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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    So how would u recomend to talk about causation?
    Basically
    If there is clearly an intervening act or a potential intervening act, discuss factual and legal causation in full with cases.
    However, if it is clear that there is no intervening act, simply say both Factual Causation and Legal causation are satisfied here. There is no need to actually go into detail as it is worth no marks without an intervening act.
    Saves vital time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Man are you 100% sure. I would still put 1 case for each.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Man are you 100% sure. I would still put 1 case for each.
    What the mark schemes say and what AQA has said. Even if you decide to put a case for each, there is still no need to actually explain what factual is etc. so still saves time.
    BUT only if there is no intervening act.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right can someone explain briefly with cases intoxication basic intent and specific intent ad I'm not getting how if someone drinks voluntarily can be raised as a crime of specific intent, I dnt f*****ng get it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    Right can someone explain briefly with cases intoxication basic intent and specific intent ad I'm not getting how if someone drinks voluntarily can be raised as a crime of specific intent, I dnt f*****ng get it.
    Involuntary Intoxication is where the D did not knowingly get intoxicated. The question is - did they still make a choice to commit the crime while intoxicated (MR)? If not then intox is a defence. (Kingston)

    Voluntary intoxication is where the D got intoxicated on purpose but was too intoxicated to have any MR. However, it can only work with specific intent crimes when the intox is voluntary. (Seehan + Moore)

    With basic intent crimes, the voluntary intox counts as recklessness as recklessness forms the MR of a basic intent crime. Therefore intoxication fails as a defence if the intox was on purpose and the crime is basic intent. (Majewski)

    Hope that helps.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Involuntory is the result of spiked drinks or medicines taken on proper medical advice ( r v hardie). its complete defence.

    Voluntry, specific intent crimes, if D doesnt not have specific intent he is entitled to be acquited (Lipman).
    Basic intent is intention or recklesness, as its voluntory it will most likely fail (jury decide) majewski rule. Use Lord Elwyns-jone Quote and Lord Simons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loopylawrence)
    What the mark schemes say and what AQA has said. Even if you decide to put a case for each, there is still no need to actually explain what factual is etc. so still saves time.
    BUT only if there is no intervening act.
    But murdr is a result crime, so causation is needed..no?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I cba revising I've wasted half of the day and not touched my notes since five pm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    But murdr is a result crime, so causation is needed..no?
    At A2 they expect you know what causation is. Unlike AS, it is not specific on the markscheme. It is assumed with murder that causation is satisfied, unless for example someone e.g. a hospital messed up. But even then, an intervening act will never break the chain of causation with murder as you would then not be able to talk about prov or DR. So with non fatal and murder, dont detail causation unless you need to question an intervening act. In this case, go through it in full. Also go through it in full in Involuntary Manslaughter everytime.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they ask u to evaluate murder do they mean voluntary manslaughter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Murder and voluntary manslaughter (DR + Prov) ALWAYS go together.
    BUT watch out as AQA have hinted that they may show evidence of murder with either prov or DR, and then also UAM.
    So you could end up talking about murder with prov as a defence + how they could be charged with UAM instead of murder. If you can only see prov OR Diminished Respon instead of both, then look to see if UAM could be charged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, the question will not specifically say "Murder" or "Involuntary Manslaughter".
    The new exam simply says "evaluate the liability of X for the death of .........."
    Therefore you need to identify what it is yourself just to make it harder
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yea, wats UAM??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unlawful Act Manslaughter
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loopylawrence)
    Also, the question will not specifically say "Murder" or "Involuntary Manslaughter".
    The new exam simply says "evaluate the liability of X for the death of .........."
    Therefore you need to identify what it is yourself just to make it harder
    Even thought the new specification is released and it still states discuss the murder of ghulam
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmm...UAM is piss easy, but u have to explain causation at the end for 'Death' part, right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Could the same question not ask you to discuss the liabilty of X for murder an of Y for involuntary manslaughter rather then the same person being liable for both? I'd think that if it is the same person liable for both it will be two people that have died i.e he murdered one person and committed invol manslaughter against another?!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Also could someone tell me how many cases you have for DR? I have only two and none demonstrating the causes in section two
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    GUYS, you don't have to evaluate involuntary manslaughter anywhere on the paper. its not on the spec, in fact it says on the spec you dont need to evaluate involuntary manslaughter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Motivation!)
    GUYS, you don't have to evaluate involuntary manslaughter anywhere on the paper. its not on the spec, in fact it says on the spec you dont need to evaluate involuntary manslaughter.
    We know this. But u have to know it incase it comes up in B part.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.