Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waqar Y)
    Did scenario two:

    Talked about ABH, s20 GBH (infliction of GBH, couldn't be wounding as there was no breaking of the layer of skin) - this was in relation to george.
    For Janet, it would be Assault(s39) and ABH(s47) - the depression anxiety etc.. following ChanFook

    Defences: insanity and also Consent(bigger issue)

    The murder one was decent.. i missed out nedrick and woolin to, did talk about intent to cause serious harm.. :| anyway talked about diminished responsibility and self-defence(possible-? but would fail)
    I thought wounding was a break in both layers of the skin, and GBH was internal injuries, concussion, broken bones etc? Oh crap!:eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This exam was horrendous. I started panicking and had to go to the toilet to calm down! Did two of the essays in bullet points.. Bye Bye uni..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waqar Y)
    Did scenario two:

    Talked about ABH, s20 GBH (infliction of GBH, couldn't be wounding as there was no breaking of the layer of skin) - this was in relation to george.
    For Janet, it would be Assault(s39) and ABH(s47) - the depression anxiety etc.. following ChanFook

    Defences: insanity and also Consent(bigger issue)

    The murder one was decent.. i missed out nedrick and woolin to, did talk about intent to cause serious harm.. :| anyway talked about diminished responsibility and self-defence(possible-? but would fail)
    If there was no beaing of the skin, there how did 'blood-poisoning' emerge?

    I did not think that Janet's mental culminations were severe enough to warrant a psychiatric injury.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely using a knife to carve into the skin would classify as breaking of the skin? It must have gone deep enough for the blood poisoning...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntoniaRose)
    Surely using a knife to carve into the skin would classify as breaking of the skin? It must have gone deep enough for the blood poisoning...
    Exactly. Although this thread has got me worried about what I put, because I forgot to mention the possibility of ABH and I only referred to section 18 wounding instead of 20 (Harry specifically intended for George to be wounded).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone else argue provocation for scenario 2? I did so because it said that the two were exchanging insults, and Matt had been flirting with Harry's girlfriend frequently ('things done or said').
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Did anyone else argue provocation for scenario 2? I did so because it said that the two were exchanging insults, and Matt had been flirting with Harry's girlfriend frequently ('things done or said').
    I argued provocation too. Both the kiss and the insults.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntoniaRose)
    I argued provocation too. Both the kiss and the insults.
    Ah, not just me then I was literally writing non-stop for 90 minutes! I did not get to finish my concluding sentence on provocation; but I managed to get to the end where I used the objective 'reasonable man' test in Holley (2005) to argue that Harry acted in the same way that the reasonable person of the same age and sex would have.

    I do not see how some people argued diminished responsibility though. Harry was not suffering from an abnormal development of the mind or any inherent diseases/injuries I did argue insanity for the first question though. I made it clear that automatism would not be available too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Exactly. Although this thread has got me worried about what I put, because I forgot to mention the possibility of ABH and I only referred to section 18 wounding instead of 20 (Harry specifically intended for George to be wounded).
    Don't worry I argued S18 wounding predominantly as well. I think that this is correct personally as opposed to S18, although i did mention at the end of my answer if the court couldnt satisfy S18 then they could certainly fall back and argue S20. Considering the fact that R v Saunders stated that GBH can just be serious harm, I think that by using a knife to carve into the back of someones neck is sufficient to amount to 'serious' harm. If not then at least i've mentioned S20. Other than this bit i thought the paper was perfect, Murder, DR, and Provocation couldnt have been a better combination, and the first question was pretty easy too other than that one dubious element!! . Hoping for that A*!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the first line said that harry had brain damage caused by drug abuse? That's where I got diminshed responsibility from as it was an injury? Who knows, it's done now, I just wish I could go back and change it!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    Don't worry I argued S18 wounding predominantly as well. I think that this is correct personally as opposed to S18, although i did mention at the end of my answer if the court couldnt satisfy S18 then they could certainly fall back and argue S20. Considering the fact that R v Saunders stated that GBH can just be serious harm, I think that by using a knife to carve into the back of someones neck is sufficient to amount to 'serious' harm. If not then at least i've mentioned S20. Other than this bit i thought the paper was perfect, Murder, DR, and Provocation couldnt have been a better combination, and the first question was pretty easy too other than that one dubious element!! . Hoping for that A*!
    The 'brain damage' was only relevant to the first question, you know? Hence why question two specifically asked for an explanation of liability in the context of the incident in the street and cafe.

    I thought the application was OK; but the reforms question was not to my preferences. I was hoping for murder!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Ah, not just me then I was literally writing non-stop for 90 minutes! I did not get to finish my concluding sentence on provocation; but I managed to get to the end where I used the objective 'reasonable man' test in Holley (2005) to argue that Harry acted in the same way that the reasonable person of the same age and sex would have.

    I do not see how some people argued diminished responsibility though. Harry was not suffering from an abnormal development of the mind or any inherent diseases/injuries I did argue insanity for the first question though. I made it clear that automatism would not be available too.
    He did, it said that he had brain damage as a result of an earlier drug addiction and this caused him to have very bad mood swings or disorders or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I picked scenario 1, but I regret it, question 2 was a bit of a nightmare. I touched on quite a few topics, it was certainly my weakest part of the exam. I think I did relatively well with OAPA, so glad general defences came up, as soon as I opened up that paper I was very relieved when I saw OAPA.

    Bring on LAW04 now \o/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    The 'brain damage' was only relevant to the first question, you know? Hence why question two specifically asked for an explanation of liability in the context of the incident in the street and cafe.

    I thought the application was OK; but the reforms question was not to my preferences. I was hoping for murder!
    I'm talking about scenario 2?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So for question 4: we had to talk about abh as well as S.20 or S.18 in regards to Harry's conduct with George? Crap. There was already

    S.20
    Consent
    and in relation to Janet:
    Assault (although this could have been part of S.47 as I did it)
    S.47

    so with the ABH on George it's 5 separate parts in all!?

    That can't be it surely?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MZB1993)
    So for question 4: we had to talk about abh as well as S.20 or S.18 in regards to Harry's conduct with George? Crap. There was already

    S.20
    Consent
    and in relation to Janet:
    Assault (although this could have been part of S.47 as I did it)
    S.47

    so with the ABH on George it's 5 separate parts in all!?

    That can't be it surely?
    No, the areas were:

    S18/20 in relation to the wounding against George
    S20 GBH in relation to the blood poisoning of George
    Consent
    S47 assault occ. ABH in relation to the injuries suffered by Janet.

    So 4 in all which is realistic for them to ask, my teachers confirmed these at the end of the exam.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    I'm talking about scenario 2?
    I know. 'Brain damage' was not mentioned in the second paragraph, so you could not mention it in your discussion of murder/voluntary manslaughter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackT180)
    No, the areas were:

    S18/20 in relation to the wounding against George
    S20 GBH in relation to the blood poisoning of George
    Consent
    S47 assault occ. ABH in relation to the injuries suffered by Janet.

    So 4 in all which is realistic for them to ask, my teachers confirmed these at the end of the exam.
    So, s.39 assault was not relevant? I guess I have failed then
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    If there was no beaing of the skin, there how did 'blood-poisoning' emerge?

    I did not think that Janet's mental culminations were severe enough to warrant a psychiatric injury.
    Shizzle.. i swear they are so sly in there wording sometimes.

    and, i think depression + anxiety could warrant a s47.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did the people who did scenario one write?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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.

  • 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.