AQA Law AS Level Unit 2 2nd June 2015Watch
More law resources on TSR
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.
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
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!
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.
-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.
Anyone got any predictions on what might appear? Like advice from your teachers etc?
pre trail procedure
actual trial procedure for summary offences
factors for sentencing
causation(maybe for knowledge)
duty of care(application)
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
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