Aqa law unit 3 models
I got a grade A for A level law (2014) so I highly recommend using this thread and the techniques I used
THESE ANSWERS ARE GUARANTEED TO GET YOU A SOUND WITH SUFFICIENT APPLICATION
MURDER
[video="youtube;_t2Luj8zAoY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t2Luj8zAoY[/video]
Murdahhh
Definition first "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" - Sir Edward Coke then say x may be convicted of the murder of y
Then actus reus which is the unlawful killing " x's action of stabbing y resulted in the death of y and as murder is result crime it must be proven the death caused was both factual and legal. "but for x stabbing y, y would not have died - white" and the act of stabbing is both operative and a significant contribution" - Smith, cheshire
Mens rea is intention to kill (expressed) or inflict GBH (implied) and must be done with 'malice aforethought' - Vickers. In regards to intention, Matthews V Alleyne rules intention is a rule of evidence for the jury to decide. It can be both direct through the D's decision to bring about the consequence of death or gbh -Maloney or indirect where death is virtually certain and the D appreciated this.- Nedrick,Woollin . X had the expressed mens rea as he had intent to kill (maloney) through the actions of stabbing y.
Both elements of murder are satisfied
THESE ANSWERS ARE GUARANTEED TO GET YOU A SOUND WITH SUFFICIENT APPLICATION
MURDER
[video="youtube;_t2Luj8zAoY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t2Luj8zAoY[/video]
Murdahhh
Definition first "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" - Sir Edward Coke then say x may be convicted of the murder of y
Then actus reus which is the unlawful killing " x's action of stabbing y resulted in the death of y and as murder is result crime it must be proven the death caused was both factual and legal. "but for x stabbing y, y would not have died - white" and the act of stabbing is both operative and a significant contribution" - Smith, cheshire
Mens rea is intention to kill (expressed) or inflict GBH (implied) and must be done with 'malice aforethought' - Vickers. In regards to intention, Matthews V Alleyne rules intention is a rule of evidence for the jury to decide. It can be both direct through the D's decision to bring about the consequence of death or gbh -Maloney or indirect where death is virtually certain and the D appreciated this.- Nedrick,Woollin . X had the expressed mens rea as he had intent to kill (maloney) through the actions of stabbing y.
Both elements of murder are satisfied
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
[video="youtube;9KEYCsMSH84"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KEYCsMSH84[/video]
GROSSS NEGLIGENCEEEEEEE
X may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter which occurs when the death results from a negligent act. We must prove there was a duty of care, breach of duty, a risk of death, the d's act was substantial,and the mens rea of gnm
Duty of care - Donoghue v stevenson neighbour principle (WACKER)
Breach of duty. The d is tested against what an ordinary individual would have done. - (Becker) Bateman rules "The jury must consider whether the breach goes beyond a matter of mere compensation and shows such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a criminal conviction"
Breach must carry a risk of death. (Misra, Rv singh)
GN must be the substantial cause of death (Finley, Edwards)
Lastly the mens rea it the d's grossly negligent behaviour. Adamako highlighted four states of mind
[video="youtube;9KEYCsMSH84"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KEYCsMSH84[/video]
GROSSS NEGLIGENCEEEEEEE
X may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter which occurs when the death results from a negligent act. We must prove there was a duty of care, breach of duty, a risk of death, the d's act was substantial,and the mens rea of gnm
Duty of care - Donoghue v stevenson neighbour principle (WACKER)
Breach of duty. The d is tested against what an ordinary individual would have done. - (Becker) Bateman rules "The jury must consider whether the breach goes beyond a matter of mere compensation and shows such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a criminal conviction"
Breach must carry a risk of death. (Misra, Rv singh)
GN must be the substantial cause of death (Finley, Edwards)
Lastly the mens rea it the d's grossly negligent behaviour. Adamako highlighted four states of mind
•
Actual foresight of risk
•
inattention or failure to address a serious risk
•
appreciation of the risk with an intention to avoid it
•
indifference to an obvious risk
(edited 9 years ago)
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
[video="youtube;QW6Zm0Rv90k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW6Zm0Rv90k[/video]
INVOLUNTARYYYYY
Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as constructive manslaughter and these is liability for death from an "Unlawful" and "Dangerous" act. This act cannot be a tort or contract - Rv Franklin and the D can be convicted even if the death was not contemplated.
There must be an unlawful act. It cannot be an omission. Lamb had no criminal offence so no conviction for manslaughter. X's act was clearly unlawful as....
This unlawful act must have been dangerous. The test is in Church "would a reasonable an sober person realise the act would risk causing some harm". X's act is in no doubt dangerous as...... and this risk is over and above "fear" - Dawson
The death must have been caused by the unlawful act (Goodfellow). x's act must have caused death factually "but for x's acts y would not have died" and legally as established in smith and cheshire. x's act were both operative and substantial and more than significant contribution
Lastly, in order to prove UAM there must be a positive act and this must be accompanied by the mens rea to commit that act. x has the mens rea of
[video="youtube;QW6Zm0Rv90k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW6Zm0Rv90k[/video]
INVOLUNTARYYYYY
Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as constructive manslaughter and these is liability for death from an "Unlawful" and "Dangerous" act. This act cannot be a tort or contract - Rv Franklin and the D can be convicted even if the death was not contemplated.
There must be an unlawful act. It cannot be an omission. Lamb had no criminal offence so no conviction for manslaughter. X's act was clearly unlawful as....
This unlawful act must have been dangerous. The test is in Church "would a reasonable an sober person realise the act would risk causing some harm". X's act is in no doubt dangerous as...... and this risk is over and above "fear" - Dawson
The death must have been caused by the unlawful act (Goodfellow). x's act must have caused death factually "but for x's acts y would not have died" and legally as established in smith and cheshire. x's act were both operative and substantial and more than significant contribution
Lastly, in order to prove UAM there must be a positive act and this must be accompanied by the mens rea to commit that act. x has the mens rea of
(edited 9 years ago)
PRSOM thanks mate these are really helpful!
Wish you were around when I studied A-Level Law
Original post by neal95
PRSOM thanks mate these are really helpful!
Glad to have helped
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- A level law
- chemistry aqa a-level question help
- A-Level Business Study Group 2023-2024
- A Level Law Study Group 2020-21
- Grow Your Grades: Michelle's version
- Business useless?
- wjec as law
- What is this?
- Choosing a University
- Entry Requirements
- picking firm choice/clearing
- BTEC IT Level 3 Unit 5 - Cheese
- Law or Politics-A level
- btec applied science extended certificate aqa
- Ocr a level law predictions 2023
- Btec grade calculator for uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
