Ocr A2 Law (criminal): Offical Thread! Watch

This discussion is closed.
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#221
Report 12 years ago
#221
(Original post by zoea85)
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!
The domestic violence criticism with regards to the non-fatals isn't really important I don't think. I've read that its more to do with the Self-Defence defence. It just says that this defence promotes sexual discrimination because men are a lot stronger than women and can retaliate straight away but women sometimes wait until the men are asleep to hurt them, or use a weapon. In which case self-defence might fail because a weapon is probably classed as excessive force.
0
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#222
Report 12 years ago
#222
Hi does anybody the questions or topics that came up on the synoptic exam this year in january. I know the ones from last June but not jan. Am I right in thinking that question 2 was about the case of Walkington? If anyone knows Q1,3,4 that'd be great! Thanks
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#223
Report 12 years ago
#223
(Original post by Nicci1187)
Hi does anybody the questions or topics that came up on the synoptic exam this year in january. I know the ones from last June but not jan. Am I right in thinking that question 2 was about the case of Walkington? If anyone knows Q1,3,4 that'd be great! Thanks
Q1 was advantages and disadvantages of literal & golden rule

Q2 was walkington

not sure on Q3, I think I have that written down somewhere I'll have to check...

Q4 was 3 burglary scenarios I think
0
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#224
Report 12 years ago
#224
(Original post by zoea85)
Q1 was advantages and disadvantages of literal & golden rule

Q2 was walkington

not sure on Q3, I think I have that written down somewhere I'll have to check...

Q4 was 3 burglary scenarios I think
Thanks for that! So do you think its safe to say that Walkington and Hale probably won't come up? I think it could be Collins, theres quite a bit to right about that.
0
gsmgrimes
Badges: 0
#225
Report 12 years ago
#225
Throughout the year my law teacher was very keen for us to learn the dates of the cases that we may need to cite in the exams, but since i have been on study leave it seems to me at least (although admittedly i have a memory like a sieve!!) impossible to learn the dates of the all the cases i want to have memorized.
I also have noticed that on OCR mark schemes they suggest some relevant cases that examiners should specifically look out for but do not mention the dates of these cases. e.g. "Doughty; Camplin; Thornton" is this a suggestion that the dates are irrelevant.
Is it just my overzealous law teacher who has taken things a bit over the top or am i just wrong and reading into things too much?
So if you could let me know what your agenda is in relation to learning cases that would be great. Thanks!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#226
Report 12 years ago
#226
(Original post by gsmgrimes)
Throughout the year my law teacher was very keen for us to learn the dates of the cases that we may need to cite in the exams, but since i have been on study leave it seems to me at least (although admittedly i have a memory like a sieve!!) impossible to learn the dates of the all the cases i want to have memorized.
I also have noticed that on OCR mark schemes they suggest some relevant cases that examiners should specifically look out for but do not mention the dates of these cases. e.g. "Doughty; Camplin; Thornton" is this a suggestion that the dates are irrelevant.
Is it just my overzealous law teacher who has taken things a bit over the top or am i just wrong and reading into things too much?
So if you could let me know what your agenda is in relation to learning cases that would be great. Thanks!
I think that what is of paramount important is the key principle of the case (i.e. the ''one liner'') followed by the case, the only way the dates would help is on something the development in the Law, i.e 'substantial and effective entry' (Collins 1973, Brown 1985, Ryan 1996) as it will provide your answer with a more coherent structure. Other than that, it cannot be that important.
0
sonya_p
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#227
Report 12 years ago
#227
(Original post by gsmgrimes)
Throughout the year my law teacher was very keen for us to learn the dates of the cases that we may need to cite in the exams, but since i have been on study leave it seems to me at least (although admittedly i have a memory like a sieve!!) impossible to learn the dates of the all the cases i want to have memorized.
I also have noticed that on OCR mark schemes they suggest some relevant cases that examiners should specifically look out for but do not mention the dates of these cases. e.g. "Doughty; Camplin; Thornton" is this a suggestion that the dates are irrelevant.
Is it just my overzealous law teacher who has taken things a bit over the top or am i just wrong and reading into things too much?
So if you could let me know what your agenda is in relation to learning cases that would be great. Thanks!

For AS, i learnt dates then i realised later on we dont need 2! It might help you to remember which case over ruled what but its not necessary. You can still get an A grade without mentioning the dates....
0
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#228
Report 12 years ago
#228
(Original post by gsmgrimes)
Throughout the year my law teacher was very keen for us to learn the dates of the cases that we may need to cite in the exams, but since i have been on study leave it seems to me at least (although admittedly i have a memory like a sieve!!) impossible to learn the dates of the all the cases i want to have memorized.
I also have noticed that on OCR mark schemes they suggest some relevant cases that examiners should specifically look out for but do not mention the dates of these cases. e.g. "Doughty; Camplin; Thornton" is this a suggestion that the dates are irrelevant.
Is it just my overzealous law teacher who has taken things a bit over the top or am i just wrong and reading into things too much?
So if you could let me know what your agenda is in relation to learning cases that would be great. Thanks!
Theres no need to learn the dates of any cases, that'd be way too much lol. I've never written any case dates in an exam and like you say none of the leading books by examiners say you have to learn case dates. Make sure you learn dates for statutes tho because a lot have been amemded so a lot of statutes with the same name have different dates.
0
zoea85
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#229
Report 12 years ago
#229
Yeah Walkington and Hale won't come up for Q2. My teacher said they definitely don't repeat them so once 1 has come up you can cross it off the list so to speak. Don't quote me on that though, I am beginning not to trust my textbook or my teacher these past few days! I'm pretty sure that's the case though.
0
*lulu7*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#230
Report 12 years ago
#230
(Original post by sonya_p)
For AS, i learnt dates then i realised later on we dont need 2! It might help you to remember which case over ruled what but its not necessary. You can still get an A grade without mentioning the dates....
yeh you just need to know the dates of acts like the computer misue act 1990 in "criminal damage" and the theft act 1968 things like that.....
0
*lulu7*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#231
Report 12 years ago
#231
(Original post by zoea85)
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.'
CONSENT

(Informed consent)
CUERRIER (1998). D charged with assault after unprotected sex with woman who consented, D knew he had HIV, V didn’t.
________________________________ __________
 Consent is where someone gives permission for an action to take place

 Consent is a defence for all non-fatal offences against the person:

• Rape
• Assault and Battery (s39)
• GBH with intent (s18)

Cannot be used as a defence for murder (incl. euthanasia)


 The courts have identified that in some situations there are ‘good reasons’ for certain offences that inevitably take place:

• Sports
• Surgery
• Tattooing and Branding
• Horseplay
• Sexual activity (Sado-masochistic) does not hold “good reason”.


SPORTS
CONEY (1882)
The availability of consent is restricted, as participants didn’t negate the unlawful element even though they consented.
The spectators were prosecuted for aiding and abetting a knuckle prize fight.
________________________________ __________
 An ‘off-the-ball’ situation in rugby, football or ice-hockey does not exclude being charged with assault, even if there is consent from the participants.

BILLINGHURST (1978)
D punched an opposing player in an ‘off-the-ball’ rugby union match. Convicted of GBH


 If incidents ‘on-the-ball’ were taken to court, this would affect the actual sports, as fouls inevitably take place

CEY (1989) The courts provided a criterion to help what is considered:

• Nature of game
• Nature of acts
• Surroundings
• Degree of force and risk of injury
• State of mind of D
________________________________ __________________
 In boxing they have the Queensbury Rules. BUT the courts stated in the case of MOORE (1898) that no rules of a game are laws of the land and an alleged assault should be assessed independently.
SURGERY

 Surgery is seen as a “good reason”, by the courts, as patients consent for ‘wounding’ that inevitably comes with surgery procedures. (Incl. ex ops and cosmetic surgery)


TATTOO AND BRANDING

 This is seen as a “good reason” as long as there is consent (incl ear piercing)

WILSON (1997)
Woman consented for her husband to ‘brand’ her buttocks; therefore his conviction of ABH was quashed.
________________________________ ___________________
 Consent must be real and would not be sufficient if V is a child or mentally retarded.

HARMER (1967)
D convicted ABH after tattooing two boys aged 12 and 13.
Tattoos became infected.
Boys would have understood what a tattoo was, but would have not comprehended the level of pain involved.







HORSEPLAY

 Horseplay is accepted as a “good reason” for the defence of consent.

 Courts understand that in a children’s playground there will be deliberate physical contact, therefore criminal law should not be involved. HOWEVER

JONES AND OTHERS (1986)
Boys were injured having been tossed in the air. This was a case that illustrated as consent being a successful defence.
________________________________ _________________

SADO-MASOCHISTIC

 This is seen as not having a “good reason”. The courts state it is an unlawful act.

 The Law Lords decided a victim could give valid consent to ABH but not to GBH

EMMETT (1999)
This case shows how activity goes beyond an extreme potential risk. D was convicted and C.O.A upheld.

^^^ that includes Billinghurst simplistically for you.. rather than what it said in that complicated textbook of yours xx
0
Multiplexed
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#232
Report 12 years ago
#232
(Original post by lulu7)
CONSENT

(Informed consent)
CUERRIER (1998). D charged with assault after unprotected sex with woman who consented, D knew he had HIV, V didn’t.
________________________________ __________
 Consent is where someone gives permission for an action to take place

 Consent is a defence for all non-fatal offences against the person:

• Rape
• Assault and Battery (s39)
• GBH with intent (s18)

Cannot be used as a defence for murder (incl. euthanasia)


 The courts have identified that in some situations there are ‘good reasons’ for certain offences that inevitably take place:

• Sports
• Surgery
• Tattooing and Branding
• Horseplay
• Sexual activity (Sado-masochistic) does not hold “good reason”.


SPORTS
CONEY (1882)
The availability of consent is restricted, as participants didn’t negate the unlawful element even though they consented.
The spectators were prosecuted for aiding and abetting a knuckle prize fight.
________________________________ __________
 An ‘off-the-ball’ situation in rugby, football or ice-hockey does not exclude being charged with assault, even if there is consent from the participants.

BILLINGHURST (1978)
D punched an opposing player in an ‘off-the-ball’ rugby union match. Convicted of GBH


 If incidents ‘on-the-ball’ were taken to court, this would affect the actual sports, as fouls inevitably take place

CEY (1989) The courts provided a criterion to help what is considered:

• Nature of game
• Nature of acts
• Surroundings
• Degree of force and risk of injury
• State of mind of D
________________________________ __________________
 In boxing they have the Queensbury Rules. BUT the courts stated in the case of MOORE (1898) that no rules of a game are laws of the land and an alleged assault should be assessed independently.
SURGERY

 Surgery is seen as a “good reason”, by the courts, as patients consent for ‘wounding’ that inevitably comes with surgery procedures. (Incl. ex ops and cosmetic surgery)


TATTOO AND BRANDING

 This is seen as a “good reason” as long as there is consent (incl ear piercing)

WILSON (1997)
Woman consented for her husband to ‘brand’ her buttocks; therefore his conviction of ABH was quashed.
________________________________ ___________________
 Consent must be real and would not be sufficient if V is a child or mentally retarded.

HARMER (1967)
D convicted ABH after tattooing two boys aged 12 and 13.
Tattoos became infected.
Boys would have understood what a tattoo was, but would have not comprehended the level of pain involved.







HORSEPLAY

 Horseplay is accepted as a “good reason” for the defence of consent.

 Courts understand that in a children’s playground there will be deliberate physical contact, therefore criminal law should not be involved. HOWEVER

JONES AND OTHERS (1986)
Boys were injured having been tossed in the air. This was a case that illustrated as consent being a successful defence.
________________________________ _________________

SADO-MASOCHISTIC

 This is seen as not having a “good reason”. The courts state it is an unlawful act.

 The Law Lords decided a victim could give valid consent to ABH but not to GBH

EMMETT (1999)
This case shows how activity goes beyond an extreme potential risk. D was convicted and C.O.A upheld.

^^^ that includes Billinghurst simplistically for you.. rather than what it said in that complicated textbook of yours xx
Any of you evaluating FLATT/MOORHALL in Duress under the sober person of reasonable firmness? If not, ya should be.
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#233
Report 12 years ago
#233
(Original post by Multiplexed)
Any of you evaluating FLATT/MOORHALL in Duress under the sober person of reasonable firmness? If not, ya should be.

Of course, you can comment by saying that the test is similar to provocation (subjective/objective) but say that in duress they are unwilling to allow mental characteristics (such as low IQ) be a reason for not being able to withstand threats. Mainly because duress provides the defendant with a full defence, whereas provocation is a partial defence.
Authority case - Graham (1982)
0
Multiplexed
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#234
Report 12 years ago
#234
(Original post by Ben_Stephenson)
Of course, you can comment by saying that the test is similar to provocation (subjective/objective) but say that in duress they are unwilling to allow mental characteristics (such as low IQ) be a reason for not being able to withstand threats. Mainly because duress provides the defendant with a full defence, whereas provocation is a partial defence.
Authority case - Graham (1982)
The FLAT/MOORHALL issue was about self-induced conditions.
0
sonya_p
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#235
Report 12 years ago
#235
wohoo! iv managed to learn duress of threats! its actually easy lol
but im having problem with duress of circumstances! its irritating me!
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#236
Report 12 years ago
#236
(Original post by Multiplexed)
The FLAT/MOORHALL issue was about self-induced conditions.
Yes, but they are not relevant to the test, because they are self-induced.
0
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#237
Report 12 years ago
#237
erm ok...whats FLAT/MOORHALL? are they cases coz i've not studied those
0
Ben_Stephenson
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#238
Report 12 years ago
#238
(Original post by Nicci1187)
erm ok...whats FLAT/MOORHALL? are they cases coz i've not studied those
Case;
R v Graham 1982

Key Principle;
The defendant must respond to the threat as would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant’s relevant characteristics.

Commentary;
This test is similar to that previous used in provocation under Camplin (1978) and was confirmed in Howe (1987).
It may now be that in the future the courts will now adopt the test laid down in Smith (Morgan) 2001 (purely subjective, gravity of provocation, and standard of self control).
Voluntary intoxication is not taken into account whilst applying the test.
Nor is a self induced drug addiction (R v Flatt 1996), or low IQ (R v Bowen 1996), because neither are relevant, as such, to the ability to withstand threats.
0
Nicci1187
Badges: 0
#239
Report 12 years ago
#239
ohhh thanks I knew duress didn't account for self-induced intoxication, just didn't know what the authority was on that point
0
*lulu7*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#240
Report 12 years ago
#240
right...

i have learnt for definate and am confident on:

consent
criminal damage
duress and necessity
intention
automatism
causation
self-defence
burglary
robbery





left to revise::: i have got:

intox
attempts
theft act
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
mistake
assault and battery
manslaughter
DResponsibility



^^^^ can anyone spot any RELEVANT topics that i have left out.. i know strict liability is not up there and provocation and participation.... anything else??
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

  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19
  • University of East Anglia
    Could you inspire the next generation? Find out more about becoming a Primary teacher with UEA… Postgraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19
  • Anglia Ruskin University
    Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences; Business and Law; Science and Engineering Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All