emmablckbrn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Couldn't see a discussion thread for this, so thought I would start one. How is everyone feeling for the exam? Any predictions on what will come up?
0
reply
jampot98
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Just hope strict liability doesn't come up.
For the criminal liability section The paper last year told students what offence it was, so we no longer have to decide what offence it is.
0
reply
emmablckbrn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
Strict Liability - crimes that require no proof of Mens Rea, such as driving without insurance
Authority: Gammon Ltd v A-G Hong Kong
Case example: Smedleys v Breed
Mostly statutory offences to protect the public, increase H&S and must be a matter of social concern
Although rare can be common law offence
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
what tort questions do people will think will come up
0
reply
gwennlebihan
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Does anyone know for strict liabilty if it is possible for a question on just the reaons for it or just the nature and offences or are they always a combined 2 part question?
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
From what I have seen it's usually a two part combined answer worth about 8 marks
0
reply
gwennlebihan
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by neal95)
From what I have seen it's usually a two part combined answer worth about 8 marks
ok, thanks
0
reply
emmablckbrn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
Does anyone have any examples for factual causation and rules of remoteness when applying to the scenario?
0
reply
irishdacner973
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Does anyone have anything for the Criminal Procedure?? I was away for all of our lessons on it and the text book doesn't make sense and also misses out triable either way offences!
0
reply
aalj1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by irishdacner973)
Does anyone have anything for the Criminal Procedure?? I was away for all of our lessons on it and the text book doesn't make sense and also misses out triable either way offences!
YESSSS I need one too but according to the aqa mark scheme please!
0
reply
komal.95
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by emmablckbrn)
Does anyone have any examples for factual causation and rules of remoteness when applying to the scenario?
I've written an answer to this question and my teacher gave me full marks..
Causation in fact is seen to be the ‘but for’ test. This canbe seen in the case of Barnett v Kensington Hospital in which the courts saidthat even if the doctors had admitted Barnett into the hospital he still wouldhave died due to the poisoning. This follows the ‘but for’ test as it statesthat but for the doctor admitted the patient into hospital, the victim stillwould have died. However, the cause is difficult to find as there can bemultiple causes as stated in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven, in which it wasdifficult to predict where the asbestos had come from as he had done a numberof jobs previously. Remoteness of damage is linked to it being foreseeable asstated in the case of Wagon Mound that, the oil spillage was foreseeable butthe fire after it wasn’t. This could also follow the rules of theforeseeability to being unusual. Also, they have to take the victim as theyfind them, as it follows the idea of foreseeability and the idea of itfollowing the thin skull rule.
0
reply
hannahbeth28
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by emmablckbrn)
Does anyone have any examples for factual causation and rules of remoteness when applying to the scenario?
-This is the layout we were given by our teacher for discussing if there is damage/causation/remoteness.

-There has been injury to a person because C suffered...

-There has been damage to property because...

-Factual causation is satisfied because but D doing...(whatever the harm is) C would not have suffered...(the injury given)(Barnett).

-Other reasons could/could not have caused the damage because...(Wilsher).

-Legal causation is satisfied as the damage is reasonably foreseeable because ... so it is not too remote(The Wagon Mound, Bradford v Robinson Rentals).

-The egg shell skull rule(or thin skull rule) does/doesn't apply because C...(Smith v Leech Brain, Corr v IBC).

-Damage is established
You just need to fill in all the blanks with context from the scenario.
0
reply
Jure
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Anyone got any predictions on what might appear? Like advice from your teachers etc?
0
reply
hannah smith
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Jure)
Anyone got any predictions on what might appear? Like advice from your teachers etc?
criminal
strict liabilty
mens rea
transferred malice(maybe)
assault/battery
section 18(maybe)
pre trail procedure
actual trial procedure for summary offences
factors for sentencing

tort
breach
causation(maybe for knowledge)
duty of care(application)
pre trail
damages

this is just a guess based on what has and hasn't came up before
I've also got loads of revision material. just click on link.
I suggest u take best bits from each and make your own model answers and memorize them!
hope it helped!

dont hesitate to ask questions
0
reply
Jure
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
Since last years paper told us what offence it was, is it certain that this year they will do the same? Like has it been changed?
0
reply
LordBlanshard
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
Does actus reus as a description question ever come up or is it combined with something else?
0
reply
lightoutwrldgone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Is strict liability likely to come up then?
0
reply
hannah smith
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
we were also discussing this and have come to the conclusion that's its more than likely they will give us the offence however its not for definite as they've only done it for one year

if you find it hard to identify the offence then think of it like this:
if there is absolutely no injury to victim, its assault
if there are proper minor injuries(scratches, bruises) its battery
if there are injuries that you might describe as temporary-they might just go to A and E and come out then its ABH
if the injuries will be permanent(ie scars) then its GBH-they might have to stay in hospital for some time
lastly if there is obvious revenge or nastiness in the attack then its GBH with intent
2
reply
hannah smith
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by LordBlanshard)
Does actus reus as a description question ever come up or is it combined with something else?
it normally comes up in knowledge, however it wont this year as it came up last year. for application its the actus reas of the offence you have to describe and apply to scenario
0
reply
hannah smith
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by lightoutwrldgone)
Is strict liability likely to come up then?
yes more than 50% sure. just revise it more than transferred malice, contemp rule and actus reas
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (25)
13.66%
I need help researching courses (12)
6.56%
I need help with filling out the application form (9)
4.92%
I need help with my personal statement (76)
41.53%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (44)
24.04%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
1.64%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (14)
7.65%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed