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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipandor)
    heyy i have quiet a few past criminal law papers i can post.... if u want it let me know.... taaa
    go for it mate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    James may be able to plead one of two defences to murder if the requirements are established. Firstly provocation, S3 of the homicide act 1957 states that it is things done or said or both that could amount to provocation. Karen shouted abuse at James about his family and his depression; therefore he has established the first requirement for provocation as it is things said. James must succeed both the subject test and the objective test for a defence of provocation to be available to him. The subjective test requirements are was the defendant provoked enough to lose self-control. James may have been provoked enough as she said things about his mental illness and his family, therefore his loss of self control could have been sudden and temporary as not to make him master of his mind for the moment. (Duffy) There was not a lapse of time. (Gregory) Therefore he has established the first part of the two part test.

    The second part test is the objective test; would a reasonable man have lost his self control in the circumstances. A reasonable man is a man both physically and mentally. (Bedder) I believe that since Karen was shouting abuse about his mental illness and family, a reasonable man with the same characteristics would have lost his self control as the accused did. (Camplin) Therefore he may be able to plead a partial defence of provocation to murder, however diminished responsibility may also be available depending on whether James meets the requirements.

    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.
    Offline

    2
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ratherchloe)
    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
    Hey thanks for the feedback. Yh I've been
    taught the nedrick test also but I thought that the hancock and shankland test was more reasonable in this scenario. Could have probably used it but thought the examiner may think I am
    going a bit overboard.
    Send me a message through student room with ur email, we can talk there if you like.
    Offline

    2
    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

    15
    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

    15
    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:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    About 2
    About two sides? Surely only if you write really small? We've been recommended to write 3 or 4 sides
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .x.sketch.x.)
    what do people think the likelihood of a non-fatals criticism question coming up is?x
    From what people have told me it is likely to come up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing this exam. Just started revising a couple weeks ago.

    I know that sounds bad but I wasn't intending to do well at first, I just got told last week that I can't do a third year at college and I was going to retake law so I hadn't bothered revising. How nice it was of my welfare officer to wait until the week before the exam to tell me

    Hence I now have two days to revise the entirety of section 3. Go me :woo:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beige_Angel)
    I'm doing this exam. Just started revising a couple weeks ago.

    I know that sounds bad but I wasn't intending to do well at first, I just got told last week that I can't do a third year at college and I was going to retake law so I hadn't bothered revising. How nice it was of my welfare officer to wait until the week before the exam to tell me

    Hence I now have two days to revise the entirety of section 3. Go me :woo:
    good luck, i've got today and tomorrow to be able to each question in 25 minutes, which is hard because i think i waffle to much.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    About two sides? Surely only if you write really small? We've been recommended to write 3 or 4 sides
    How would you write 3 or 4 pages in 25minutes, aswell as finding out what the scenario is, seriously?

    most that you could write for one question is about 2 and a half.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    How would you write 3 or 4 pages in 25minutes, aswell as finding out what the scenario is, seriously?

    most that you could write for one question is about 2 and a half.
    It depends how quick you write and the size of your writing though. On average the amount of content we have is around 3/4 of a page for each offence/defence/partial defence and there's often around 4 issues in a scenario and that's around 3 pages. Most in my class, for the mock, managed between 3 and 3.5 iirc. It's not impossible. :dontknow:

    also, you said 'as well as finding out the scenario' in 25 minutes. But I'm sure we get given thirty minutes per question this year? You'll have ninety minutes and only about five of those would be taken up annotating and reading the scenario.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beige_Angel)
    I'm doing this exam. Just started revising a couple weeks ago.

    I know that sounds bad but I wasn't intending to do well at first, I just got told last week that I can't do a third year at college and I was going to retake law so I hadn't bothered revising. How nice it was of my welfare officer to wait until the week before the exam to tell me

    Hence I now have two days to revise the entirety of section 3. Go me :woo:
    Good luck! I have a few defences and two evaluation essays to learn yet just try to learn the basic structure of your essay and it may help! And associating things with the cases too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There seem to be conflicting opinions on this (it seems like each teacher is told a different thing, typical AQA) but if I focused revision on murder and voluntary manslaughter/non fatal offences/reform then would I run into any trouble? I'm under the impression that of the two questions, one will involve a murder/vol manslaughter and the other will be involuntary manslaughter, but may well be wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glitterbox7)
    There seem to be conflicting opinions on this (it seems like each teacher is told a different thing, typical AQA) but if I focused revision on murder and voluntary manslaughter/non fatal offences/reform then would I run into any trouble? I'm under the impression that of the two questions, one will involve a murder/vol manslaughter and the other will be involuntary manslaughter, but may well be wrong.
    It may well be like this. I suppose they'd stay close to last years format?I've been told to learn both because apparently the senior/chief examiners have said that they could mix together different things in each question rather than having one as murder, one as non fatals.. So it could have a question where you need to discuss a non fatal but also one of the involuntary manslaughters, for example. I really don't think they would or should do this but they have said that they could so just remain aware. annotate both scenarios before you start answering so that you can decide which you would rather do.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.