The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

OCR Criminal Law June 2014

Scroll to see replies

Original post by niallrobins0n
Useful links for G154 special study below

Page 21 and further provides examples of a Grade 'A' answer in comparison to a Grade 'E' answer. It provides them for a question 1, 2 and three.
http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/74903-units-g153-and-g154-teacher-guide-criminal-law.pdf

The link below is the standard past paper page, you can find special study papers, source material and mark schemes from 2010 onwards. This is the first time robbery and burglary has came up on the special study, but the two links provided should give you a rough idea of what they are looking for and how to achieve high marks!

http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-law-h134-h534/


For question 3 is that around how much we should write?
Original post by sam_higman
I'm pretty sure the question asked for specific defences only, which would be Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Self Control? Intoxication and automatism would have been irrelevant as they're general defences?


but they wouldn't blatantly put in problems to do with being intoxicated and the effect of a drug for no reason?
If it was purely based on diminished responsibility and loss of self control there would be a lot more problems to discuss I feel dr and loss of self control would not be enough for just 50marks?? especially if they asked us not to talk about murder?
Did you do this question, if so, how did you answer it?

Also, we didn't have to offer Florence any defences right? I didn't have time to check
Original post by sarahgoode
I did automatism, intoxication, diminished responsibility and loss of control. I was going to put in self defence but didn't end up doing it cause there was already a lot. dont think i did great on that one! How about you?


Hey guys, I did the same question. Apparently, we were only supposed to talk about specific defences (diminished responsibility and loss of self control) because the question asked that but I thought it spoke about just defences available for Duane? I spoke about the same things as you guys.
Also, Florence (Duane's wife) we didn't have to talk about any defences for her right?? I didn't mention her in my answer except for her laughing and threats that could consist of things said and done (loss of self control).

With regards to Automatism and Intoxication could you please tell me what you wrote so I am content with my answer too thanks :smile:
Original post by Blyts-_
I literally wrote everything about involuntary manslaughter I knew, completely forgot it was a section B question, also briefly explained the judgements in Smith, Cheshire and Jordan

Ahh same lol
Original post by random1234567
Hey for section C I got inaccurate, accurate, inaccurate and accurate!


This is soo confusing, I hate section C?

I think the third one and second one could go either way? depending on what you wrote :smile:
Original post by xxblue
but they wouldn't blatantly put in problems to do with being intoxicated and the effect of a drug for no reason?
If it was purely based on diminished responsibility and loss of self control there would be a lot more problems to discuss I feel dr and loss of self control would not be enough for just 50marks?? especially if they asked us not to talk about murder?
Did you do this question, if so, how did you answer it?

Also, we didn't have to offer Florence any defences right? I didn't have time to check


But they only asked for the specific defences. I think they included elements such as Duane being intoxicated so people would get confused and include a defence of intoxication? And they've had a question in the past which was very similar based on murder and voluntary manslaughter and the only marks awarded were for specific defences?

And yeah I answered it. I very briefly just said that Duane killed a human being etc and that's why the specific defences could be considered, and just talked about those. I talked about Alcohol Dependency Syndrome for Diminished Responsibility though?

No you didn't have to talk about liability/ any defences for Florence
Yh the Voluntary Manslaughter scenario only concerned DR and LC. It asked for 'specific defences when charged with murder' and the only murder-specific defences are DR and LC- intoxication, automatism, etc. are general defences and thus apply to all defences (well most anyway). The mentions of intoxication and sexual infidelity were there to amplify the difficulty as they are unique issues within the defences themselves that you would need to know specific information (eg Lord Widgery's quote in R v Fenton) in order to address. I also feel the examiners not asking us to discuss murder was partially them being nice in that VM itself takes a while to answer (just as they were nice with Theft in SB and Omissions and Murder (effectively Intention) in SA) and partially that it doesn't really test knowledge to ask for a brief application of the law on murder.
Original post by xxblue
This is soo confusing, I hate section C?

I think the third one and second one could go either way? depending on what you wrote :smile:

Yes, that is true there are usually two alternatives
Original post by Alex626
For question 3 is that around how much we should write?


Personally I would write more, I think they have just provided basic points.

Something like:
*scenario*
Theft governed by TA, the definition is...
For a robbery to occur, it must be proven that there was a complete theft
Under the TA john has dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another, with ITPD.
John was dishonest as s 2 a, b, c dont apply.
The object was property for section 4 and and did belong to another for section 5 and had ITPD for section 6. Dishonest following gosh.
conclude if theft or not

THEN
D must use force or put or seek to put V in fear of force and use force immediately before/ time of theft.
INCLUDE A CASE AS THEY ARE OFTEN SIMILAR IN FACT.
Does what they do constitute force - need not be substantial or violent(cases)
Guilty of robbery, just theft or sometimes theft and assault (stolen but then used force to escape or a while afterwards)
Original post by Vitzy

And wrote 2 pages for the R/B dilemma board. Although, I did get a bit stuck on statement B... but I did come to the conclusion that he was not guily of robbery as all of the elements of theft must be present and he himself has not appropriated anything, his accomplice did. For all of the others they were guilty and my law teacher agreed. Statement B was apparently an 'either way one' (you can get full marks for either conclusion as long as your reasoning is sound:frown:


So all the other statements were incorrect right
Original post by malsha_demel
So all the other statements were incorrect right

What did u get for section C? the statements?
How many cases do you include for each question on the synoptic?
Original post by random1234567
What did u get for section C? the statements?


I got inaccurate, accurate, inaccurate and I didn't have time to finished the last one :frown: but I was gna write inaccurate cause he was invited into the flat by him friend.
Original post by malsha_demel
I got inaccurate, accurate, inaccurate and I didn't have time to finished the last one :frown: but I was gna write inaccurate cause he was invited into the flat by him friend.

Yes, I got the same as you!, innacurate, accurate, inaccurate and accurate!
Reply 1194
Avatar for johnr
johnr
why is R v Hale always considered a robbery, could it not be talked about as a burglary?
Original post by johnr
why is R v Hale always considered a robbery, could it not be talked about as a burglary?


Use of force is the key
Can anyone help me out with how exactly I'm supposed to prepare for g154? I'm so lost because I wasn't in for any of the lessons on it and have no idea how to revise for it.
Also what cases are we supposed to use? Just the ones in the sources?
Original post by ProcrastinatePro
Can anyone help me out with how exactly I'm supposed to prepare for g154? I'm so lost because I wasn't in for any of the lessons on it and have no idea how to revise for it.
Also what cases are we supposed to use? Just the ones in the sources?


Use the cases in the source use other relating cases such as Clouden and Lockley. Know the cases inside out! Know the source booklet well also since the paper is synoptic use some of your AS knowledge on things such as judicial precedent the idea of binding comes up in robbery and overruling in burglary some of the statutory interpretation knowledge would also be good for Q2! Q1 is solely AO2 and looking at the development of the law. Hope that helps

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MissB26
Use the cases in the source use other relating cases such as Clouden and Lockley. Know the cases inside out! Know the source booklet well also since the paper is synoptic use some of your AS knowledge on things such as judicial precedent the idea of binding comes up in robbery and overruling in burglary some of the statutory interpretation knowledge would also be good for Q2! Q1 is solely AO2 and looking at the development of the law. Hope that helps

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thank you, it did help! :smile:
My teacher reckons that for section 1, it's going to be Hale or Collins as they're the full sources. But if it's Collins, you need to know Brown or Ryan anyway because they link!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you