Ocr A2 Law (criminal): Offical Thread! Watch

This discussion is closed.
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#201
Report 12 years ago
#201
There is no point in dreading it! Be positive, look forward!
0
sonya_p
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#202
Report 12 years ago
#202
iv only managed to cover few topics! iv lost my motivation! can u slap some motivation in me!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#203
Report 12 years ago
#203
panggggg, there you go!
0
Dave_G03
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#204
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#204
I agree - Law should have its own thread... defo!
But more importantly i should get some kind of reward for being the author. An A in law would be nice.

I really hope provocation comes up on monday as an Essay, I love it. LOL
Not even started criminal law 2 yet Thats tomoz
0
sonya_p
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#205
Report 12 years ago
#205
lol thanks
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#206
Report 12 years ago
#206
Aghh just been trying to revise discussion of non fatal offences. Is it just me or is it quite complicated? My book doesn't go into nearly enough detail, no where near what is on the markscheme I have for that question or the really good essay on that was one of the essay answers on Multiplexed's site.

Feel like I'm learning everything all over again AHH. I read on that site posted by Nikki that in April 2006 there was some sort of reform or suggested reform to do with Domestic violence in relation to non fatal offences. I would love to include that if the question came up because it would look dead impressive lol but I'm not sure I understand it, anyone heard anything about it? Oh and while I'm thinking of it, how much do you have to go on about domestic violence because my book has loads on it but theres not really any cases and the markscheme doesn't mention it so is it really that relevant??
Thanksss, sorry I probably make no sense but my brain is fried!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#207
Report 12 years ago
#207
I don't understand why you feel the need to include domestic violence. It cannot be an offence, because the harm inflicted will either be assault and battery, ABH, GBH or Wounding S.20, or intent at S.18. The only way I can see domestic violence being frowned on would be through a tougher sentence, it's impossible to form a new offence because of the floating Mens Rea. With regard to reform, I do have these available in both revision format and an essay.
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#208
Report 12 years ago
#208
And to answer your second question, it isn't on the specification, so ignore it!!!!!!!!!!!
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#209
Report 12 years ago
#209
(Original post by Ben_Stephenson)
And to answer your second question, it isn't on the specification, so ignore it!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh.... :confused: I wonder why my text book bangs on about it in the criticism of OAPA then. It's not saying it's a separate offence it's just talking about it in relation to assault and battery or something like that I don't know but theres a whole section on it. I didn't really think it sounded relevant because they didn't even mention it till the criticisms secton hmmm...i'm beginning not to trust this book. It also says that Billinghurst was able to rely on the defence on consent but I've read elsewhere that he couldn't and was convicted of GBH because it was an 'off the ball' incident. Ahhhh how can you look forward to this exam, I'm dreading it! I leave revision wayyy to late!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#210
Report 12 years ago
#210
Serious questions over the credibility of your textbook then; Billinghurst is authority that if something happens outside the normal nature of the sport then they can be convicted, much like Lee Bowyer being brought to court after his fight with Kieron Dyer in a Newcastle United match, it is very rare that they go to court, it's usually dealt with by the Association responsible for the sport, however Billinghurst is authority that an attacker can be criminally liable.
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#211
Report 12 years ago
#211
(Original post by Ben_Stephenson)
With regard to reform, I do have these available in both revision format and an essay.
ooooo I would be sooo grateful if you could give me a few pointers! Don't do it if you have to type it up though!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#212
Report 12 years ago
#212
Non-Fatal Offences Exam Question

‘The proposals for reform on non-fatal offences against the person are necessary in order to modernise an outdated law’. Consider the accuracy of this statement.

There are five non-fatal offences, each varying in their severity, and as a consequence of this, the punishments set in place for each offence.
Originally, the offences were of common law nature and were brought together under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
The offences found under the OAPA 1861 are those of malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, malicious wounding or inflicting GBH, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
Assault occasioning ABH is found under Section 47 of the aforementioned OAPA 1861. The Actus Reus for this offence is an assault occasioning ABH and the Mens Rea required (which was established in Savage and Parmenter 1992) is the same as that required for common law assault and battery; that of intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend that a battery may be inflicted upon him or has intentionally or recklessly unlawfully touched the victim. The context of which ABH can be applied was decided in Chan-Fook 1994, where the judges established that ‘actual’ means more than trivial, and ‘bodily harm’ means some injury (of which psychiatric injury is included).
Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH is found under Section 20 of the OAPA 1861. The Actus Reus required is the unlawful wounding or the unlawful infliction of GBH. The case of Eisenhower 1984 decided what amounted to a wounding. The court stated that at least two layers of skin (dermis and epidermis) must be broken before it can be constituted as a wounding. The Mens Rea required is that of ‘maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH’ either intentionally or recklessly. Subjective recklessness is applied and this was decided in the case of Cunningham 1957. Additionally, the case of Mowatt 1968 also cemented that foresight of such a high degree of harm need not be proved, therefore putting forward a broader test of recklessness as to how much harm the defendant foreseen he would cause.
Malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent is found under Section 18 of the OAPA 1861. The Actus Reus required is that the accused unlawfully and maliciously wounds another or causes him grievous bodily harm by any means whatsoever. The Mens Rea of Section 18 is that there has to be evidence of intent (therefore rendering Section 18 a crime of specific intent). The Mens Rea required is identical to that for murder, i.e. direct or oblique intent. Oblique intent was decided in the leading case of Woollin 1998 (and affirmed in Matthews and Alleyne 2003) and it requires that the result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions.
Common law assault is defined as the intentional or reckless causing of an apprehension of immediate unlawful personal violence. This definition was decided in the case of Venna 1976. The Mens Rea required is the same as that of both ABH and battery, i.e. intention to cause the apprehension or, recklessness as to whether the apprehension is caused. The offence is now found under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Common law battery is also found under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and has been defined in several similar ways. Perhaps the most concise definition of battery was put forward by Lord Lane in the case of Faulkner v Talbot 1981 where he stated ‘any intentional touching without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not be hostile or rude or aggressive as some cases seem to indicate’ would amount to a battery.
The main argument for modernising the law is the antiquity of the original act (1861) and also the language used, which is often difficult for judges to articulate, and as a result, hard for juries to apply effectively.
One criticism of the language used to define the various offences is the distinction between ‘inflicting’ GBH under Section 20 and ‘causing’ GBH under Section 18. This is because the judges believe that the word ‘cause’ has a wider meaning than the word ‘inflict’. This appears to be an anomaly due to the more severe nature of the Section 18 offence. Additionally, S18 also uses the words ‘by any means whatsoever’. Judges believe this phrase reinforces their argument.
Furthermore, the use of words such as ‘occasioning’, ‘battery’, ‘grievous’ and ‘malicious’ are old fashioned and require long directions from the judge on how the jury should correctly apply them. As a result, the Law Commission have suggested reform on this highly contentious area of law. The Law Commission have recommended that there are 4 offences established. The first offence would incorporate assault and battery into one single offence, that of assault. Basically, it is a coagulation of both definitions, and removes the old language used. Assault would therefore be committed where a person intentionally or recklessly applied force to or caused an impact on the body of another without his consent or, where the act was intended to cause injury, with or without the consent of the other. It would also be committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly, without the consent of the other, caused the victim to believe that any such force or impact was imminent. By using words such as force, consent, cause and imminent, the Law Commission have wisely chosen words that have recently been clearly defined by the judges. For example, the word ‘force’ has been left to the jury to decide in cases of burglary and imminence defined in the area of duress (Safi and others 2004), therefore it is felt that these terms could be easily incorporated under the new offence of assault.
The incumbent word ‘harm’ would be changed to the word ‘injury’ in the more serious offences. ABH would be replaced by the offence of intentional or reckless injury. Section 20 would be replaced by reckless serious injury and Section 18 would be replaced with intentional serious injury. Immediately these terms appear much easier to understand and would therefore lessen the jury’s confusion.
Areas of confusion have arisen, particular over relatively ‘new’ worries within society, such as stalking and silent telephone calls (of course impossible in 1861!!).
The case of Costanza 1997 caused confusion over what amounted to an assault, in relation to the immediate threat or apprehension on the victim’s part of unlawful personal violence. It was decided in the Court of Appeal that there was sufficient evidence that the victim was in fear of immediate violence because it might have occurred at any time. The OAPA 1861 did not account for situations such as these; therefore it has been up to the judges to extend the law in order to ensure that justice is done for the victim. As it is an extension (and relies on cases) it would appear both sensible and practical to codify the law on non-fatal offences against the person into once concise, modern act. As a result, juries will require little direction, as it uses modern language which can be easily understood and applied. Furthermore, by the use of words such as force (which has been defined recently) it allows the criminal justice system to flow efficiently and effectively.
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#213
Report 12 years ago
#213
(Original post by Ben_Stephenson)
Serious questions over the credibility of your textbook then; Billinghurst is authority that if something happens outside the normal nature of the sport then they can be convicted, much like Lee Bowyer being brought to court after his fight with Kieron Dyer in a Newcastle United match, it is very rare that they go to court, it's usually dealt with by the Association responsible for the sport, however Billinghurst is authority that an attacker can be criminally liable.
oh FFS! I think I'm gonna cry! I wrote it in an essay and my teacher marked it and everything! :eek:

Ok I quote: Criminal law by Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn: 'Sports activties have been treated as having social usefulness, and so the defendants are treated as having consented to to even serious injuries provided they occured within the rules of the game, as in Billinghurst (1978) where the defence was allowed in the notoriously violent game of rugby.'
0
Multiplexed
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#214
Report 12 years ago
#214
There is no need to differentiate domestic violence from the non-fatal offences. However, you could form it as part of your evaluation by stating that the police have tended to take a lighter view of this in previous years but now has been rectified with new legislation covering that area.

I bring some more gifts:

STANDARD INTRODUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL LAW ESSAYS

CRIMINAL LAW 2

ASSAULTS

The main offences are set out in the OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (OAPA). There are a number of offences against the person, with distinctions made according to the seriousness of the injuries caused and D’s mental state at the time of causing them (intent or subjective recklessness). The OAPA did not create a coherent set of offences. It is also an ancient Act, which contains very out-of-date and misleading terms. Consequently, there have been calls for urgent reform of this whole area of law.
I will begin my answer by … and then discuss …

CONSENT

The victim’s consent to the defendant’s behaviour can exempt the defendant (D) from liability. Many offences against the person, such as rape, assault and battery, cannot be committed if the victim (V) gives a valid consent. By recognizing a defence of consent, the courts are acknowledging that individuals should be independent and free to control their own lives, but there are limitations to this principle, where a valid consent cannot be given. These limitations seem to depend on the nature and degree of harm to which V has consented. Once D raises the defence, the burden of proving lack of consent rests on the prosecution: DONOVAN (1934).
I will begin my answer by … and then move on to discuss …

THEFT

Section 1 of the THEFT ACT 1968 provides that: ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’.
I will start my answer by explaining … and then discuss …

INSANITY

Under the M’NAGHTEN Rules everyone is presumed to be sane. With insanity, D must prove all the elements of the defence, on the balance of probabilities. If D is found to have been insane at the time of the crime, then the jury should return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – the ‘special verdict.’ Apart from murder cases, which means indefinite detention in a special hospital, the judge can impose a variety of orders under the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY AND UNFITNESS TO PLEAD) ACT 1991.
I will begin my answer by explaining … and then discuss …

DURESS AND NECESSITY

Duress is a complete defence because D has been effectively forced to commit the crime. D has to choose between being killed or seriously injured, or committing a crime. In such a situation there is no real choice. Duress can be either through a direct threat by another (duress by threats) or through external circumstances (duress of circumstances). The defence of necessity applies to situations in which D is faced with the choice of committing a crime, or allowing inevitable or irreparable evil. D’s conduct is justified because he has done a good thing despite a difficult situation.
In this essay I will begin by explaining … and then discuss …


INTOXICATION

Intoxication does not provide a general defence as such, but it is relevant to whether or not D has the required mens rea for the offence. If D does not have the required mens rea because of his intoxicated state he may not be guilty. Whether D is guilty or not depends on whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent and whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. The defence of intoxication poses something of a problem for the law. The law has tried to achieve a compromise between simply leaving it to the jury to decide whether the intoxication negatived D’s mens rea and the demands of public policy to protect the public from alcohol or drug fuelled violence. However, at the moment public policy prevails.
In this essay I will begin by explaining … and then discuss …
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#215
Report 12 years ago
#215
Thank you soooooooo much Ben, I owe you!! I am freaking out about this textbook now though!!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#216
Report 12 years ago
#216
It's no problem; which bloody textbook are you using?
0
Multiplexed
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#217
Report 12 years ago
#217
The only time you could even mention Billinghurst would be in Consent for the good reasons.
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#218
Report 12 years ago
#218
(Original post by Multiplexed)
There is no need to differentiate domestic violence from the non-fatal offences. However, you could form it as part of your evaluation by stating that the police have tended to take a lighter view of this in previous years but now has been rectified with new legislation covering that area.

I bring some more gifts:

STANDARD INTRODUCTIONS FOR CRIMINAL LAW ESSAYS

CRIMINAL LAW 2

ASSAULTS

The main offences are set out in the OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (OAPA). There are a number of offences against the person, with distinctions made according to the seriousness of the injuries caused and D’s mental state at the time of causing them (intent or subjective recklessness). The OAPA did not create a coherent set of offences. It is also an ancient Act, which contains very out-of-date and misleading terms. Consequently, there have been calls for urgent reform of this whole area of law.
I will begin my answer by … and then discuss …

CONSENT

The victim’s consent to the defendant’s behaviour can exempt the defendant (D) from liability. Many offences against the person, such as rape, assault and battery, cannot be committed if the victim (V) gives a valid consent. By recognizing a defence of consent, the courts are acknowledging that individuals should be independent and free to control their own lives, but there are limitations to this principle, where a valid consent cannot be given. These limitations seem to depend on the nature and degree of harm to which V has consented. Once D raises the defence, the burden of proving lack of consent rests on the prosecution: DONOVAN (1934).
I will begin my answer by … and then move on to discuss …

THEFT

Section 1 of the THEFT ACT 1968 provides that: ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’.
I will start my answer by explaining … and then discuss …

INSANITY

Under the M’NAGHTEN Rules everyone is presumed to be sane. With insanity, D must prove all the elements of the defence, on the balance of probabilities. If D is found to have been insane at the time of the crime, then the jury should return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – the ‘special verdict.’ Apart from murder cases, which means indefinite detention in a special hospital, the judge can impose a variety of orders under the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY AND UNFITNESS TO PLEAD) ACT 1991.
I will begin my answer by explaining … and then discuss …

DURESS AND NECESSITY

Duress is a complete defence because D has been effectively forced to commit the crime. D has to choose between being killed or seriously injured, or committing a crime. In such a situation there is no real choice. Duress can be either through a direct threat by another (duress by threats) or through external circumstances (duress of circumstances). The defence of necessity applies to situations in which D is faced with the choice of committing a crime, or allowing inevitable or irreparable evil. D’s conduct is justified because he has done a good thing despite a difficult situation.
In this essay I will begin by explaining … and then discuss …


INTOXICATION

Intoxication does not provide a general defence as such, but it is relevant to whether or not D has the required mens rea for the offence. If D does not have the required mens rea because of his intoxicated state he may not be guilty. Whether D is guilty or not depends on whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent and whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. The defence of intoxication poses something of a problem for the law. The law has tried to achieve a compromise between simply leaving it to the jury to decide whether the intoxication negatived D’s mens rea and the demands of public policy to protect the public from alcohol or drug fuelled violence. However, at the moment public policy prevails.
In this essay I will begin by explaining … and then discuss …

Just a small pointer, Theft won't come up as an essay question; Tony Storey (who writes the exams) said he isn't keen on setting certain sections as essay questions, and prefer to include the whole act within a problem. Your introductions are good, the only improvement is to perhaps put either the leading or authority cases in, such as Beard/Majewski (Intoxication) for the distinction.
0
Multiplexed
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#219
Report 12 years ago
#219
(Original post by Ben_Stephenson)
Just a small pointer, Theft won't come up as an essay question; Tony Storey (who writes the exams) said he isn't keen on setting certain sections as essay questions, and prefer to include the whole act within a problem. Your introductions are good, the only improvement is to perhaps put either the leading or authority cases in, such as Beard/Majewski (Intoxication) for the distinction.
Those aren't my introductions. I just found them & thought they would be useful to post.

Yeah our teacher told us theft is also unlikely as an essay which is why i like criminal law 2 as there is hardly **** to revise.
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#220
Report 12 years ago
#220
Ah I see; I thought you had just done those introductions off the top of your head, lol. Yeah theft is really good as a problem, and Crim 2 is definitely easier than Crim 1.
0
X
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

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (61)
37.42%
No - but I will (6)
3.68%
No - I don't want to (10)
6.13%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (86)
52.76%

Watched Threads

View All