Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am doing a law unit 2 resit so I thought of making this thread.....lets all help each other....!!

    AQA LAW overall specification

    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf/AQA-2160-W-SP.PDF

    LAW UNIT 2

    Jan 2010

    Question paper
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-QP-JAN10.PDF

    Mark Scheme
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-MS-JAN10.PDF

    June 2010


    Question Paper
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-QP-JUN10.PDF

    Mark Scheme
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-MS-JUN10.PDF

    LAW UNIT 2

    Jan 2009

    Question Paper
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-QP-JAN09.PDF

    Mark Scheme
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-MS-JAN09.PDF

    June 2009


    Question Paper
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-QP-JUN09.PDF

    Mark Scheme
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...W-MS-JUN09.PDF

    LAW UNIT 2

    Specimen question paper
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...2-W-SQP-07.PDF

    Specimen mark scheme
    http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...2-W-SMS-07.PDF
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing it too. This is my third time doing it, on a mid B going for a high A.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pk550)
    I'm doing it too. This is my third time doing it, on a mid B going for a high A.
    yh...this is my second re-sit too....I got higher B in unit 1....C in unit 2 and 3......Hoping to get a B in unit 2 and 4 this summer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I heard that Strict liability and Remoteness of damage came up in Jan 2011 so i assume that it is highly unlikely that it will come again in may 2011....just saying not sure thou.....!!

    Wishing everyone all the best
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I first got a E, in Unit 2, then got a E again second time, then third time lucky an A! Just never give up on it and you'll do fine.

    Do every past paper and rewrite them out so It sticks with you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone know what came up in January 2011 for law unit 2?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jo613)
    Anyone know what came up in January 2011 for law unit 2?
    for criminal law, it was omissions, strict liability, assualt, battery/s.47, explanation of causation - factual, legal and intervening acts like the victim's own act (williams). then the procedure that would lead to a summary offence and then aims of sentences and how those sentences could relate to a charge of battery/s.47 - hope that helps.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pk550)
    for criminal law, it was omissions, strict liability, assualt, battery/s.47, explanation of causation - factual, legal and intervening acts like the victim's own act (williams). then the procedure that would lead to a summary offence and then aims of sentences and how those sentences could relate to a charge of battery/s.47 - hope that helps.

    Did actus reus and mens rea not came up?????

    Also what came up in tort section if you can remeber???

    Thnxx
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pluto-invader)
    Did actus reus and mens rea not came up?????

    Also what came up in tort section if you can remeber???

    Thnxx
    actus reus=omissions and mens rea=strict liability.

    for tort it was; explain the term 'duty of care'

    breach of duty - outline the meaning of the term 'reasonable man' and explain one of the risk factors

    damage - explain 'remoteness of damage'

    then it referred to the scenario and asked whether there was a breach of duty

    the subsequent question was discussion of whether harm was too remote

    outline of the three-track system

    finally, 'explain how the court would calculate an award of damages to tom'.

    you're welcome
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pk550)
    actus reus=omissions and mens rea=strict liability.

    for tort it was; explain the term 'duty of care'

    breach of duty - outline the meaning of the term 'reasonable man' and explain one of the risk factors

    damage - explain 'remoteness of damage'

    then it referred to the scenario and asked whether there was a breach of duty

    the subsequent question was discussion of whether harm was too remote

    outline of the three-track system

    finally, 'explain how the court would calculate an award of damages to tom'.

    you're welcome



    OMG thank you so much.....really appreciated
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PLEASE does anyone know how to apply tort? i'm so confused - we haven't been taught anything and I've got no model answers =/

    Also, how do you go about outlining damages in tort and the outline to a procedure in civil courts?

    I'm really trying not to panic now =/

    thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pk550)
    for criminal law, it was omissions, strict liability, assualt, battery/s.47, explanation of causation - factual, legal and intervening acts like the victim's own act (williams). then the procedure that would lead to a summary offence and then aims of sentences and how those sentences could relate to a charge of battery/s.47 - hope that helps.
    Thankyou so much this has really helped
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here are my sample answers to some of the questions. Hope they help.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Criminal offences require actus Reus, including causation. Explain, using examples, the meaning of the terms actus Reus and causation. (15 marks)

    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.

    Causation is who physically has caused the offence; it is the attitude that causes something to happen. Where a consequence must be proved, then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.

    The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions or conduct causes the prohibited act or the consequence. In Pagett (1983) the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of her manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot out.

    The legal causation is when the defendant’s action of conduct is not the only thing that caused the outcome but the defendant’s actions which contributed significantly to the outcome. To prove causation in fact, we must prove that the defendant’s actions and the victim’s injuries were not intervened by any other factor. There may be more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence. The rule is that the defendant’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause, but it need not be a substantial cause.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    1) Criminal offences generally require proof of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Explain the meaning of Actus Reus?
    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    1) Explain what is meant by causation in law and causation in fact.
    Causation is who physically has caused the offence; it is the attitude that causes something to happen. Where a consequence must be proved, then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.

    The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions or conduct causes the prohibited act or the consequence. In Pagett (1983) the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of her manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot out.

    The legal causation is when the defendant’s action of conduct is not the only thing that caused the outcome but the defendant’s actions which contributed significantly to the outcome. To prove causation in fact, we must prove that the defendant’s actions and the victim’s injuries were not intervened by any other factor. There may be more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence. The rule is that the defendant’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause, but it need not be a substantial cause.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Explain the terms actus reus and mens rea. Using those explanations, outline an appropriate offence with which Kevin might be charged. (15 marks)
    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.

    Mens rea is the mental elements of an offence. Each offence has its own mens rea or mental element. Intention is the highest level of mens rea. Its intention is to bring about a particular consequence. For example, in the case of Mohan (1975) the court defined intention as ‘a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accuser’s power, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’. This makes clear that the defendant’s motive or reason for doing the act is not relevant. The important point is that the defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence.

    Oblique intention is when the defendant’s act or conduct is virtually certain to bring about the outcome or consequence. The consequence must be virtual certainty and the defendant must realise this is so. The main problem with proving intention is in cases where the defendant’s main aim was not the prohibited consequences, but, in achieving the aim, the defendant foresaw that he would also cause those consequences. For example in the R.V. Woollin case where the defendant threw his three-month-old baby towards his pram which was against the wall and the baby suffered serious head injuries and died. The court ruled that the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the defendant must realise this. Oblique intention is only available in a murder trial and not anything else. It is not for the prosecution to prove but for the jury to find.

    Recklessness is when the defendant knows of the risk but overlooks the risk and carries out his act or conduct which causes the prohibited outcome or consequence and so the defendant will be said to be reckless. It has to be proved that the defendant realised the risk, but decided to take it. Recklessness is the minimum level of mens rea required by all assaults. If the defendant has a higher level of higher then he will be guilty of an offence. For instance, in the Cunningham case where the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the house next door, where a woman was affected by it. It was held that he was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the adjacent house. The court held that to have the necessary mens rea the defendant must either intend the consequence happening and decide to take that risk.

    Transferred malice is the principle that the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim. For example, in Latimer (1886) case, the defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub after that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. Latimer was found guilty of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her. However, where the mens rea is for a completely different type of offence then the defendant may not be guilty.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (b) Some crimes are known as crimes of strict liability. Explain, with appropriate examples, what is meant by the term strict liability. (10 marks)
    Strict liability is an offence where the actus reus is required to prove the offence. A strict liability is in place to protect society and to ensure that people take responsibility. This is because mens rea is difficult to establish and if mens rea is to be proven in every case, accidents and safety of the public can not be assumed by Parliament, the executive and the judiciary and so offenders will always give an excuse for their criminal act. In any offence which does not include mens rea is a strict liability.

    An extreme situation is the case of Larsonneur (1933) where the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. Therefore, she had no mens rea of returning to UK. The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability or not. The first rule is that where an Act of Parliament includes words indicating mens rea for example knowingly, intentionally, maliciously or permitting, the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required; the offence will be one of strict liability.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Briefly explain the range of sentences available to the criminal courts if Kevin, who is over 21, were to be convicted of any offence. Briefly discuss the range of factors which the court may take into account before Kevin is sentenced. (10 marks)
    There are many sentences available to the criminal courts. One of them is tariff sentences and its aims it is to retribution/punishment. Retribution is based on the idea of punishment. The offender deserves punishment for his or her acts. This aim of sentencing does not seek to reduce crime or alter the offender’s future behaviour. A judge using this aim is only concerned with the offence that was committed and making sure that the sentence given is in proportion to that offence.

    Other sentences are prison sentences and heavy fines. This aims to act as a deterrent. This can be individual deterrence or general deterrence. Individual deterrence is intended to ensure that the offender does not reoffend, through fear of future punishment. General deterrence is aimed at preventing other potential offenders from committing crimes. Both are aimed at reducing future levels of crime.

    Moreover, individualised sentence and community orders are a form of rehabilitation. Under this aim of sentencing the main aim of the penalty is to reform the offender and rehabilitate him or her into society. It is a forward-looking aim, with the hope that the offender’s behaviour will be altered by the penalty imposed, so that he or she will not offend in the future and so it aims to reduce crimes in this way. Offenders will usually be given a community order with various requirements aimed at rehabilitating them.

    Furthermore, other suitable punishments could be long prison sentences, tagging or banning orders. This is for the protection of society by making the offender incapable of committing further crime and so society is protected from crime. For this reason life imprisonment are given to those who commit murder or other violent or serious sexual offences. Also, punishments such as compensation order and unpaid work is used for reparation. This is aimed at compensating the victim of the crime usually by ordering the offender to pay a sum of money to the victim or to make restitution, for example, by returning stolen property to its rightful owner. The courts are required to consider ordering compensation to the victim of a crime, in addition to any other penalty they may think appropriate. There are also projects to bring offenders and victims together, so that the offenders may make direct reparation. The concept of restitution also includes making reparation to society as a whole. This can be seen in the use of an unpaid work requirement where offenders are required to do so many hours work on community project under the supervision of the probation service.

    Lastly, there is one other punishment where the society expresses its disapproval and this reinforces moral boundaries. It reflects blameworthiness of the offence and a sentence should indicate both to the offender and to other people that society condemns certain types of behaviour. It shows people that justice is being done.




    I'm doing my exam on the 25th May. Good Luck everyone!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bol4ever567)
    PLEASE does anyone know how to apply tort? i'm so confused - we haven't been taught anything and I've got no model answers =/

    Also, how do you go about outlining damages in tort and the outline to a procedure in civil courts?

    I'm really trying not to panic now =/

    thanks
    Hey,
    under tort its basically about the duty of care, breach of duty and damage

    duty of care- the duty to take care of others (use cases like doughnue v stevenson and the caparo v dickman test)

    then breach of duty(the failure to meet the standard of care required) there is a general criterea to which there is 5 main factors:
    -is there any special characteristics of the defendant?(case nettleship v weston)
    -is there any special characteristics of the claimant?(case paris v stepney borough council)
    -whats the size of the risk(case bolton v stone)
    -have all precautions been taken?(case latimer v AEC)
    -is there any benefits of taking the risk?(case Watt v hertfordshire county council)
    in the exam i would only talk about two of these though.

    damage is the resulting loss to a claimant from a breach of duty of care
    there are two parts to damage causation and remoteness
    causation infact is determined by the "but for" test(use the case Barnett v chelsea and kensington hospital management committee)
    remoteness of damage is where the defendant is only liable for the forseeable damage (use the case The wagond mound)
    you could also talk about the remoteness of damage where aslong as the kind of damage is forseeable it does not matter how unusual the consequences are

    i hope this has been helpful and not too confusing if you want anymore information or if you want me to explain anything i have said just ask
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good Luck everyone doing the exam tomorrow! i'm worried over timings :'( i ALWAYS run out of time, in unit 1 i got 74 ums points, so aiming for 86ums+ to get an A - going for around 70 marks to be on the safe side. SCARED :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Executioner)
    Here are my sample answers to some of the questions. Hope they help.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Criminal offences require actus Reus, including causation. Explain, using examples, the meaning of the terms actus Reus and causation. (15 marks)

    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.

    Causation is who physically has caused the offence; it is the attitude that causes something to happen. Where a consequence must be proved, then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.

    The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions or conduct causes the prohibited act or the consequence. In Pagett (1983) the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of her manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot out.

    The legal causation is when the defendant’s action of conduct is not the only thing that caused the outcome but the defendant’s actions which contributed significantly to the outcome. To prove causation in fact, we must prove that the defendant’s actions and the victim’s injuries were not intervened by any other factor. There may be more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence. The rule is that the defendant’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause, but it need not be a substantial cause.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    1) Criminal offences generally require proof of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Explain the meaning of Actus Reus?
    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    1) Explain what is meant by causation in law and causation in fact.
    Causation is who physically has caused the offence; it is the attitude that causes something to happen. Where a consequence must be proved, then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.

    The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions or conduct causes the prohibited act or the consequence. In Pagett (1983) the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett was convicted of her manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield in the shoot out.

    The legal causation is when the defendant’s action of conduct is not the only thing that caused the outcome but the defendant’s actions which contributed significantly to the outcome. To prove causation in fact, we must prove that the defendant’s actions and the victim’s injuries were not intervened by any other factor. There may be more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence. The defendant can be guilty even though his conduct was not the only cause of the consequence. The rule is that the defendant’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause, but it need not be a substantial cause.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Explain the terms actus reus and mens rea. Using those explanations, outline an appropriate offence with which Kevin might be charged. (15 marks)
    Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an assault occasioning bodily harm. There must be a threat or the use of force and there must be a consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’ therefore some injury to the victim. This could be a bruise, broken nose or broken arm. It could also be a psychiatric injury. Omission is the failure to act. If the defendant causes a situation to arise then that defendant has a duty to act to remedy or stop the situation from escalating. A person commits omission if he has a responsibility and fails to act in his role to avoid a criminal situation arising as an outcome. Furthermore, if he/she has a contractual duty to act lent then they have failed to do so.

    The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions, then they have not committed the actus reus. Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. It shows that criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the defendant. Absence of fault means that the defendant is not liable. There are rare cases where the defendant has been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. This is known as State of affairs. For example in the case Larsonneur (1933) the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. If the defendant is able to save someone, but chooses not to has committed no offence.

    Mens rea is the mental elements of an offence. Each offence has its own mens rea or mental element. Intention is the highest level of mens rea. Its intention is to bring about a particular consequence. For example, in the case of Mohan (1975) the court defined intention as ‘a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accuser’s power, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’. This makes clear that the defendant’s motive or reason for doing the act is not relevant. The important point is that the defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence.

    Oblique intention is when the defendant’s act or conduct is virtually certain to bring about the outcome or consequence. The consequence must be virtual certainty and the defendant must realise this is so. The main problem with proving intention is in cases where the defendant’s main aim was not the prohibited consequences, but, in achieving the aim, the defendant foresaw that he would also cause those consequences. For example in the R.V. Woollin case where the defendant threw his three-month-old baby towards his pram which was against the wall and the baby suffered serious head injuries and died. The court ruled that the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the defendant must realise this. Oblique intention is only available in a murder trial and not anything else. It is not for the prosecution to prove but for the jury to find.

    Recklessness is when the defendant knows of the risk but overlooks the risk and carries out his act or conduct which causes the prohibited outcome or consequence and so the defendant will be said to be reckless. It has to be proved that the defendant realised the risk, but decided to take it. Recklessness is the minimum level of mens rea required by all assaults. If the defendant has a higher level of higher then he will be guilty of an offence. For instance, in the Cunningham case where the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the house next door, where a woman was affected by it. It was held that he was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the adjacent house. The court held that to have the necessary mens rea the defendant must either intend the consequence happening and decide to take that risk.

    Transferred malice is the principle that the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim. For example, in Latimer (1886) case, the defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub after that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. Latimer was found guilty of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her. However, where the mens rea is for a completely different type of offence then the defendant may not be guilty.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (b) Some crimes are known as crimes of strict liability. Explain, with appropriate examples, what is meant by the term strict liability. (10 marks)
    Strict liability is an offence where the actus reus is required to prove the offence. A strict liability is in place to protect society and to ensure that people take responsibility. This is because mens rea is difficult to establish and if mens rea is to be proven in every case, accidents and safety of the public can not be assumed by Parliament, the executive and the judiciary and so offenders will always give an excuse for their criminal act. In any offence which does not include mens rea is a strict liability.

    An extreme situation is the case of Larsonneur (1933) where the defendant had been ordered to leave UK and travelled to Eire. However the Irish police deported her back to UK against her will and so this was done involuntarily, it was not her fault. Therefore, she had no mens rea of returning to UK. The judges often have difficulty in deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability or not. The first rule is that where an Act of Parliament includes words indicating mens rea for example knowingly, intentionally, maliciously or permitting, the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. However, if an Act of Parliament makes it clear that mens rea is not required; the offence will be one of strict liability.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    (a) Briefly explain the range of sentences available to the criminal courts if Kevin, who is over 21, were to be convicted of any offence. Briefly discuss the range of factors which the court may take into account before Kevin is sentenced. (10 marks)
    There are many sentences available to the criminal courts. One of them is tariff sentences and its aims it is to retribution/punishment. Retribution is based on the idea of punishment. The offender deserves punishment for his or her acts. This aim of sentencing does not seek to reduce crime or alter the offender’s future behaviour. A judge using this aim is only concerned with the offence that was committed and making sure that the sentence given is in proportion to that offence.

    Other sentences are prison sentences and heavy fines. This aims to act as a deterrent. This can be individual deterrence or general deterrence. Individual deterrence is intended to ensure that the offender does not reoffend, through fear of future punishment. General deterrence is aimed at preventing other potential offenders from committing crimes. Both are aimed at reducing future levels of crime.

    Moreover, individualised sentence and community orders are a form of rehabilitation. Under this aim of sentencing the main aim of the penalty is to reform the offender and rehabilitate him or her into society. It is a forward-looking aim, with the hope that the offender’s behaviour will be altered by the penalty imposed, so that he or she will not offend in the future and so it aims to reduce crimes in this way. Offenders will usually be given a community order with various requirements aimed at rehabilitating them.

    Furthermore, other suitable punishments could be long prison sentences, tagging or banning orders. This is for the protection of society by making the offender incapable of committing further crime and so society is protected from crime. For this reason life imprisonment are given to those who commit murder or other violent or serious sexual offences. Also, punishments such as compensation order and unpaid work is used for reparation. This is aimed at compensating the victim of the crime usually by ordering the offender to pay a sum of money to the victim or to make restitution, for example, by returning stolen property to its rightful owner. The courts are required to consider ordering compensation to the victim of a crime, in addition to any other penalty they may think appropriate. There are also projects to bring offenders and victims together, so that the offenders may make direct reparation. The concept of restitution also includes making reparation to society as a whole. This can be seen in the use of an unpaid work requirement where offenders are required to do so many hours work on community project under the supervision of the probation service.

    Lastly, there is one other punishment where the society expresses its disapproval and this reinforces moral boundaries. It reflects blameworthiness of the offence and a sentence should indicate both to the offender and to other people that society condemns certain types of behaviour. It shows people that justice is being done.




    I'm doing my exam on the 25th May. Good Luck everyone!
    I hope you see this before the exam. Just wanted to say, factually your answers are good but I can't see where you have applied the info to the scenario. In order to get decent marks you MUST apply the information above to the problem. Otherwise, all you are doing is just regurgitating facts.

    Hope this helps
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MessyLJH)
    I hope you see this before the exam. Just wanted to say, factually your answers are good but I can't see where you have applied the info to the scenario. In order to get decent marks you MUST apply the information above to the problem. Otherwise, all you are doing is just regurgitating facts.

    Hope this helps
    Oh okay, thanks for the advice. Now i'll try to refer back to the scenario. Thank you!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Hi everyone, just done the paper. Did everyone put Assault Occasioning ABH for section one and also did you say that transferred malice could be applied?

    Anyway, how did you find the paper everyone?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Hi everyone, just done the paper. Did everyone put Assault Occasioning ABH for section one and also did you say that transferred malice could be applied?

    Anyway, how did you find the paper everyone?
    Yes I did.

    Surprisingly, found tort better than criminal. Yourself?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OMG paper was so easy but very very long....needed 5 more minutes as i left 1 (5 mark) question

    They should increase the timing of the paper as it very hard to do 2 scenarios which contain 7-8 questions each

    I put ABH under section 47 OAPA 1861...what did you guyz wrote???

    Wishing everyone all the best for the rest of the exams and results off-course...

    Thanks for helping and running this thread people....really appreciated
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 30, 2013

University open days

  1. University of Cambridge
    Christ's College Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Sep '18
  2. Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 28 Sep '18
  3. Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.