OCR A2 LAW G153 Criminal Law 1 - June 2013

i wrote swapping labels were theft. and i dont think you needed to write about the shopping basket, as i had a similar question in a class assessment, and my teacher said you dont. but i still did

Thanks mate I would of repped I again but it says I can't iv already done it recently

Reply 1121

hoping

Original post by qr95

Don't worry he will see it, if you get a low grade you can get your paper bk and see if he's marked it if that makes you feel better

because last time, one of our peers did the same, and they didnt mark one question. it wont really change much if the uni rejects me after the bad grade :/

Reply 1122

hoping

Original post by qr95

Thanks mate I would of repped I again but it says I can't iv already done it recently

oh sweet!

thank you

did you do insanity and automatism, for the dilemma board. you were most confident with that lol

Reply 1123

MIO14

s 4 (3) -
A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land,does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picksunless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

used that bit to justify that the flower picking was not theft - wanted peoples thoughts on this? or did i misinterpret it wrongly!

i hadnt learned non fatals so ended up blagging but seem to get what everyone else got - got confused with Barnes consent and ended up writing writing a line about barnes consent for each one- idek why haha!

Reply 1124

fats_12

Was it me or did you lot have around 8 cases for the theft Q2?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1125

curtisblackham

Original post by fats_12

Was it me or did you lot have around 8 cases for the theft Q2?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I mentioned around 12 I think I kept throwing them in even contrasting cases to highlight how Williams actions were different

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1126

fats_12

Original post by curtisblackham

I mentioned around 12 I think I kept throwing them in even contrasting cases to highlight how Williams actions were different

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh. I couldn't remember the name Vaulym so just described the facts :/ hardly used cases for the question though

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1127

Reex3lj

guys who are worrying about examiners not seeing answers: my teacher marks papers and has mentioned on a few occasions that the examiners have to go through every page to make sure nothing has been written on it...so you should be fine :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1128

alem

Original post by MIO14

s 4 (3) -
A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land,does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picksunless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

used that bit to justify that the flower picking was not theft - wanted peoples thoughts on this? or did i misinterpret it wrongly!

i hadnt learned non fatals so ended up blagging but seem to get what everyone else got - got confused with Barnes consent and ended up writing writing a line about barnes consent for each one- idek why haha!

I said burglary for the flower picking, the fact that he is trespassing however criminal liability would be unlikely as building is defined as an inhabited vehicle or vessel, thus, illustrating that garden would not come under this definition. Anywayyy :confused:

Reply 1129

qr95

20

Original post by alem

I said burglary for the flower picking, the fact that he is trespassing however criminal liability would be unlikely as building is defined as an inhabited vehicle or vessel, thus, illustrating that garden would not come under this definition. Anywayyy :confused:

It was only asking liability for theft
Not theft act

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1130

jackleigh18

For people who did involuntary manslaughter problem question who did you say was guilty?

Reply 1131

curtisblackham

Original post by alem

I can now give my feedback after recovering from my sleepless night. Not only do I know I have an A; I probably have near, if not all, the UMS marks. I had predicted duress/attempts/causation and all three came up in Section A, you can imagine my happiness. I took a risk last night and learn off by heart the perfect answer to attempts and theft, and from what I can see it appears that I have answered it exactly like my model answer.
I did attempts/theft/insanity(automatism), and wrote over 8 cases (more like 20) for Section A and Section B; I even remembered the year to all the cases. :biggrin:

What did you get for section C? Also are you hoping for an A*? I'm happy with how this paper went. I need 60 for an A overall and 103 for an A* I'm hoping I've done enough to get the A*!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1132

qr95

20

Feel sorry for next year no causation duress attempts for them

Reply 1133

northbrad30

The insanity part C was fairly confusing for the 3rd or 2nd one i forget.
They intentionally mentioned he was on medicine which suggests automatism, but they didn't actually say whether his state was from the medication or from his epilepsy which makes me think either answer could be correct if justified.

Reply 1134

alem

Original post by qr95

It was only asking liability for theft
Not theft act

Posted from TSR Mobile

I know, but for some reason I thought burglary was more convenient. Never mind anyway.

Original post by curtisblackham

What did you get for section C? Also are you hoping for an A*? I'm happy with how this paper went. I need 60 for an A overall and 103 for an A* I'm hoping I've done enough to get the A*!

Posted from TSR Mobile

I hope you get your A*, and I don't have 90% in my Special Study so I won't be able to get an A*. I will settle for an A though. :smile:

As for Section C I think I got something like accurate (diabetes), inaccurate (epilepsy), inaccurate (the Tony thing who had recovered at that point), accurate (for sleepwalking, but also mentioned it can be automatism if courts are persuaded by commonwealth decisions). What did you get?

Reply 1135

alem

Original post by northbrad30

The insanity part C was fairly confusing for the 3rd or 2nd one i forget.
They intentionally mentioned he was on medicine which suggests automatism, but they didn't actually say whether his state was from the medication or from his epilepsy which makes me think either answer could be correct if justified.

He had a seizure fit, therefore caused by his epilepsy. Epilepsy is insanity (an internal factor), as the defendant will suffer from a disease of the mind.....

Reply 1136

curtisblackham

Original post by alem

I know, but for some reason I thought burglary was more convenient. Never mind anyway.

I hope you get your A*, and I don't have 90% in my Special Study so I won't be able to get an A*. I will settle for an A though. :smile:

As for Section C I think I got something like accurate (diabetes), inaccurate (epilepsy), inaccurate (the Tony thing who had recovered at that point), accurate (for sleepwalking, but also mentioned it can be automatism if courts are persuaded by commonwealth decisions). What did you get?

Thanks!

you don't need 90% in the special study to get an A* you need a total of 180 UMS at A2 :smile:

and I got accurate accurate inaccurate accurate I think. I know the only one that I thought was inaccurate was the epilepsy one. What was the scenario for the other that you thought was inaccurate I can't remember?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1137

Converse Rocker

16

Original post by hoping

this is going to be real absurd question :biggrin:

but on section B, for theft, we only needed to write about theft right? no burglary etc :biggrin:

The question specifically said 'liability for theft' so I didn't discuss them. :smile:

I don't think there was any suggestion of robbery/burglary anyway, there was no force used and I think you'd have to be pushing it to say he trespassed at any point.

I think I made an error regarding the flowers but ahh well, still a nice paper overall!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1138

hoping

Original post by Converse Rocker

The question specifically said 'liability for theft' so I didn't discuss them. :smile:

I don't think there was any suggestion of robbery/burglary anyway, there was no force used and I think you'd have to be pushing it to say he trespassed at any point.

I think I made an error regarding the flowers but ahh well, still a nice paper overall!

Thanks

yeah i was just clarifying lol. i know, i did the same error :frown:

Reply 1139

alem

Original post by curtisblackham

Thanks!

you don't need 90% in the special study to get an A* you need a total of 180 UMS at A2 :smile:

and I got accurate accurate inaccurate accurate I think. I know the only one that I thought was inaccurate was the epilepsy one. What was the scenario for the other that you thought was inaccurate I can't remember?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I didn't know that. Can you please tell me if I would be able to get an A* with the following grades, I would just like to know in case there is hope. I have:
100/120 English Legal System; 54/80 Sources of Law (I retook it and all the questions I predicted came up, so hopefully will get very high marks); 57/80 in the Special Study. And obviously this one, which I think overall I did very well. I regret not retaking the Special Study now. :frown:

Ah, there was Tony who after he recovered from his seizure fit asked Ludmilla out but she refused so he hit her (or something like that) and the statement said that he will successfully raise the defence of insanity. (And obviously not, as he was not suffering from anything at that point). :smile:

Therefore statement was INACCURATE.

These were the other scenarios:

•

Ludmilla is a diabetic who has forgotten to take her insulin and puts a jar (of something) in her bag. Statement said that she can rely on the defence of insanity: ACCURATE

•

Tony is an epileptic who has a seizure fit and punches someone. Statement said that he can successfully raise the defence of automatism: INACCURATE (Epilepsy is an internal factor).

•

And lastly, Ludmilla sleepwalks and smothers Tony. There are two possible outcomes (including commonwealth decisions), but previous domestic cases have regarded sleepwalking as insanity. Statement said she can rely on insanity: ACCURATE

(edited 10 years ago)

OCR A2 LAW G153 Criminal Law 1 - June 2013

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you