Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Hi all I have my unit 2 law exam coming up soon and have a question relating using cases in my answers!!

    I know the questions won't be like this but for example, say the question was:

    1) Explain the 'reasonable man test' used in civil law.

    i would talk about how the courts judge the defendant on what the 'reasonable man' would have done in the given situation. Say then I talk about the forseeability and say

    'What the reasonable man would have forseen in this cause is also taken into account (Roe v Minister of health)
    _______________________________
    Right, I've just used a case. Is it enough to leave it at that. Will the exam marker understand why I used that case? I mean in the cause of Roe v Minister of health, the hospital left a syringe in Phenol and it tainted the needle causing the claimant to become paralysed. The hospital weren't in breach of their duty though because nobody could have forseen that!!!

    :woo: Thanks in advance for replys
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It depends why you are referring to the case. If you simply want to state that a legal principle came from a particular case you do not need to go into the facts. If you are asked to explain a legal principle you may then refer to a case and explain how the principle applied by referring to the facts.

    eg the objective test was established in Vaughan v Menlove. Under the objective test a defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable man. In applying this test there are four factors the courts weigh up: likelihood of harm, seriousness of potential harm, cost of prevention and utility of the defendant's conduct. Application of the objective test can be seen in the case of Bolton v Stone where the claimant was hit by a cricket ball. Evidence was produced that a cricket ball had only been hit out of the ground 6 times in 30 years so the likelihood of harm was low. The injury was quite serious but not great. The cost of prevention would have been great as the only way to completely prevent the balls going out of the pitch would be to put a roof on the pitch. Providing a cricket ground was considered to be beneficial to the community. Therefore the court held weighing up the four factors that there had been no breach of duty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In your exam you dont need to go in to the facts, as the examiner isnt checking that you know the facts, instead they are looking to see if you can apply the ratio. So if your saying facts of a case its like telling the story, not apply it to the question asked. I did that exam last year and didnt say the facts of cases, instead i just applied the point of law where necessary
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i got an A, i got over 90% tho so would have been an A* this year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    omg dreading for this exam only 3 days left first 1 was much easier does any1 else think that?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    -
    a specific intent crime is one that requires intent for someone to be guilty of it - i.e., recklessness isnt good enough. an example is s18 gbh.
    normal intent is just .... intent. i think you may have thought specific intent was another kind of intent - it isn't.

    if you are answering a question on s20, any sort of mens rea is fine. it isnt a specific intent crime.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    -
    if you're answering a question on s20 just talk about s20. only talk about mens rea to the extent of proving it from the text - like, for example, "we can see that bob has been reckless as to cause/ intended harm from this bit of the text" etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got a B in the mock for this paper, which was in Feburary I believe, hopefully I'll have had enough time to notch it up to an A D:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would start with a quick intro explaining what the offence is, say what type of offence it is (triable either way) which means it can be dealt with in Magistrates or Crown. Also maybe state the maximum prison term you could get (5 years)

    Next I would explain the Actus Reas which has 3 elements, Assault, Occasioning and Actual bodily harm. Explain all 3 of these cases if possible (Chan Fook as you've said)

    Finally talk about the Mens Rea which is intention or recklessness as to assault or battery, use Roberts (1971) to explain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I would just briefly mention the actus reas and mens rea
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    -
    Get as much in as you can. as long as you get enough for a sound it doesnt really matter.

    I'd go.
    I've identified the law in question as section 47 of the offences against the person act 1861 - assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The mens rea required is intention or recklessness as to common assault - an assault or a battery. The actus reus required is for an assault or a battery to have taken place - i.e. the defendant must have caused the defendant to apprehend immediate unlawful harm or violence, or must have used such unlawful force on the victim. This common assault must have occasioned - i.e. caused - actual bodily harm, which is defined in miller as "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim".

    Or something like that, at which point just add cases relevant to the situation and apply.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    -
    ofc if you get the principle in in some way its fine, so long as its well defined and such
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    How did you all find it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought it went quite well but I ran out of time. Though the question I missed which I think was 11 I would have answered badly anyway. There was too much to do in the time for me.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demonicstudent)
    I thought it went quite well but I ran out of time. Though the question I missed which I think was 11 I would have answered badly anyway. There was too much to do in the time for me.
    I managed to finish the paper, but at times I thought I was gonna run out of time.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    -
    I put Battery and s20.. and to be honest I have no idea which was right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ermmmmm no it was s20 as it was a broken hip! only broken fingers amount to s47..
    broken hips are actually seriouss..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by palringo0418)
    ermmmmm no it was s20 as it was a broken hip! only broken fingers amount to s47..
    broken hips are actually seriouss..
    Yeh thats going by the the cps charging standards, which is not the law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    -
    yeh i did, thought it was a fairly easy exam, also spoke to my law teacher who said it was a section 47 assualt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    -
    hi, i should be revising so i will keep it brief. Aslong as you have justified your answer wether its section 20 or section 47 it will not matter, you will still get the marks.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 15, 2010

University open days

  • University of Warwick
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • University of Sheffield
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

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.