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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    dreading it, even im one of the 6 people from 50+ at college who managed to even pass AS law!!! but this one im dreading, left revision well too late! i predict a resit in June ! lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbow1992)
    have the questions gone from 25 marks to 30 marks?

    Nah, still 25 marks.



    My school has already posted the date of the June Law 4 exam! :mad: Don't need to be thinking about them just yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BryonieIV)
    Nah, still 25 marks.



    My school has already posted the date of the June Law 4 exam! :mad: Don't need to be thinking about them just yet.
    Oh, ok. thank you!

    so has mine!!! i am so stressed and I only have 2 exams this month.. i have 5 in June so I have no idea what I am gonig to be like then :eek3:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    :console: apparently the essays are bigger too not that much bigger but apparently they are. I hope I'm wrong.
    oh balls! lol i'm definately going to learn from my mistake for this paper though, i'm going to start revision in like April for the next lot!!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the evaluation was on general defences would it be Ok if I only talk about 3? (sorry about all the questions lol)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BryonieIV)
    Yeah, that's exactly right! :smartass:
    I can't remember cases for insanity self defence involuntary manslaughter etc :sad:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbow1992)
    If the evaluation was on general defences would it be Ok if I only talk about 3? (sorry about all the questions lol)
    yes you can do two or three in depth or all of them briefly, we've been told. Everyone seems to be doing insanity and intoxication but for some odd reason I happen to be doing consent and self defence o-0
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .x.sketch.x.)
    oh balls! lol i'm definitely going to learn from my mistake for this paper though, i'm going to start revision in like April for the next lot!!!!!
    I say this for every set of exams lol :mmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    I say this for every set of exams lol :mmm:
    haha me too, this time i mean it!! .... maybe ....


    um my brain has begun to shutdown, can someone please tell me what we need to learn for the criticisms essay? i know NFO's and Murder, but i'm not sure which ones i'll need of the others (pleasedontsayallofthempleasedon tsayallofthem) lol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Learn NFO and Murder, learn few poitns for general defences if they come up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    I can't remember cases for insanity self defence involuntary manslaughter etc :sad:
    For insanity - M'Naghten (killed prime minister) - established the 3 elements to prove insanity. Kemp - disease of mind can be temporary (2nd element). Windle - knew it was legally wrong (said "they'll hang me for this" ), so no defence (3rd element).

    Self defence - Necessary - Bird - necessary as defendant believed it to be. Gladstone Williams - necessary by what defendant genuinely thought was happening. Unreasonable/too excessive force - Clegg.



    Most of mine are only 3 cases per defence.


    Sometimes it helps me to think of words to do with the case name which fit with what happen in the case.

    So like with Bird - it involved someone taking someones eye out, so I think of birds with beady eyes and slightly disgusting, but some birds peck eyes out. :o:

    And then with Tabassum - it was about a guy who pretended to be a doctor so he could touch women's breasts. And well, his name kind of sounds like 'bosom'.:o:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BryonieIV)
    For insanity - M'Naghten (killed prime minister) - established the 3 elements to prove insanity. Kemp - disease of mind can be temporary (2nd element). Windle - knew it was legally wrong (said "they'll hang me for this" ), so no defence (3rd element).

    Self defence - Necessary - Bird - necessary as defendant believed it to be. Gladstone Williams - necessary by what defendant genuinely thought was happening. Unreasonable/too excessive force - Clegg.



    Most of mine are only 3 cases per defence.


    Sometimes it helps me to think of words to do with the case name which fit with what happen in the case.

    So like with Bird - it involved someone taking someones eye out, so I think of birds with beady eyes and slightly disgusting, but some birds peck eyes out. :o:

    And then with Tabassum - it was about a guy who pretended to be a doctor so he could touch women's breasts. And well, his name kind of sounds like 'bosom'.:o:
    Wow thanks! Our cases are really different! For insanity: rules on insanity established in MNaghten and need to prove that D had a disease of the mind which led to defective reasoning.

    A disease of the mind according to the court in Sullivan is an interference with the ordinary faculties of memory, reasoning and understanding. The court went on to say it can be an organic cause or functional cause and the key question to ask is whether it was internal. Includes epilepsy, hyperglaecemia like in Hennessy and sleepwalking like in Burgess.

    Defective reasoning can be shown in two ways - I have the Windle case for it being proven by showing that the defendant didn't know what they did was legally wrong and alternatively it can be proven by showing they didn't know the true nature and quality of their act...

    I havent got anything about it being temporary or kemp or anything :dontknow:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Mmm

    For insanity we have M'Naghten, then r v kemp for defect, and r v windle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Heard something interesting. NEVER go into causation unless there is a potential intervening act. If there is not, simply say "Factual and Legal causation are satisfied here". They dont give marks for it unless there is an IA. Saves time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loopylawrence)
    Heard something interesting. NEVER go into causation unless there is a potential intervening act. If there is not, simply say "Factual and Legal causation are satisfied here". They dont give marks for it unless there is an IA. Saves time.
    LOL who said?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    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:

    i know its totally not fair and we have only an hour and 30 minutes to do it not even counting the reform and non fatal .... my teacher says there is a chance but it would mean you woukld have to write less but im still worried :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

    im so crap at the evaluative questions and i need to revise consent and self defence cus im crap at those aswell. ugh.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachel10)
    i know its totally not fair and we have only an hour and 30 minutes to do it not even counting the reform and non fatal .... my teacher says there is a chance but it would mean you woukld have to write less but im still worried :confused:
    you'd have to cut down considerably on provocation and dr I guess. We've been told to discuss both even if only one seems relevant :/ and insanity can also be discussed as part of a murder question, as can other defences.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    when the guy is a diabetic and forgot to take his insulin how do we explain the mens rea since he had no recollection of what happend.
    He was reckless??
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Motivation!)
    ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

    im so crap at the evaluative questions and i need to revise consent and self defence cus im crap at those aswell. ugh.
    What cases do you have for consent? consent is possibly the most interesting, once you get stuck into it I reckon it's not that bad .
 
 
 
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.