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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah the murder one includes voluntary manslaughter methinks!! If it asks for murder alone then oh my godddd I have nowhere near enough and would have to do another question or randomly make it up on the spot lol!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, i would love to get Non fatal with self defence and/or intoxication (1st Q) for 2nd Q murder with provocation and then reform of non fatal offences...how good wud this be!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    The unlawful act could be something like arson/kidnapping too and on the mark schemes it says you don't need to actually know the AR and MR of them as they're not part of the syllabus. However, we've been told that even if it is something like arson (as it has been in the past) you could still class it as an assault as the fire caused the victim to apprehend immediate violence, and if it is something like kidnapping (which has also come up before) you could reduce it and class it as a battery as the defendant obviously had to apply unlawful force to get hold of the person. :ninja:
    Yes exactly right arson could be classed as assault, and kidnappyg battery, so its still comes down to those 2.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Motivation!)
    to apply the situation? its not as hard as you make it sound guys!

    for example, in a murder question when you're talking about the mens rea you would say malice aforethought express or implied then for example "i believe bob had implied malice aforethought as to the murder of millie because he only stabbed her once"

    if you think if of your questions in chunks...and then you can either apply at the end of the chunk, or within the chunk

    i hope this helps like.
    hey, thanx for replying! our teacher finally explained it today and it was simple!! :eek: I worry too much, I still need an A though! :eek:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Ermm what's this thing about expressed or implied malice aforethought?!?!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Implied malice is intention to cause GBH and expressed intention to kill, u talk about them after u say 'mens rea of murder is maliceaforethought'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hendy16)
    aww man! I'm only revsing muder plus prov and dimished in detail and i sort of know invol m/s but if it came up I wouldn't be able to get an A which i need!! Oh i wish this was over, I only feel confident about the non-fatals because we done them at AS .
    I'm confident with the non fatals as well because we also did them at AS!! ahh I don't know if I should revise murder and involuntary manslaughter??? :confused: which one's easier? since the exams tomorrow!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've wrote out 3 essays for the evaluation on each topic. I've just got to learn these essays by heart!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweetgyal24)
    hey, thanx for replying! our teacher finally explained it today and it was simple!! :eek: I worry too much, I still need an A though! :eek:
    yeah i worry lots too, but i'm glad you get it now good luck for tomorrow!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Motivation!)
    yeah i worry lots too, but i'm glad you get it now good luck for tomorrow!
    thanx and good luck to you too! This threads on a roll :p: well obviously, because of the OP who posted in it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, u still deciding wat to revise???....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to go and revise everything now for the rest of the evening. hopefully I will be able to remember all the evaluation questionss! I have no idea what I am going to do if the B question is on involuntary manslaughter seeing as our teacher hasn't taught us anything about it

    Good luck everyone!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbow1992)
    I'm going to go and revise everything now for the rest of the evening. hopefully I will be able to remember all the evaluation questionss! I have no idea what I am going to do if the B question is on involuntary manslaughter seeing as our teacher hasn't taught us anything about it

    Good luck everyone!!
    U will most liekly get a choice 1 Q will be on murder and then the other on mansloughter, unlikely they gona come together.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    i'm not revising anymore. i've had enough
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    nononon keep revising, u will suffer for few hours, but when u get ur results, u will be happy for months to come...wats better?!..
    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

    14
    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.
    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

    14
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 26, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.