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

Aqa law unit 2 *offical thread* watch

  • View Poll Results: What grade do you think you got on the law unit 2 exam?
    A
    15
    35.71%
    B
    14
    33.33%
    C
    5
    11.90%
    D
    4
    9.52%
    E
    2
    4.76%
    U
    2
    4.76%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ptracey_)
    I forgot to refer to the case for duty of care on question 10 what happen will get 6/8
    No application = max 5 for an 8 marker just going on previous mark schemes!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    On the criminal section i completely forgot what the burden and standard of proof on the summary offence question, how many marks would that bit be worth.
    1 mark each I should imagine... So 2 in total.

    Standard is - beyond reasonable doubt (DPP v Woolington) burden is on the prosecution that must prove D committed and offence.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    For the assault question i talked about assault fully, that one went fine.

    In the one about GBH it said he may be charged for section 20. I defined the AR of section 20 and explained how he had the AR especially with brain damage being very serious harm. But then i said he did not have intention for any harm not even serious then i explained using the case of parmenter that if he does not see the risk he will be acquitted. Therefore as he only intended the MR for battery he would be charged for ABH. Will i get any marks in the second question?
    Not quite. He was at least reckless as to some harm ,as it is forseeable that, if you push someone over, they will come to some harm

    also, just a note that only "serious harm" is required for GBH - look up Saunders
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because aki didnt go to the hospital straight away do you discuss thin skull rule or vs own actions??
    And how what the remoteness questions sly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Segsation)
    I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
    Yeah the one about remoteness of damage got me thinking cause it was a generous question for 8 marks!!! But it only asked you to explain remoteness of damage so 🤔🤔
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Segsation)
    I thought it was quite tricky, especially how the questions were worded slightly differently, e.g. giving a whole question just for omissions and another whole one just for remoteness rules. Made me think i should have been writing more as usually they would be in a question along with something else
    I wrote what I'd usually write, but i made sure the bits being marked were in detail. You know becuase in question 8 it only asked you for the remoteness part, did we have to briefly explain the rules in question 9 again and apply?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mireri)
    Not quite. He was at least reckless as to some harm ,as it is forseeable that, if you push someone over, they will come to some harm

    also, just a note that only "serious harm" is required for GBH - look up Saunders
    I put for assault Aki had the intent

    And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mireri)
    Not quite. He was at least reckless as to some harm ,as it is forseeable that, if you push someone over, they will come to some harm

    also, just a note that only "serious harm" is required for GBH - look up Saunders
    I understand that, but he didn't push him over, he pushed him away. I know it is gbh s20 now but I'll still get a lot of credit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I put for assault Aki had the intent

    And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?
    I put the same for assault, but that one was pretty obvious

    For the gbh, i screwed up and put s47 for mens rea , what was i thinking in that exam, at least the first half was right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    I put the same for assault, but that one was pretty obvious

    For the gbh, i screwed up and put s47 for mens rea , what was i thinking in that exam, at least the first half was right.
    AQA come up with the greatest names though... Aki and Binh haha!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    I understand that, but he didn't push him over, he pushed him away. I know it is gbh s20 now but I'll still get a lot of credit.
    They used the phrase "roughly" though?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I put for assault Aki had the intent

    And then GBH Binh was reckless... Anyone else?
    Totally agree with that!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=NHM;64992865]
    (Original post by Mireri)

    Thank you :-) hope you did well!
    Well I finished! That's half of the challenge with Unit 2!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjcc99)
    Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.
    Ooops! It specificaly said discuss whether a duty was owed to the homeless man (Euan?).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjcc99)
    Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.
    I spoke dan and chris what were we actually meant to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    I spoke dan and chris what were we actually meant to do.
    apparently my friends said we had to write about the Euan the homeless man but i literally wrote nothing on him!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjcc99)
    Did anyone else not write about the homeless man in duty of care owed? i wrote about Dan i think didnt even include the homeless man.
    I put a little bit about the homeless man... Only in terms of FJR tho
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjcc99)
    apparently my friends said we had to write about the Euan the homeless man but i literally wrote nothing on him!
    Who the f**k is euan. I didn't even read the passage lol
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 25, 2017
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.