AQA A2 LAW-Unit 3- REVISION Watch

King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Hi, this is a revision thread for everyone doing this exam on the 27th
Share notes, discuss problems, and give each other tips

Here's some notes for the essay on murder/manslaughter/non-fatal offences/partial defences/self-defence.

Please add notes, so that we can all benefit from this thread!!
________________________________ ________________________________ _
Essay on murder criticisms/reforms
• Ken Macdonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested like many senior judges, that there should be degrees of homicide. There should be three degrees of murder between murder and manslaughter.

LAW COMMISSION
First Degree Murder- When someone meant to kill another person or when they meant to hurt them badly and they knew it might well cause their death (but didn’t care). For example, someone taking a person to a cliff and punching them, knowing they might die.

Second Degree Murder- When someone meant to badly hurt someone, but didn’t realise that it might kill them. When someone hurts another person who then dies, and they knew it was a very dangerous thing to do and it might cause death. But they did it because they wanted to hurt the other person, or make them afraid that they’re going to get hurt. When someone can prove that the other person did something really bad, that it made them angry and upset that they couldn’t help but killing. Someone kills because they have a mental illness. Suicide pact, when it goes wrong and only one dies.

Manslaughter (under new law) - When someone does something immature that leads to death. For example, knowing there’s a gas leak but failing to alert the emergency services. Also, when someone kills another person either when they are trying to hurt them, or when they commit a crime that they know could put the other person at risk of being killed.

Murder is inconsistent in terms of sentencing. A conviction carries a life sentence. The word ‘life’ is often misunderstood because it doesn’t mean a convicted murderer will necessarily spend the rest of his life in prison.

The compulsory tariffs under the Criminal Justice Act 2003: 15-30-life (starting point). This doesn’t give judges flexibility to pass sentences which reflect the circumstances of a case. E.g.-A mercy killing of a wife due to a terminal illness is regarded the same as a mass murderer. (Suicide pact/mercy killing)

Murder requires an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH. The meaning of intention has been defined in the courts in terms of foreseeability and probability. Over cases such as: Hyam, Moloney, Nedrick and Woolin. The courts suggest that ‘the D must have foreseen death or GBH a highly likely consequence and is therefore guilty’.
Thus intention has been taken to be the same as foresight.

Lord Coke’s definition of murder is over 200 years old. A new definition for murder should be established to make it clearer.

In English law, there’s no defence for duress involving a: murder, attempted murder, or treason involving the death of the sovereign. In Howe the judge held that the jury should consider:

• Whether the defendant acted as he did because he honestly believed that his life was in immediate danger (a subjective test)
• Would a reasonable person of ordinary courage sharing the defendant's characteristics have responded in the same way to the threats? (an objective test)

PROVOCATION
The courts have had difficulty in the past when trying to agree on which characteristics of the defendant can be considered when deciding the gravity of provocation.

For instance, in the cases of Bedder and Camplin. It was held in the case of Bedder that the D’s impotence wasn’t a characteristic to take into account. This was clearly wrong and was established in the case of Camplin. This was amended in the Post-Homicide-Act.

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 S.54-56 has amended the law on provocation and made it clearer as to what needs to be considered when considering the gravity of provocation. The qualifying trigger makes it easier for the jury to comprehend what can and can not amount to provocation in certain circumstances.

In the previous Homicide Act, the courts had trouble deciding how soon the loss of self-control had to be after being provoked. It was decided in the case of Duffy that loss of self-control had to be sudden and temporary however, it was decided in Ahluwalia that even if there is a time lapse/cooling down period. That the defence of provocation could still be used. (Slow burn/cumulative)-The Coroners and Justice Act has now changed the law on provocation and allows the loss of self-control to happen at anytime.
2
reply
King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#2
• Language used in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 is well over 100 years old, and the language will be outdated.

• Terminology such as “grievous” and “malicious” isn’t generally used in modern-day language, and juries have required interpretation by the courts.

• The term “grievous” has been interpreted as meaning ‘really serious’ (DDP v Smith). Whilst the word “malicious” has been given an interpretation quite unrelated to what one might expect. In general parlance, the word “malicious” is related to evil or hatred, whilst in legal terms it means ‘intention or recklessness’

• Misleading/vague language- the use of the word “assault”. The word “assault” generally conjures up an image of a physical attack, whereas in legal terms, no physical contact is needed. An “assault” only requires the defendant to make the victim ‘apprehend immediate and unlawful violence’; similarly with battery, no harm needs to be caused. (DDP v Logdon)

• The term “bodily harm” under S.18, 20, and 47 includes psychiatric harm (Ireland, Burstow, Constanza) yet it’s unlikely that a Victorian draftsman in the 19th century would of have had this type of harm in mind.

• Assault and battery are punished with a maximum of 6 months imprisonment, S.47 ABH receives a custodial sentence of up to 5 years however, the only real difference is that ABH is caused, yet this can be as little as causing discomfort to the victim.

• S.20 is described as much more serious than a S.47 offence, in both its actus reus and mens rea however, they both carry the same maximum sentence. This was also addressed by Professor Clarkson in a Criminal Law review.

• Statutory offences under the OATPA 1861 are constantly being redefined through reported cases. This is worrying because judges are able to amend the law making it inconsistent. The cases of Ireland and Burstow greatly changed the law regarding assault (need not be verbal) and GBH (psychiatric harm). (Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation)

• The case of Dica created a new kind of GBH, that of biological GBH. The case of Dica overturned Clarence, so it reveals that the law needs a concrete structure, and can’t rely on case law otherwise it will remain unfair. Cases which are constantly being appealed are also costly.

• The law commission stated ‘Attempts by the courts has led to a serious of inconsistent and contradictory decisions’.

• Constructive content- under mens rea for a S.47 ABH the defendant need not have intended to cause the amount of harm, and yet is still liable (intention or recklessness as to the assault/battery). Similarly with S.20 a person could intend to just push another in the street but if they fell and cut themselves, the d would be held liable for a S.20 GBH.

• A problem with assault is the actus reus, the actus reus for a common law assault refers to an ‘apprehension of immediate unlawful personal violence’ but there is problems in law interpreting this concept of immediacy. In the case of Logdon, both the defendants had been convicted of assault however; there was little evidence to show ‘immediacy of violence’.

• In 1993, the Law commission published a report entitled ‘Offences against the person and general principles’. The report redrafted the offences and criticised the current law. The main criticisms were

? Language is complicated
? Structure is complicated
? Complete unintelligibility to the layman

The Draft Criminal Law Bill was also issued by the Home Office in 1998 (based on law commissions’ recommendations). The bill updated the language used by the courts however; the recommendations have never been adopted.
0
reply
King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#3
Self-defence is an “all or nothing” defence. If successfully pleaded, the defendant is acquitted. In the case of R v Clegg however, the defence counsel argued that in cases involving police officers, and other professions which assist the civil powers e.g. - soldiers and military personnel’s. That it should be possible to mitigate the defence by pleading that the defendant had used unreasonable force in self-control. The reason being is that the police and military both carry out work concerning the safety and welfare of the public. In the case of Clegg, the defendant was simply following orders whilst manning a vehicle checkpoint in Northern Ireland (thinking the victim was a terrorist).

In contrast to my previous point, another criticism is the concern over the use of lethal force by the police. This concern was especially publicised following the mistaken shooting of Jean Charles. In this case the victim was shot dead in London because he was believed to be a terrorist. The ‘rules of engagement’ with suicide bombers had changed to ‘shoot to kill’ every since the September 11th attacks in America. Though this was for the public interest, the law on these types of situations is mediocre in pointing out what force can and should be used.

There has also been controversy over the extent which a householder can protect his home. The law only suggests that ‘a lower degree of force is expected if the defendant is protecting property rather than people’. This is abstruse and confusing for the layman because they’re uncertain about what force can be used when protecting property rather than someone. This confusion was evident in the cases of Martin and Munir Hussain.
0
reply
King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#4
Anyone, surely someone's doing this exam.

:bump:
0
reply
Caarl
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
Do you know the IDEA format to answer questions? I have extensive knowledge on evaluation part, however it's very spread on all the topics.
0
reply
barbdwyer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
I don't think you necessarily need to know everything in such huge detail for this exam as long as the main points are noted. There's so much detail in the book in order to help you understand the background to the main points i think.
For insanity for instance, i think its sufficient to just mention the three rules, say where they come from (M'naughten case) and then in each rule you describe and apply them appropariately and at least one case (just the ratio).
If a scenario comes up regarding a defendant who has a mental abnormality though, we'd refer to Diminished Responsibility as that's the partial defence to murder. But insanity could ALSO be considered in murder cases aswell, not just in nonfatal offences, so i really have no idea how i'd write about DR AND insanity. :s gonna be preeetty long..
I actually think this unit has been the best so far though. It's definately been the most interesting. Unit 4 looks huuuuuge! . I'm just a tad worried on the identifying part :s. But hey, we have 3 more weeks to prepare, so not THAT bad lol.
0
reply
King Leonidas
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#7
(Original post by barbdwyer)
I don't think you necessarily need to know everything in such huge detail for this exam as long as the main points are noted. There's so much detail in the book in order to help you understand the background to the main points i think.
For insanity for instance, i think its sufficient to just mention the three rules, say where they come from (M'naughten case) and then in each rule you describe and apply them appropariately and at least one case (just the ratio).
If a scenario comes up regarding a defendant who has a mental abnormality though, we'd refer to Diminished Responsibility as that's the partial defence to murder. But insanity could ALSO be considered in murder cases aswell, not just in nonfatal offences, so i really have no idea how i'd write about DR AND insanity. :s gonna be preeetty long..
I actually think this unit has been the best so far though. It's definately been the most interesting. Unit 4 looks huuuuuge! . I'm just a tad worried on the identifying part :s. But hey, we have 3 more weeks to prepare, so not THAT bad lol.
It's annoying how we must learn 3 essays, when only 1 is going to come up. How many pages are you roughly looking to write for the essay question?
0
reply
barbdwyer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by pinda.college)
It's annoying how we must learn 3 essays, when only 1 is going to come up. How many pages are you roughly looking to write for the essay question?
Essays on what? Anything could come up. A question could incorporate defences with non-fatal offences? and you have to apply to the scenario. Ive just learnt all the info and i'll just plan and structure when im in the exam, so I have no idea on how many pages.
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
(Original post by barbdwyer)
Essays on what? Anything could come up. A question could incorporate defences with non-fatal offences? and you have to apply to the scenario. Ive just learnt all the info and i'll just plan and structure when im in the exam, so I have no idea on how many pages.
They mean for part c of the paper on evaluation/reform
0
reply
NeonSkies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by pinda.college)
It's annoying how we must learn 3 essays, when only 1 is going to come up. How many pages are you roughly looking to write for the essay question?
Aim for 3/4 sides of paper if you have medium/large sized handwriting; my teachers have said for the evaluation question talk about roughly 7 criticisms and then mention ways of reform to get top marks.
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
(Original post by NeonSkies)
Aim for 3/4 sides of paper if you have medium/large sized handwriting; my teachers have said for the evaluation question talk about roughly 7 criticisms and then mention ways of reform to get top marks.
You can write 4 sides of paper in 25mins?! Wow.. 7 criticisms? I assume you mean skimming over them, right? I'm doing like 3/4 points in detail and possible reforms for each
0
reply
Caarl
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
Well to mention a criticism takes around a minute, but to explain things like the Nathan Report with its extensive list of reforms would take around 4-5mins.
0
reply
NeonSkies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
(Original post by JH-QC)
You can write 4 sides of paper in 25mins?! Wow.. 7 criticisms? I assume you mean skimming over them, right? I'm doing like 3/4 points in detail and possible reforms for each
I've got really huge writing haha, I wish it was smaller! It just seems the further I get into an exam the bigger writing gets :/ Ah well, and yeah 7 points with just a couple of sentences on each with a case thrown in there wherever possible is the way we've been taught but your way is equally as good because you're going into more detail
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by NeonSkies)
I've got really huge writing haha, I wish it was smaller! It just seems the further I get into an exam the bigger writing gets :/ Ah well, and yeah 7 points with just a couple of sentences on each with a case thrown in there wherever possible is the way we've been taught but your way is equally as good because you're going into more detail
Haha phew, I thought you meant 7 detailed criticisms; I nearly e-mailed my tutor to have a panic attack that I haven't done enough Argh I still have to complete my defences one! Must do that now...

Which part c does everyone think will most likely come up? Seeing as it was murder last jan, non-fatal in june, so does it follow that it should be defences this jan or do you think they'll mix it up?
0
reply
NeonSkies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
(Original post by JH-QC)
Haha phew, I thought you meant 7 detailed criticisms; I nearly e-mailed my tutor to have a panic attack that I haven't done enough Argh I still have to complete my defences one! Must do that now...

Which part c does everyone think will most likely come up? Seeing as it was murder last jan, non-fatal in june, so does it follow that it should be defences this jan or do you think they'll mix it up?
Aw well don't worry different teachers have different ways of giving the info

They've done murder and voluntary manslaughter quite a lot over the past few years so I bet it'll be more likely to be the defences or non-fatal offences

It's annoying that we can't guarantee one that won't come up so we have to learn all 3 really well though!
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
(Original post by NeonSkies)
Aw well don't worry different teachers have different ways of giving the info

They've done murder and voluntary manslaughter quite a lot over the past few years so I bet it'll be more likely to be the defences or non-fatal offences

It's annoying that we can't guarantee one that won't come up so we have to learn all 3 really well though!
Yeah I know, on the old spec it was always a choice between murder, involuntary manslaughter and non fatal defences; but this time last year was the first paper they got rid of involuntary and only gave you one choice... really annoying that there hasnt been a past paper for defences... I don't want to learn all 3! does your teacher make you learn the spec for voluntary and involuntary? ours only teaches us involuntary cos we only have 6 teaching hours a fortnight instead of the required 9
0
reply
NeonSkies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
(Original post by JH-QC)
Yeah I know, on the old spec it was always a choice between murder, involuntary manslaughter and non fatal defences; but this time last year was the first paper they got rid of involuntary and only gave you one choice... really annoying that there hasnt been a past paper for defences... I don't want to learn all 3! does your teacher make you learn the spec for voluntary and involuntary? ours only teaches us involuntary cos we only have 6 teaching hours a fortnight instead of the required 9
We do everything yeah, but don't worry because you'll get a choice of scenario

Would you like me to send you some notes on voluntary manslaughter just in case?There's a chance it could come up in both scenarios if they mix murder with involuntary manslaughter because we did a mock exam and murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter came up all rolled into one question!


Here's some revision notes for voluntary manslaughter:


Voluntary Manslaughter Revision Notes
AQA Law03 Jan 2011


In common law, any homicide offence which is not murder is manslaughter, and in voluntary manslaughter the defendant may have malice aforethought but has a special defence to reduce their liability to manslaughter.

There are two partial defences which come from the Homicide Act 1957:

* s.3 Provocation
* s.2 Diminished Responsibility

Successfully pleading either defence will reduce liability to manslaughter and the sentence will change from mandatory life to a discretionary life sentence.

Provocation

The Homicide Act 1957 says there is a two-stage test for provocation.

* Was the defendant provoked to lose their self control? (The ‘subjective test’)
* Would a reasonable person have lost his self control in the circumstances?
(The ‘objective test’)

So there are three main elements to this defence:

1. Provocative conduct
2. Loss of self control
3. The reasonable person may have been provoked


The burden of proof rests with the defendant and the defence is left to the jury to decide as in R v Acott.

1. Provocative Conduct: Provocation may be by things done, things said or both together.

* Doughty The persistent crying of a baby
* R v Baille Supplying drugs to the defendant’s sons
* R v Pearson Defendant’s brother was being abused by their father
* R v Thornton The defendant was being abused by her husband

The provocative acts need not be aimed at the defendant as in Pearson and the provocation need not come from the victim either as in Davies where the defendant’s wife was killed because of her affair with another man.

When the defendant self-induces the provocative conduct the decision may not be left to the jury but if the victim’s reaction is extreme to the defendant’s act the defence can succeed as in Edwards where in response to blackmail, the victim pulled a knife on the defendant, the defendant took hold of the knife and stabbed the victim to death.

2. Loss of self control: This is the subjective test – did the defendant lose self control? In Duffy it was held the loss of self control must be ‘sudden and temporary’.

* Ibrams and Gregory A ‘cooling off’ period is not consistent with ‘sudden and temporary’.

Cumulative (‘slow burn’) provocation is now considered.

* Ahluwalia The delay in time from the provocative act and killing her husband meant the defence could not succeed
* R v Thornton ‘Last straw’ from several abusive incidents could have triggered the final loss of self control

The provoked defendant may know what they are doing but are unable to restrain themselves as in Richens.

3. Would the reasonable person have been provoked? This was developed in the case of Camplin where instead of the reasonable person being an adult, normal both physically and mentally, the age and gender of the defendant are taken into account. The rule can be summarised with two questions:

* Would the reasonable person have lost their self control in the circumstances?
* Would the reasonable person, sharing the characteristics with the defendant, be similarly provoked and react as the defendant did?

Luc Thiet Thuan A head injury resulting in reduced powers of self control could not be taken into account for the objective test

Smith (Morgan) Clinical depression may reduce powers of self control; Luc Thiet Thuan rejected

Holley The case of Smith (Morgan) was disapproved and Luc Thiet Thuan was followed. The jury should not take into account any peculiarities such as mental abnormality or intoxication. They would be better left for the defence of diminished responsibility.



Diminished Responsibility

This defence can only be pleaded on a murder charge and the sentence can be life, suspended, non-custodial or an absolute discharge. Defendants can also be detained under the Mental Health Act.

A person who pleads diminished responsibility should prove on a balance of probabilities that:

* They were suffering from an abnormality of mind
* Caused by arrested or retarded development or an inherent cause, disease or injury
* The abnormality substantially impaired their mental responsibility for the killing

Abnormality of mind: This is a state of mind the reasonable person (the jury) would find abnormal, e.g. Epilepsy, PMT (as in English), clinical depression, psychotic disorders and battered woman’s syndrome (as in Ahluwalia).

* Byrne Sexual psychopath’s inability to control desires meant he could claim diminished responsibility
* Reynolds A young mother suffering from post-natal depression killed her mother and could claim the defence
* Seers A defendant who had severe depression at the time of the killing can claim the defence
* Ahluwalia Battered woman’s syndrome amounts to abnormality of the mind

Arising from a condition...

* Of arrested or retarded development, e.g. An adult with a mental age of a child or an abnormality like in Byrne
* Inherent cause, from within the defendant e.g. Sutcliffe with paranoid schizophrenia not external factors like alcohol or drugs as in Tandy
* Induced by disease, e.g. Post-traumatic stress disorder
* Induced by injury e.g. A head injury like in Luc Thiet Thuan



Substantially impairs responsibility: Impairment of responsibility from drink or drugs is not diminished responsibility, as in Tandy the defendant did not resist the urge to drink so it was not involuntary, meaning her alcohol problem could not be considered a disease.

If however drink or drugs are present when the defendant has an abnormality of mind which substantially impairs their mental responsibility, the intoxication would be irrelevant as in Dietschmann, approving of the earlier decision in Gittens where the jury should consider whether the abnormality alone was enough to impair responsibility for the act.

‘Substantial’ means more than trivial but less than total impairment as in R v Lloyd.
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 years ago
#18
(Original post by NeonSkies)
We do everything yeah, but don't worry because you'll get a choice of scenario

Would you like me to send you some notes on voluntary manslaughter just in case?There's a chance it could come up in both scenarios if they mix murder with involuntary manslaughter because we did a mock exam and murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter came up all rolled into one question!


Here's some revision notes for voluntary manslaughter:


[COLOR="purple"]Voluntary Manslaughter Revision Notes
AQA Law03 Jan 2011[/COLOR]


In common law, any homicide offence which is not murder is manslaughter, and in voluntary manslaughter the defendant may have malice aforethought but has a special defence to reduce their liability to manslaughter.

There are two partial defences which come from the Homicide Act 1957:

* s.3 Provocation
* s.2 Diminished Responsibility

Successfully pleading either defence will reduce liability to manslaughter and the sentence will change from mandatory life to a discretionary life sentence.

[COLOR="purple"]Provocation[/COLOR]

The Homicide Act 1957 says there is a two-stage test for provocation.

* Was the defendant provoked to lose their self control? (The ‘subjective test’)
* Would a reasonable person have lost his self control in the circumstances?
(The ‘objective test’)

So there are three main elements to this defence:

1. Provocative conduct
2. Loss of self control
3. The reasonable person may have been provoked


The burden of proof rests with the defendant and the defence is left to the jury to decide as in R v Acott.

1. Provocative Conduct: Provocation may be by things done, things said or both together.

* Doughty The persistent crying of a baby
* R v Baille Supplying drugs to the defendant’s sons
* R v Pearson Defendant’s brother was being abused by their father
* R v Thornton The defendant was being abused by her husband

The provocative acts need not be aimed at the defendant as in Pearson and the provocation need not come from the victim either as in Davies where the defendant’s wife was killed because of her affair with another man.

When the defendant self-induces the provocative conduct the decision may not be left to the jury but if the victim’s reaction is extreme to the defendant’s act the defence can succeed as in Edwards where in response to blackmail, the victim pulled a knife on the defendant, the defendant took hold of the knife and stabbed the victim to death.

2. Loss of self control: This is the subjective test – did the defendant lose self control? In Duffy it was held the loss of self control must be ‘sudden and temporary’.

* Ibrams and Gregory A ‘cooling off’ period is not consistent with ‘sudden and temporary’.

Cumulative (‘slow burn’) provocation is now considered.

* Ahluwalia The delay in time from the provocative act and killing her husband meant the defence could not succeed
* R v Thornton ‘Last straw’ from several abusive incidents could have triggered the final loss of self control

The provoked defendant may know what they are doing but are unable to restrain themselves as in Richens.

3. Would the reasonable person have been provoked? This was developed in the case of Camplin where instead of the reasonable person being an adult, normal both physically and mentally, the age and gender of the defendant are taken into account. The rule can be summarised with two questions:

* Would the reasonable person have lost their self control in the circumstances?
* Would the reasonable person, sharing the characteristics with the defendant, be similarly provoked and react as the defendant did?

Luc Thiet Thuan A head injury resulting in reduced powers of self control could not be taken into account for the objective test

Smith (Morgan) Clinical depression may reduce powers of self control; Luc Thiet Thuan rejected

Holley The case of Smith (Morgan) was disapproved and Luc Thiet Thuan was followed. The jury should not take into account any peculiarities such as mental abnormality or intoxication. They would be better left for the defence of diminished responsibility.



[COLOR="Purple"]Diminished Responsibility[/COLOR]

This defence can only be pleaded on a murder charge and the sentence can be life, suspended, non-custodial or an absolute discharge. Defendants can also be detained under the Mental Health Act.

A person who pleads diminished responsibility should prove on a balance of probabilities that:

* They were suffering from an abnormality of mind
* Caused by arrested or retarded development or an inherent cause, disease or injury
* The abnormality substantially impaired their mental responsibility for the killing

Abnormality of mind: This is a state of mind the reasonable person (the jury) would find abnormal, e.g. Epilepsy, PMT (as in English), clinical depression, psychotic disorders and battered woman’s syndrome (as in Ahluwalia).

* Byrne Sexual psychopath’s inability to control desires meant he could claim diminished responsibility
* Reynolds A young mother suffering from post-natal depression killed her mother and could claim the defence
* Seers A defendant who had severe depression at the time of the killing can claim the defence
* Ahluwalia Battered woman’s syndrome amounts to abnormality of the mind

Arising from a condition...

* Of arrested or retarded development, e.g. An adult with a mental age of a child or an abnormality like in Byrne
* Inherent cause, from within the defendant e.g. Sutcliffe with paranoid schizophrenia not external factors like alcohol or drugs as in Tandy
* Induced by disease, e.g. Post-traumatic stress disorder
* Induced by injury e.g. A head injury like in Luc Thiet Thuan



Substantially impairs responsibility: Impairment of responsibility from drink or drugs is not diminished responsibility, as in Tandy the defendant did not resist the urge to drink so it was not involuntary, meaning her alcohol problem could not be considered a disease.

If however drink or drugs are present when the defendant has an abnormality of mind which substantially impairs their mental responsibility, the intoxication would be irrelevant as in Dietschmann, approving of the earlier decision in Gittens where the jury should consider whether the abnormality alone was enough to impair responsibility for the act.

‘Substantial’ means more than trivial but less than total impairment as in R v Lloyd.
Oh wow thanks I read around and made notes on that section too cos I prefer that branch of manslaughter... wow what mock paper was that that they ALL came up?? My teacher said AQA sent out a notice that they were aware that some centres chose to only teach one part to cut down on the work and that there may be scenario's where they'd incorporate murder, vol and invol manslaughter... but she said she couldn't imagine how they'd do that because you only have 25 mins to answer so it goes against the point of A2 exams of going into detail because you would only have time to mention/describe things instead of explain as well

... but if there is a chance they could do that, we'd all be dreadfully pushed for time!
0
reply
NeonSkies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
(Original post by JH-QC)
Oh wow thanks I read around and made notes on that section too cos I prefer that branch of manslaughter... wow what mock paper was that that they ALL came up?? My teacher said AQA sent out a notice that they were aware that some centres chose to only teach one part to cut down on the work and that there may be scenario's where they'd incorporate murder, vol and invol manslaughter... but she said she couldn't imagine how they'd do that because you only have 25 mins to answer so it goes against the point of A2 exams of going into detail because you would only have time to mention/describe things instead of explain as well

... but if there is a chance they could do that, we'd all be dreadfully pushed for time!
This is the scenario we got for the mock:

Petra threatens Kerry and causes a wounding in the first part of the scenario (non-fatal offences question scenario), and this part is where the death takes place:

Two days later, Kerry’s brother, Simon, went to Petra’s house in the middle of the night and set fire to it in revenge for the attack on Kerry. He then telephoned a warning to the fire service, who, in turn, telephoned the house. Only Petra’s friend, Tracey, was in the house and, despite advice from the fire service about what to do until firefighters arrived, she panicked and became trapped by the fire in a bedroom upstairs. She then slipped and fell to her death whilst trying to climb out onto the roof.


(b) Discuss Simon’s criminal liability for murder and for involuntary manslaughter in
connection with the death of Tracey. (25 marks)


We had to discuss Simon's liability for murder for setting fire to the house and discuss whether he intended death or serious harm (malice aforethought) and also discuss voluntary manslaughter with provocation as he set fire to the house in revenge, but there was a cooling off period. Causation issues with the victim's act of trying to escape needed to be discussed as well, then we moved on to unlawful act manslaughter about the criminal damage/arson attack which resulted in her death if he doesn't have malice aforethought.

Quite a tough question really but this was from Jan 2007 so it's quite an old paper.
0
reply
JH-QC
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by NeonSkies)
This is the scenario we got for the mock:

Petra threatens Kerry and causes a wounding in the first part of the scenario (non-fatal offences question scenario), and this part is where the death takes place:

Two days later, Kerry’s brother, Simon, went to Petra’s house in the middle of the night and set fire to it in revenge for the attack on Kerry. He then telephoned a warning to the fire service, who, in turn, telephoned the house. Only Petra’s friend, Tracey, was in the house and, despite advice from the fire service about what to do until firefighters arrived, she panicked and became trapped by the fire in a bedroom upstairs. She then slipped and fell to her death whilst trying to climb out onto the roof.


(b) Discuss Simon’s criminal liability for murder and for involuntary manslaughter in
connection with the death of Tracey. (25 marks)


We had to discuss Simon's liability for murder for setting fire to the house and discuss whether he intended death or serious harm (malice aforethought) and also discuss voluntary manslaughter with provocation as he set fire to the house in revenge, but there was a cooling off period. Causation issues with the victim's act of trying to escape needed to be discussed as well, then we moved on to unlawful act manslaughter about the criminal damage/arson attack which resulted in her death if he doesn't have malice aforethought.

Quite a tough question really but this was from Jan 2007 so it's quite an old paper.
Ohh yeah phew I saw that one on their website, I read the examiner's report on it and they said it was 'phrased in such a way to have to discuss murder but discard it relatively quickly in order to discuss involuntary manslaughter' (or something to that effect).

The exam's getting so close! I'm going to have to start reading over my stuff for hours on end drilling it into my brain... I've still got definitions of things by Michael Zander engraved in my memory from doing that in unit 1 last year, haha
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • Edge Hill University
    Undergraduate and Postgraduate - Campus Tour Undergraduate
    Mon, 18 Feb '19
  • University of the Arts London
    MA Innovation Management Open Day Postgraduate
    Mon, 18 Feb '19
  • University of Roehampton
    Department of Media, Culture and Language; School of Education; Business School Undergraduate
    Tue, 19 Feb '19

Do you give blood?

Yes (38)
10.03%
I used to but I don't now (12)
3.17%
No, but I want to start (136)
35.88%
No, I am unable to (86)
22.69%
No, I chose not to (107)
28.23%

Watched Threads

View All