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

AQA A2 Criminal Law 28th January. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hate how we don't get a choice for the C question anymore, so there is like three times the amount of work than previous years.. yeah I tend to moan about things too much lol

    Going to spend all tomorrow revising for this paper..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone roughly know how many pages the examiners would expect us to write per question?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    dude u don't get choices for evaluations otherwise I would only be revising 1, ask anyone here the exam is out of 75 and 5 marks for grammer etc..
    agree wiv you dude!! new specc wohoo x
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbow1992)
    I hate how we don't get a choice for the C question anymore, so there is like three times the amount of work than previous years.. yeah I tend to moan about things too much lol

    Going to spend all tomorrow revising for this paper..
    i know right? Why dont we get a choice ahhh moaning here myself lol :eek: :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Like me

    But again, Defences are very unlikely to come up. So i u just know the points that will be ok. But for Murder and Non Fatal, learn the essay.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Me eughhh I want to cry. I don't know **** all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Like me

    But again, Defences are very unlikely to come up. So i u just know the points that will be ok. But for Murder and Non Fatal, learn the essay.
    I'd rather defences came up than non fatals. For the defences it's recommended to discuss two, but non-fatals are so wishy washy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charliexo)
    I am wrong.
    My teacher showed us the new spec yesterday.
    Therefore, our whole class has only learnt, in depth, about one set of evaluations
    We've only done one so far too! My teacher left though, that's why. . Just learn the basic outline of the others anddd look at how it's structured, it'll help. My evaluation of non-fatals which I decided to learn at home is something like 2 weaknesses, a strength and then 2 reform suggestions.. or something like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    go on the aqa website for the new spec.
    we also hadn't learnt the evaluations for the defences AT ALL.
    our teacher only just found out we needed to today, but apparently aqa didn't make it clear enough and loads of people have complained
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charliexo)
    go on the aqa website for the new spec.
    we also hadn't learnt the evaluations for the defences AT ALL.
    our teacher only just found out we needed to today, but apparently aqa didn't make it clear enough and loads of people have complained
    lol! :p: I should've complained! :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    But again, Defences are very unlikely to come up. So i u just know the points that will be ok. But for Murder and Non Fatal, learn the essay.
    I sure hope you are right!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I want non-fatal evaluation to come up!

    Pretty much know that essay off by heart.



    (Original post by Swimmer)
    xyllix, u obvisly dnt know wat u talking bout.

    we get a paper.

    Q1 could be Non fatal, Manslaughter and Reform, the reform we MAY get a choice of Murder, Non fatal or defences. We may get 1 (non fatal most likely).

    Q2 will be Non fatal, MURDER and Reform. The reforms could be the same as above.

    The questions could obvisly be other way round.

    Hmm.. I'm confused. Reform only comes up on question c.


    It goes like this:

    Q1: A) Murder/voluntary manslaughter (defences) B) Non-fatal offences (defences) C) Evaluation of the law on whatever (reform and criticism)

    (Of course A and B could be in the same question or in any order.)

    Q2: A)Murder/involuntary manslaughter (defences) B) Non-fatal offences (defences) C) Evaluation of the law on whatever (reform and criticism)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Motivation!)
    i am, any questions?
    heyy i have quiet a few past criminal law papers i can post.... if u want it let me know.... taaa
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Dats wat i ment
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    Let me know what to improve and what you would give this out of 25 marks according to the mark scheme.


    Discuss the criminal liability of James for the murder of Karen.

    The Actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queens peace.(Sir Edward Coke) Karen was a reasonable person in being as she was not a foetus in the womb ( Attorney Generals Reference 3), nor was she brain dead. (Malcherek V Steel) The causation must be established; firstly factual causation, but for James setting fire to the house Karen would not have die. (Pagett) There must also be legal causation, James setting fire to the house is seen to be more than a minimal cause. (Cato) Therefore we have established that James has the Actus Reus of murder.

    The Mens Rea of murder must now be established. The Mens Rea of murder was defined by Sir Edward coke as malice aforethought express or implied. It is possible that James set fire to the house out of love and compassion of his brother. (Gray) James intended serious harm as he got the petrol out of his car and set fire to Greg’s house. (Vickers) It was said that nothing more than the actual intention to kill or cause serious harm should constitute the Mens Rea for murder. (Maloney) The foresight of consequences was established in the case of (Hancock and Shankland) as the grater the probability of a consequence the more likely the consequence was foreseen, if the consequence was foreseen, the greater the probability it was also intended. James has established both of these rules therefore the jury may infer intent.

    ... etc etc etc
    Hmm. I'm afraid to say too much as you have clearly been taught different cases and things to what my teachers have taught us. I think a good opening sentence is that

    'Murder is a common law offence, defined by Sir Edward Coke as 'the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought'

    Your definition is slightly different but I guess if you were taught that you should stick to it. I think the foetus and brain dead thing is a bit irrelevant, sounds like you're trying to fit things in to get marks when they're not appropriate. From the definition go on to define the actus reus. This will then include the issue of causation and all that stuff. However, if causation is clear, don't waste time going into the factual and legal test and all that jazz. Just say that 'causation is clear' and get on with the more important stuff. And don't forget to apply all this to the scenario as you go along (for example, if causation is clear - 'Bob clearly has the actus reus for murder' - or whatever).

    Then go on to define the mens rea. Try not to be too wordy as you won't really have the time. Turn your sentence...

    'The Mens Rea of murder must now be established. The Mens Rea of murder was defined by Sir Edward coke as malice aforethought express or implied.'

    ... into something shorter like 'The mens rea of murder is 'malice aforethought'. You already mentioned Edward Coke earlier so don't waste precious time talking about him again. I can't really comment on the rest of your mens rea paragraph as you seem to be talking about different principles and cases. Do you not do the issue of direct and oblique intent (Matthews and Alleyne, the Nedrick/Woollin direction etc)? Again, apply all this to the scenario.

    Then it's the partial defences. Discuss both if they apply, and if you have time. Start off with the one that you are strongest on (as long as it applies to the scenario!!). You seem pretty ok with provocation. One point, don't speak in first person - 'I believe that since Karen...'. This is something our teachers get really mad at us for :p:

    Don't forget to give the section for diminished responsibility (s.2 of the Hom Act). You haven't really explained the whole 'inherent causes' thing. After discussing the meaning of abnormality of the mind you have to say that this must arise from arrested/retarded development of the mind, any inherent causes, or disease/injury. Give some cases there too if you can. Then you can apply it to the scenario and deduce that it is inherent causes.

    I think you're doing pretty good otherwise, just try to include a bit more detail.
    I really couldn't give it a mark out of 25, I don't know how they grade these things really!
    Hope I helped. Ask if you need any more help
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    For Causation say 'Now that Actus Reus has been established, Causation needs to be satisfied. The are two types factual and legal, to establish factual we use 'but for' test, 'but for' D actions would the consequence have occured? (R v Pagett).'

    When u establish legal say 'D's act must be 'operative and substantial' cause of the victims death/injury'.
    Use cases such as R v Smith and R v Jordan if needed.

    Dude no offence, but ur second test of provocation is pooor, u wont get much marks, u have to explain how the test moved to include more characteristics, use teh cases i provided. R V Holley is teh case were only sex and age are taken into account( Holley is the most IMPORTANT case of the provocation).

    I got to go college now, when i come back i can help u if u want.

    And NO in Hancock and Shancock, the forasibility was 'Promable' it then changed to 'virtually certain' in the case of R v Wollin, this is oblique intend, dont forget to talk about direct too.

    Mention that murder is a crime of specific intend (Lipman).

    For provocation, dont u know the quote? 'where on charge on murder the jury can find that the accused has been provoked (wheather by things done said or both together) to do as he did shall be left and determined by jury'. I twisted it abit

    Its also 3 part test.

    1. Evidence of provacation? R v Doughty
    2. Did the defendat acytally loose his self control? Use Lords Devlin's quote here (Ahluwalia)
    3. would a reasonable man have lost his self control? Bedder, Dpp v camplin, r v smith, r v morhall and r v holley.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    u can revise either murder or involuntary manslaughter but they could mix them in two one question so it would be much safer to revise both .... im dreading it i dont have a clue x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    AAAAH.

    this exam is not going to go well for me

    I'm spending like every minute of the next day and a half revising but I have a feeling my brain's just gunna shut down lol
    doesn't help that I have to waste time in a pointless general studies exam this afternoon ¬¬

    what do people think the likelihood of a non-fatals criticism question coming up is?

    x
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    To establish diminished responsibility James must first have an abnormality of mind. An abnormality of mind is a mind so different to that of an ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal. (Byrne) James’s depression is an inherent cause of an abnormality of mind and not an external factor. (Tandy) It must now be established that the inherent cause (depression) substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts or omissions. It has to be more than minimal it must be substantial. (Gittens) James depression may be seen as a minimal cause therefore the defence of provocation is more likely to succeed as he meets the requirements for that defence more than one of diminished responsibility.
    Oh my god is this sufficient discussion of DR? I have so much written! :| And I hardly know it lolol
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachel10)
    u can revise either murder or involuntary manslaughter but they could mix them in two one question so it would be much safer to revise both .... im dreading it i dont have a clue x
    It would be so bad if they did mix the two. My teacher was saying that he doesn't see how they possibly could because there'd be far far too much to discuss. Apparently we still have to go through provocation and DR even if they're not likely to succeed therefore murder + provocation + DR + invol. manslaughter would be ridiculous of AQA! I'm going to spend about 5 minutes annotating each scenario beforehand so that I can see which one I'd rather answer. The questions no longer tell us whether it's murder or invol or nonfatals that we have to discuss, we have to find it for ourselves. :nothing:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 26, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.