay as a defence of consent extend to severe and serious situations and therefore it is likely that it would be avaliable here!
    I did another post on the example I gave (R v Lamb) a couple of posts down from this OP.

    Edit: I think your answer is most likely correct. I didn't see the question but case authority generally suggests horseplay can be used to show no intention, but there are limits to the remit.

    Remember, horseplay isn't a "defence" - it's simply used to show no mens rea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mimir)
    I did

    I did another post on the example I gave (R v Lamb) a couple of posts down from this OP.

    Edit: I think your answer is most likely correct. I didn't see the question but case authority generally suggests horseplay can be used to show no intention, but there are limits to the remit.

    Remember, horseplay isn't a "defence" - it's simply used to show no mens rea.

    Oh I know Constantly referred to consent as the partial defence here with horseplay being the factor considered as the mitigating factor allowing the defence
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    What did you guys get?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    What did you guys get?
    A, you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Two A's, can't believe it!!
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    A, you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    What did you guys get?
    A* overall 71 in criminal law special study paper and 111 in criminal law paper.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hope_at_last)
    A* overall 71 in criminal law special study paper and 111 in criminal law paper.
    101 and 69 for me, well done!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GFEFC1)
    101 and 69 for me, well done!!
    Thank you. Well done to you too, they are amazing results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got an A* overall, 112/120 in Criminal Law and 80/80 on the special study.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got an A 95/120 and 72/80
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liberal 123)
    Got an A 95/120 and 72/80
    Congratulations
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suraj98)
    Congratulations
    Thanks and congratulations to you to
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BIGJohnson777)
    How the hell have you managed to get 80/80 on the special study? That's amazing!
    I've got 73 on the special study and 119 in Criminal Law.
    oh wow nearly full marks in criminal law, that's amazing. Well done!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _howl)
    Got an A overall.

    74/80 for the Special Study and 111/120 in Criminal Law.
    How is that not an A*? You have got 92.5% of UMS.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _howl)
    My AS grade was a B, and despite resitting, it remained a B (mainly due to my lack of organisation).

    I'm still surprised I got an A. I thought I completely flopped the Special Study.
    An A is still stellar, congrats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liberal 123)
    Got an A 95/120 and 72/80
    If you got an A, what UMS score did you get? (I'm trying to work out how close to an A i was!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhiannaf)
    If you got an A, what UMS score did you get? (I'm trying to work out how close to an A i was!)
    329 ums overall, you needed 320 for an A
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the Special study we are predominantly looking at the following 8 cases:

    Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]
    R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997]
    R v Clarence [1888]
    R v Wilson [1984]
    R v Cunningham [1957]
    JJC (a minor) v Eisenhower [1983]
    R v Bollom [2003]
    R v Golding [2014]

    Anyone who could provide case analysis on each including critical points, analytical points, a linked case and what ever else they feel worthy of note, it would be HUGELY appreciated.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 4, 2017
Poll
Favourite type of bread

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.