Law Unit 4 14th June 2013 (AQA)

Yeah I hardly knew any cases for any topics to be honest! Well not the names anyway, just didn't have enough time to go over them. Yeah me too, you don't realise just how long is it until you have to write it down and apply it! I did fault, which I was really happy about. Otherwise I would have done morality too

Posted from TSR Mobile

I feel more comfortable with the cases and examples for those. Ah, that's alright then It was alright. I didn't particularly like that I had to write negligent out twice though! It's so long! What did you do for concepts? I'm so happy morality came up!

Why did you do robbery i did criminal damage

Ow right i used the force to prove Burglary 91B, to show that he went on to commit GBH

To put it in simple terms 91A is when you enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser intending to steal, commit GBH or commit criminal damage.

91B is when you enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser and then go on to steal or commit GBH

what conclusion did u come up to for this scenario on psychiatric harm??

Ow right i used the force to prove Burglary 91B, to show that he went on to commit GBH

Isnt robber Aggravated theft? But there was no theft in second part .... also for Burglary did you do 91a and mention the criminal damage of the plug socket thing and 91b for the GBH? .... I also did criminal damage and aggravated aswell

I said that Pam would be successful in her claim and that Jane wouldn't as she didn't fulfill the criteria needed for a secondary victim and mentioned some case examples to back it. How about you?

Ye thats the one i also went for, although it could have been 91a too

I didn't do 91A because he didn't intend to commit CD at the point of entry. I only did 91B and said that he went on to Commit GBH. For the Criminal Damage i Just did Criminal Damage

i was thinking of doing 91A but didn't find any evidence to suggest that he intended to steal, commit GBH or criminal damage, so i just stuck with doing 91B

Ah ok I was so rushed for time though and really struggled to finish

yep I wrote same and what did u write for ben??its good to see that someone answered this question all did theft lol

I too was unsure but I did both to cover my tracks.

Oh good! I said Ben had breached his duty for Alan and Pam under negligence and liable for Alan in Occupiers Liability 1984 as he was a young child and mentioned allurements. Haha, yeah I noticed that. Seems like tort isn't too popular.

yeh....guess that is good....but Ben did insert warnings and he did have a fence? so would he still b liable??

9 (1) (A) is where you enter as a trespasser, with the intention of committing the ulterior offence - whether you succeed or not. 9 (1) (B) is where, having entered as a trespasser (maybe by going into a prohibited area) you attempt to steal or actually steal. The question is, where was the intention to steal formed?

I said he would because children are owed a higher standard of care than adults and also because it said he was very young and young children won't read the signs and would've been allured by the derelict garage which, to them, was fun. It was tricky but I think as long as you've backed up why you came to the conclusion you did, you'll be fine