Law Unit 2 AQA Watch

hannah123.
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Has anyone got any revision notes for AQA Law Unit 2 AS Level? If you have please post them as there is much online for unit 2 compared to unit 1. Also if you have any advice for the exams please post that too
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Hey I am just coming to the end of unit 2 now finishing off negligence.. Would you like some model answers for some Unit 2 questions????
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by hannah123.)
Has anyone got any revision notes for AQA Law Unit 2 AS Level? If you have please post them as there is much online for unit 2 compared to unit 1. Also if you have any advice for the exams please post that too
For strict liability its most prob just gonna be a straight up answer and not an application question so..
For any offence the D must have the actus reus and the mens rea at the same time. There is exceptions to this rule in which is strict liability offences. The strict liability offences only require proof of the actus reus merely preforming the act is sufficient to make a person guilty. Many of the crimes are regulatory: they include failing to pay bus fare or speeding. The offences are usually created through statute.
CASES ITS ILLUSTRATED IN

CALLOW V TILLSTONE
A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass, the vet said it was fine. The butcher sold the meat anyway and it turned out to be contaminated. HELD: D was convicted of sale of unsound meat. There was need to protect the public.

SWEET V PARSLEY ( it was further illustrated in this case.)

When deciding if the offence is strict liability

In GAMMON V AG FOR HONG KONG - (The gammon principle was established)
  • In a criminal offence it is to be presumed that the offence requires proof of mens rea.
  • The presumption is particularly strong in 'truly criminal' offences.
  • A clear statement in a statute that mens rea is not required will replace a presumption.
  • The presumption is also replaced if it is of social concern.


R V BLAKE
D convicted of making broadcasts on a pirate radio station without a liscence. Admitted to using equipment but said he did not know it was transmitting. HELD: convicted as pirate radio stations may interfere with public safety.

HARROW L.B.C V SHAH
D sold a national lottery ticket to a person under 16 HELD: guilty as its a matter of social concern (gambling in children)

ADVANTAGES

  • EASIER TO PROVE ONLY NEED PROOF OF MR
  • LESS TIME IN COURT (FINES USUALLY PAID BEOFRE COURT IS EVEN NECESSARY)
  • ENCOURAGES COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
  • PREVENTS DEFENCES BENING RAISED AS AN EXCUSE
  • MAKES REGULATIONS STRAIGHT FORWARD
  • PROTECTS THE PUBLIC


DISADVANTAGES
  • OFFENCES ARE UNJUST AS D IS GULITY EVEN IF HE DID NOT INTEND TO COMMIT
  • DIFFICULT FOR THE DEFENCE TO DENY- PROSECUTIONS JOB MADE TOO EASY
  • IN HARROW L.B.C V SHAH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CUSTOMER GUILTY NOT THE SHOP KEEPER
0
reply
hannah123.
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
That would be great thanks x
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Attached files
0
reply
hannah123.
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
Thanks this is great!
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by hannah123.)
That would be great thanks x


Attached files
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by hannah123.)
Thanks this is great!
Attached files
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by hannah123.)
Thanks this is great!
Attached files
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
ABH problem question PLAN - You're welcome btw. Save the pics and rotate it wouldnt let me xx

basic intent offence under S.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, it has a max imprisonment of 5 years and is a triable either way offence. ABH was considered in R V CHAN-FOOK as the 'actual' meaning it should not be trivial but it should be significant. The harm can be psychological however it may exceed mere emotions of panic/fear.

The actus reus is either the actus reus for assault or battery. For it to be ABH it has to be battery or assault PLUS further harm. You will probably be able to establish the further harm from the scenario. Further harm includes: (charging standards are) loss/ break of tooth, temporary loss of sensory functions, multiple/ extensive bruising, pschologial injury (must be medical), displaced/broken nose, minor fracture e.g wrist and cuts that require stitches.

The mens rea for ABH is either direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham ) For Cunningham talk about how the test for recklessness is subjective. After saying the mens rea and the cases say:
The D either aims for the consequences or the D recognises the risk but still takes it anyway.

IF ITS ASSAULT + FURTHER HARM = ABH OCCASIONING ASSAULT
IF IT IS BATTERY + FURTHER HARM = ABH OCCASIONING BATTERY


MAKE SURE WHEN YOU HAVE DONE THE ACTUS REUS YOU THEN APPLY IT TO THE SCENARIO A FEW SENTENCES SAYING HOW THE D HAD THE ACTUS REUS
WHEN YOU HAVE DONE THE MENS REA APPLY IT AND SAY WEATHER THE D HAD SATISFIED EITHER RECKLESSNESS OR DIRECT INTENTION AND SAY WHY
THEN DO A CONCLUSION WEATHER HE IS LIKELY TO BE GUILITY OR NOT.

xxx
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by hannah123.)
Has anyone got any revision notes for AQA Law Unit 2 AS Level? If you have please post them as there is much online for unit 2 compared to unit 1. Also if you have any advice for the exams please post that too
FOR BATTERY

Battery is a basic intent offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. t has a max imprisonment of 6 months and is a summary offence tried in the Magistrates court. The actus reus of battery is to apply unlawful force. (Collins v Wilcock). It need not cause harm or pain, it can be spitting (R v Lyndsey) or touching the hem of a skirt (R v Thomas.)
The battery can be indirect, in DPP v K a student put acid in a hot air dryer and invited a student to use it causing severe burns to his face. Another case is R v Haystead someone was holding a child and D punched them causing the child to fall.
The mens rea is either direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) - Talk about the subjective test of Cunningham.
Say the D either achieves his aims or he recognises risk and goes ahead anyway.
AFTER ACTUS REUS APPLY IT TO SCENARIO WITH WHY D SATISFIED OR DID NOT
AFTER MENS REA APPLY IT AGAIN AND DO SAME
Conclusion weather its likely D will be guilty or not xxx
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by hannah123.)
Has anyone got any revision notes for AQA Law Unit 2 AS Level? If you have please post them as there is much online for unit 2 compared to unit 1. Also if you have any advice for the exams please post that too
FOR ASSAULT - it is easy to identify in the scenario as if you recognise the D said something that scared V without any further harm. But if further harm will either be ABH/GBH depending on the injuries.

Assault is a basic intent offence under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998, it is a summary offence with a max imprisonment of 6 months. It is tried i the Magistartes court.
The definition of assault was established in FAGAN V MPC it said 'the D causes the V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence, recklessley or intentionally'
SO THE ACTUS REUS IS THE D CAUSES THE V TO APPREHEND UNLAWFUL HARM
THEN YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN EACH OF THE ELEMENTS WITH CASES (apprehend, immediate)

Apprehend was established in LOGDON V DPP as the V recognises that something violent is about to happen.
Immediate was established in R v CONSTANZA as at the same time including the immediate future. This case was an assault from persistent letter writing.
This was further illustarted in R V IRELAND AND SMITH V CHEIF CONSTABLE OF WOKING.

The mens rea of assault is direct intention ( R v Mohan) or recklessness ( R v Cunningham) - Explain test in Cunningham

D either causes the consequences or recognises the risk and still takes it.

AFTER ACTUS REUS - APPLY
AFTER MENS REA - APPLY
CONCLUSION WEATHER D IS TO BE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY OR NOT
0
reply
samwillettsxxx
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by hannah123.)
Has anyone got any revision notes for AQA Law Unit 2 AS Level? If you have please post them as there is much online for unit 2 compared to unit 1. Also if you have any advice for the exams please post that too
FOR GBH AND WOUNDING (SEPARATE OFFENCES) - REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS S.20 AND S.18.

SECTION 20 GBH, 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND IS TRIABLE EITEHR WAY

The actus reus of S.20 GBH is the D cause 'really serious harm' (DPP v Smith) the GBH does not need to be life threatening and can be psychological.
Two GBH cases are: R v Halliday- D CAUSED V TO JUMP OUT OF WINDOW SHE BROKE LEGS
R v Bollam - baby extensively bruised - GBH due to the age of the V.
The mens rea of GBH s.20 is either direct intention ( R v mohan) or recklessness ( r v cunningham )

SECTION 20 WOUNDING the actus reus is to cause a cut or a break in the skin. ( THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE INTERNAL BLEEDING)
The case is JCC v Eisenhower: in this case a person was shot in the eye with a pellet gun, there was no break in the skin but a vessel was burst. - NO GBH AS NO CUT/BREAK.
The mens rea of S.20 wounding is recklessness or direct intention. (R v Cunningham/ R v Mohan)

NOW S.18 WOUNDING AND GBH HAVE THE SAME ACTUS REUS HOWEVER THE MENS REA IS DIFFERENT AND ALSO THE IMPRISONMENT AND TYPE OF OFFENCE.
For s.18 the imprisonment is life and the type is indictable.
The mens rea is DIRECT INTENTION - the D must have deffo deffo committed it
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

  • University of Roehampton
    Department of Humanities; Department of Drama, Theatre and Performance; Department of Social Sciences; Department of English and Creative Writing Undergraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19
  • Keele University
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19
  • Manchester Metropolitan University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19

Do you give blood?

Yes (72)
7.75%
I used to but I don't now (26)
2.8%
No, but I want to start (346)
37.24%
No, I am unable to (234)
25.19%
No, I chose not to (251)
27.02%

Watched Threads

View All