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

Murder/manslaughter Qs watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    do you know whats likely to come up for the evaluative question?
    Do you mean the reform question (part (c))?

    Back in my day, there was the option of non-fatals or homicide (so you only had to prepare one since both would be on), but from what I understand, you guys have to prepare three topics and you'll only be given one question - what are the topics?

    If it's murder, manslaughter and non-fatals, it's hard to say if they've all been on before. However, if it was the reform of, say, rape, which hasn't ever been used in the past, I suspect they'd be inclined to "try it out" on you, with it being the first year of the A2 (and indeed the first paper).

    Having said that, boards are generally eager to show that their new papers "performed as expected" (that's a virtual quote from OCR's Examiner's Reports), so I wouldn't expect anything too taxing. There's a lot of scope for question-setting when it hasn't been done before, so the chance of a nice paper is higher.

    Disclaimer (since I'm a lawyer :p:): this doesn't mean you can do no revision and still succeed! I haven't seen the papers, so I can't guarantee anything! :cool:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    we have to revise all four for the reform question: murder, voluntary manslaughter, non fatal offences and defences. im thinking about just revising three of them and taking a risk. ;/
    Hmmm...if you want to take that approach, I'd revise all of the Law Commission's proposals and/or academic lawyers' quotes about the offences, and rely on your legal knowledge and common sense to identify the problems on the day. Depending on how confident you are with the other part of the paper, I'd strongly recommend doing the whole job well the first time and revising it all - think how much of a pain it'd be if you had to resit this paper! Up to you though.

    EDIT: Typo :o:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppety_Kid)

    Yeah, you could have something like criminal damage (do you guys have to do blackmail now? I've done the A2 on the old specification and I didn't, but I imagine that if D blackmails V who commits suicide, you could have blackmail as the unlawful act - of course, that depends on causation), but as you say, I don't think it's very likely.
    Ooohh, we've not been told about blackmail! But I'll keep it in mind. :yep:. I do get confused with things like this though. Would the victim's own act not be a novus actus interveniens?

    The most annoying thing the examiner puts on is the thing in provocation about self-induced characteristics. Tandy, and stuff like that. It was always a ***** to get my head around, so when it came up in my exam (June 2009), I decided to do the first question on non-fatals and manslaughter instead. So yeah, revise that, if nothing else! :p:
    I thought Tandy was something to do with intoxication? I can't remember the case but I have definitely heard of it. Argh it's a bit frustrating that I can't recall it. :mad:

    Yeah, you should be aiming to write about three issues. Normally, that'd be two non-fatals and a defence, e.g. battery, ABH (maybe even "ABH bordering on GBH" or "GBH bordering on s.18") and a defence of intoxication. Obviously discuss intoxication briefly even if it's (probably) going to fail, since you've still identified a third issue.
    Is ABH bordering on GBH a different offence to ABH or GBH on it's own? :lolwut: I think the way we were told to do it was if it seems like one that could be a bit of both such as ABH and GBH, discuss ABH but then briefly write a paragraph about how the D could be found guilty of GBH if it can be shown that the injury was serious etc etc.


    I don't think you have to write 4-6 sides - I got really into the paper and (getting full marks) only ever wrote about 3-4 sides per question! I'd spend 5 minutes planning all of the questions together by annotating the relevant parts of the scenario with the issues (to check you've got enough), then write like hell. It's worth spending the time beforehand so you know where your answer's going.
    Ha, I write quite big too but we were told around 4-6 pages, though 6 is maybe pushing it a bit! Do you think it's best to choose a question based on the scenario or based on the other questions? If that makes sense (you have a choice between two I think) - But we don't get the choice of which evaluation to answer anymore!

    You can apply other defences - I only mentioned SD since it's the most common. Anything that makes the "unlawful" act potentially lawful is worth mentioning.
    Thanks! I'ma rep you asap. :coma:

    Another thing I wanted to ask, though...
    There was a scenario we were given and it included something like 'Hearing Arron shout, Colin jumped backwards and to his left, straight into Dan his three year old child, and bruised Dan's ankle'

    Would the principle of transferred malice still be apparent if the defendant commits one crime (assault against Colin) but it leads to a different crime against someone else? (I'd say it's ABH moreso than a battery for Dan because he's only three years old therefore it would interfere with his health and comfort etc.)

    I have so many little little questions that are really quite trivial. Sorry ahaha. And well done on getting full marks :p:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    we have to revise all four for the reform question: murder, voluntary manslaughter, non fatal offences and defences. im thinking about just revising three of them and taking a risk. ;/
    Murder/voluntary manslaughter will be part of one question. As far as we know, there won't be an involuntary manslaughter question for evaluation. :dontknow:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Ooohh, we've not been told about blackmail! But I'll keep it in mind. :yep:. I do get confused with things like this though. Would the victim's own act not be a novus actus interveniens?
    Oh my God, so many questions! :woo:

    I don't know - I'm going on Dhaliwal, when a husband abused his wife and she committed suicide. He was convicted (of murder?) since it was held that her actions didn't break the chain - presumably they were sufficiently foreseeable. Maybe the same thing would apply here...

    I thought Tandy was something to do with intoxication? I can't remember the case but I have definitely heard of it. Argh it's a bit frustrating that I can't recall it. :mad:
    Yeah, IIRC, it's self-induced alcoholism as a "disease". I can't remember if it's DR, provocation, insanity or what - here's a site that should tell you (if you're really bothered about knowing, look it up - I wanted to get this post done quickly since your exam's this afternoon! www.sixthformlaw.info).

    Is ABH bordering on GBH a different offence to ABH or GBH on it's own? :lolwut: I think the way we were told to do it was if it seems like one that could be a bit of both such as ABH and GBH, discuss ABH but then briefly write a paragraph about how the D could be found guilty of GBH if it can be shown that the injury was serious etc etc.
    No, all I meant is if (taking s.20/18) it's not clear on the facts what D's intention was, you could start with "D could be charged with GBH under s.20... (explanation of GBH and application to problem).

    However, if the jury felt that D intended to cause the (fractured skull) to V, he could also be charged with GBH with intent under s.18 (brief explanation, comment on likelihood of success)."

    Ha, I write quite big too but we were told around 4-6 pages, though 6 is maybe pushing it a bit! Do you think it's best to choose a question based on the scenario or based on the other questions? If that makes sense (you have a choice between two I think) - But we don't get the choice of which evaluation to answer anymore!
    OK, truthfully, I think the (a) and (b) are most important since they're worth the most marks. You should've practised all of the possible (c)s, so if all else fails, you can probably cobble enough together to get by. However, the same can't be said for the "problem" parts, in which you need precise legal knowledge. :yep:

    Another thing I wanted to ask, though...
    There was a scenario we were given and it included something like 'Hearing Arron shout, Colin jumped backwards and to his left, straight into Dan his three year old child, and bruised Dan's ankle'

    Would the principle of transferred malice still be apparent if the defendant commits one crime (assault against Colin) but it leads to a different crime against someone else? (I'd say it's ABH moreso than a battery for Dan because he's only three years old therefore it would interfere with his health and comfort etc.)

    I have so many little little questions that are really quite trivial. Sorry ahaha. And well done on getting full marks :p:
    :confused:

    Are we talking about Arron's liability?

    Then no - there's a case (check the site I gave you above) that says you can't have the AR of one offence and MR of another and patch them together. Unless the kid was scared, there's no assault. I'm not sure about battery and if you could argue indirect application of force - Haystead??

    Aaargh - PC going to log me off in 2 mins! Sorry I'm getting less helpful!

    Transferred malice could be used, definite battery, possible ABH - well done for spotting vulnerable victim (thin skull perhaps?).

    Good luck!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppety_Kid)
    Oh my God, so many questions! :woo:

    I don't know - I'm going on Dhaliwal, when a husband abused his wife and she committed suicide. He was convicted (of murder?) since it was held that her actions didn't break the chain - presumably they were sufficiently foreseeable. Maybe the same thing would apply here...

    Yeah, IIRC, it's self-induced alcoholism as a "disease". I can't remember if it's DR, provocation, insanity or what - here's a site that should tell you (if you're really bothered about knowing, look it up - I wanted to get this post done quickly since your exam's this afternoon! www.sixthformlaw.info).

    No, all I meant is if (taking s.20/18) it's not clear on the facts what D's intention was, you could start with "D could be charged with GBH under s.20... (explanation of GBH and application to problem).

    However, if the jury felt that D intended to cause the (fractured skull) to V, he could also be charged with GBH with intent under s.18 (brief explanation, comment on likelihood of success)."

    OK, truthfully, I think the (a) and (b) are most important since they're worth the most marks. You should've practised all of the possible (c)s, so if all else fails, you can probably cobble enough together to get by. However, the same can't be said for the "problem" parts, in which you need precise legal knowledge. :yep:

    :confused:

    Are we talking about Arron's liability?

    Then no - there's a case (check the site I gave you above) that says you can't have the AR of one offence and MR of another and patch them together. Unless the kid was scared, there's no assault. I'm not sure about battery and if you could argue indirect application of force - Haystead??

    Aaargh - PC going to log me off in 2 mins! Sorry I'm getting less helpful!

    Transferred malice could be used, definite battery, possible ABH - well done for spotting vulnerable victim (thin skull perhaps?).

    Good luck!
    Oohh! I'm not resitting so my exam isn't today!

    And yeah I was referring to Arron's liability. I did think that it could be an indirect battery but the Haystead case refers to 'applying force to one leads to force being applied to another' but it's not like Arron did actually apply force to Colin or whatever.

    THANKS !! And thanks for the website. :coma:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Oohh! I'm not resitting so my exam isn't today!

    And yeah I was referring to Arron's liability. I did think that it could be an indirect battery but the Haystead case refers to 'applying force to one leads to force being applied to another' but it's not like Arron did actually apply force to Colin or whatever.

    THANKS !! And thanks for the website. :coma:
    No problem, thanks for the rep.

    OK, I'm back for another 10 minutes (stupid computer booking system :mad:) so I'll have another think about your question.

    In terms of assault, Dan wasn't scared so it's not that.

    As for battery, in Haystead, a woman holding a child was punched and the child fell - it was an indirect battery (so there must've been factual and legal causation). Oh wait - I see what you mean. Does it matter that you're not applying the force directly and are doing it through another method? I mean, if I asked you to hold my pet snake (and I knew it'd bite you - and it did), would there be a battery there? This isn't exactly analogous since the snake is kinda my "agent", but I don't think you need the initial battery for there to be a battery against the child, if you see where I'm coming from.

    Looking at Arron's case, is there factual causation? If Dan's the son of Colin, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't have meant to hurt him, so but for Arron shouting, Colin wouldn't have stepped backwards onto Dan. Did his actions make a "significant contribution" to the result? I'd say so. In terms of mens rea, did Arron foresee the risk of Dan being hurt by Colin (even if it was, say, pushed rather than stoof on)? Well, if Dan was behind Colin, and Arron knew he was there, maybe. It's hard to say since I/we don't know exactly where people were, so I guess that'd be an "issue" to raise - for brownie points, if nothing else!

    Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Feel free to ask me if there's ever anything else you'd like to discuss - I miss not doing Law questions! :sad:

    On a slightly happier note, did you know that the next series of Law & Order UK has started on ITV? It's on on Monday nights at 9pm. Also, if you're extremely bored, watch the first series' episode with the "warrior gene" and see if you can spot the mistake now you're doing the A2. :awesome:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Oh yeah - just so you know, mel0n, I'm going now - I'm being booted off again! :p:)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppety_Kid)
    No problem, thanks for the rep.

    OK, I'm back for another 10 minutes (stupid computer booking system :mad:) so I'll have another think about your question.

    In terms of assault, Dan wasn't scared so it's not that.

    As for battery, in Haystead, a woman holding a child was punched and the child fell - it was an indirect battery (so there must've been factual and legal causation). Oh wait - I see what you mean. Does it matter that you're not applying the force directly and are doing it through another method? I mean, if I asked you to hold my pet snake (and I knew it'd bite you - and it did), would there be a battery there? This isn't exactly analogous since the snake is kinda my "agent", but I don't think you need the initial battery for there to be a battery against the child, if you see where I'm coming from.

    Looking at Arron's case, is there factual causation? If Dan's the son of Colin, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't have meant to hurt him, so but for Arron shouting, Colin wouldn't have stepped backwards onto Dan. Did his actions make a "significant contribution" to the result? I'd say so. In terms of mens rea, did Arron foresee the risk of Dan being hurt by Colin (even if it was, say, pushed rather than stoof on)? Well, if Dan was behind Colin, and Arron knew he was there, maybe. It's hard to say since I/we don't know exactly where people were, so I guess that'd be an "issue" to raise - for brownie points, if nothing else!

    Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Feel free to ask me if there's ever anything else you'd like to discuss - I miss not doing Law questions! :sad:

    On a slightly happier note, did you know that the next series of Law & Order UK has started on ITV? It's on on Monday nights at 9pm. Also, if you're extremely bored, watch the first series' episode with the "warrior gene" and see if you can spot the mistake now you're doing the A2. :awesome:
    Oh! A mistake? I might start wating L&O, actually, wouldn't do me no harm! :p: I suppose you're definitely going to be watching it? :p:

    In the question it doesn't ask the liability of Colin for anything, just Arron's liability for Colin and for Dan. Colin's is straight forward, Dan's is just a bit confusing. :mad: I'd say Arron may have been reckless that if he was scaring a pedestrian there could be a risk of someone being harmed (he was riding quite fast on a bicycle) :ninja: Does it matter if, at the end of an essay, you don't come to a conclusion but rather you just discuss the areas. Such as lets say for provocation, you could discuss factors which provoked, which made the defendant lose self control and also the reasonable man.. if that makes sense? But could you actually avoid coming to an end decision?

    In regards to the defences, can voluntary intoxication be relevant for involuntary manslaughter? Iirc, according to Majewski or something, it's only for specific intent crimes, which therefore doesn't include an assault/battery(or whatever unlawful act it may be).

    My God, you're probably getting slowly sick of me. :p: I do ask loads of questions! I was doing a past paper yesterday and kept coming up with questions so kept writing them in the margin. I'm a bit worried that I'm so close to the exam yet still have so many things unanswered!


    EDIT: It's okay if you can't reply right away due to being booted away. :p: hah. Thanks again .
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    are you doing the new specification?

    who told u were doing murder/voluntary manslaughter?

    if its the new specification we got told any of the four evaluations can come up.

    if your talking about LAW A03.
    Yeppp new specification! We've not had to learn criticisms of involuntary manslaughter.

    Only of murder/voluntary manslaughter as 1 essay.
    General defences as another, we've been told to discuss two of our choice.
    Non-fatals as a third.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Oh! A mistake? I might start wating L&O, actually, wouldn't do me no harm! :p: I suppose you're definitely going to be watching it? :p:
    I had a response to your entire post typed and then accidentally clicked a link that took me away from the page, so I've lost it all. :mad: I'll try and type what I remember.

    In L&O, a kid had this "warrior gene" that was supposedly responsible for him killing his parents, so his defence wanted to plead atuomatism. :facepalm2: However, in the end, he decided just to plead guilty, so we never got to see it go to trial anyway!

    In the question it doesn't ask the liability of Colin for anything, just Arron's liability for Colin and for Dan. Colin's is straight forward, Dan's is just a bit confusing. :mad: I'd say Arron may have been reckless that if he was scaring a pedestrian there could be a risk of someone being harmed (he was riding quite fast on a bicycle) :ninja: Does it matter if, at the end of an essay, you don't come to a conclusion but rather you just discuss the areas. Such as lets say for provocation, you could discuss factors which provoked, which made the defendant lose self control and also the reasonable man.. if that makes sense? But could you actually avoid coming to an end decision?
    I might've been confusing the names before - all I meant is that the fact that the force was applied by P (person) and not D directly or indirectly to V (since D didn't touch P) doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been a battery. Neither of us has an authority since this can be distinguished from Haystead (as you did), so in the exam, even raising it as an issue to be decided by the court is likely to get you credibility points since the examiner probably won't be expecting such detailed analysis!

    As for not reaching a firm conclusion, there's no harm as long as you've explained all possible "options". For exaple, "D has the actus reus of ____. If the jury felt that he had the mens rea, which is _____, he could be convicted. The fact that he _____ suggests that he does satisfy this requirement, although it could be argued that _____, so he was subjectively reckless. Since this is not sufficient mens rea for the crime, if the jury found that he was reckless, he could not be convicted of ____, but could still be found guilty of the lesser crime of ____, which only requires (actus reus) and (mens rea).

    In regards to the defences, can voluntary intoxication be relevant for involuntary manslaughter? Iirc, according to Majewski or something, it's only for specific intent crimes, which therefore doesn't include an assault/battery(or whatever unlawful act it may be).
    Sorry, it's been a while and I'm getting less familiar with the VM/IM terms. If you're talking about UA M/S, it'd be relevant in terms of negating the "unlawfulness" of the act. In GN terms, it'd be less relevant, but more indicative of negligence. Would the reasonable man drink and drive? Probably Certainly not! :p:

    My God, you're probably getting slowly sick of me. :p: I do ask loads of questions! I was doing a past paper yesterday and kept coming up with questions so kept writing them in the margin. I'm a bit worried that I'm so close to the exam yet still have so many things unanswered!


    EDIT: It's okay if you can't reply right away due to being booted away. :p: hah. Thanks again .
    Ah, don't worry about it - it's nice to feel wanted. :sexface:

    Besides, I was doing the same thing to Mr_Deeds a few weeks ago!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppety_Kid)
    I had a response to your entire post typed and then accidentally clicked a link that took me away from the page, so I've lost it all. :mad: I'll try and type what I remember.

    In L&O, a kid had this "warrior gene" that was supposedly responsible for him killing his parents, so his defence wanted to plead atuomatism. :facepalm2: However, in the end, he decided just to plead guilty, so we never got to see it go to trial anyway!
    Oh! Sounds interesting actually, hah. Might watch it.

    I might've been confusing the names before - all I meant is that the fact that the force was applied by P (person) and not D directly or indirectly to V (since D didn't touch P) doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been a battery. Neither of us has an authority since this can be distinguished from Haystead (as you did), so in the exam, even raising it as an issue to be decided by the court is likely to get you credibility points since the examiner probably won't be expecting such detailed analysis!
    Aahhh thanks! I asked my teacher about it too and she said it could still be classed as an indirect battery even though in Haystead it was one battery which led to another and in this it is an assault which caused one to apply force to another.

    As for not reaching a firm conclusion, there's no harm as long as you've explained all possible "options". For exaple, "D has the actus reus of ____. If the jury felt that he had the mens rea, which is _____, he could be convicted. The fact that he _____ suggests that he does satisfy this requirement, although it could be argued that _____, so he was subjectively reckless. Since this is not sufficient mens rea for the crime, if the jury found that he was reckless, he could not be convicted of ____, but could still be found guilty of the lesser crime of ____, which only requires (actus reus) and (mens rea).
    Aahhh. Yeah I understand that bit now. So even if I don't actually reach a certain decision I can say basically 'if the jury believe that D has [conduct] then it is likely he will be guilty, whereas he may not be if they find his conduct not to be sufficient enough to satisfy the AR/MR' - or something of the sort.. ?

    Ah, don't worry about it - it's nice to feel wanted. :sexface:

    Besides, I was doing the same thing to Mr_Deeds a few weeks ago!
    Hahaha.. :sexface:

    Mr_Deeds seems to be very helpful, though I've never personally asked him a question or anything. :ninja:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 21, 2010
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.