Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GFEFC1)
    I could probably answer all 3 of them which may mean bad news for Section B!
    thats good! invountary m/s, attempts and theft is my punt for section B
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    thats good! invountary m/s, attempts and theft is my punt for section B
    I hope you are right!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by es_103)
    I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA
    Self defence is only three cases isnt it? I would just learn it in case, its only small
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I'm guessing Mens Rea and maybe attempts will pop up in the first section.

    (Original post by es_103)
    I missing out mens rea and all the defences except self defence which goes with OATPA
    You may need to refer to some of the defences in Section B - I'd just get my head around the AO1 of it - to be safe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How do I write an essay for strict liability? What 8 key cases do I need to use?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    I'm guessing Mens Rea and maybe attempts will pop up in the first section.



    You may need to refer to some of the defences in Section B - I'd just get my head around the AO1 of it - to be safe.
    Mens rea, attempts, intoxication, causation, OAPA .... thats what i'm mainly focussing on for all sections.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I applied a 'made up' scenario to an AO1 statement will this be AO1 or AO2?

    For example, giving a scenario of an ambulance crash when talking about intervening acts to explain what breaking the chain of causation is...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A01
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    would the two property offences (robbery and burglary, theft) ever be asked in Section C as two seperate questions? because i really doubt i will have enough time to learn them both properly and so was wondering if it would be a risk to leave them both out. thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0123456543210)
    Don't ignore the mens rea, even if you don't think it makes a great essay, you still would be required to apply some of its principles throughout the problem question, and even Section C ones.
    btw. PM if anyone needs any relatively concise notes, I've spent ages typing them up and they seem like a nice way to revise since most of them are structured in such a way that resemble essay answers and include the key principles allowing you to answer section B and C questions.
    Hey could you send me the notes please?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    would theft and robbery+burglary ever come up as two separate questions in the same section?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would love either intoxication, diminished responsibility, or insanity to come up. They're quick, easy, and straightforward.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

    For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

    09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

    For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

    09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?
    I don't think so, I would rather focus on the point of law in the case. Sometimes mentioning actual outcome only makes things messier. For example: in Adams 1957 the point of law was that the acceleration of V's death will not break the chain of causation, however in fact Adams was not liable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    Is it true that in order to get an A, you need to mention all the outcomes (specifically, what the D was guilty for) for each case you mention?

    For example, if I were to speak about Murder and "a reasonable person in being", would I need to state what the D was exactly guilty for, or am I fine mentioning what happened in this case and what the point of law states?

    09876543211, would you know anything about this, please?
    Not 09876543211, but I doubt you have to go into much detail about the case, further than the PoL. You'll be wasting time with somewhat irrelevant information.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    All cases, books etc say that an assault = Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
    but the mark scheme says putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful force, so which should we say :/ The mark scheme seems to keep contradicting the law
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgan_123)
    All cases, books etc say that an assault = Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
    but the mark scheme says putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful force, so which should we say :/ The mark scheme seems to keep contradicting the law
    Apprehend= perceive, understand.
    Both words imply the same thing, however word 'fear' takes it further by showing that if there was no fear of immediate force, there is no assault. I would use the word apprehend, and then when explaining assault in detail, I would say that V must be genuinely in fear of force to constitute to an assault.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 09876543211)
    Apprehend= perceive, understand.
    if there was no fear of immediate force, there is no assault
    R v Lamb?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 09876543211)
    Apprehend= perceive, understand.
    Both words imply the same thing, however word 'fear' takes it further by showing that if there was no fear of immediate force, there is no assault. I would use the word apprehend, and then when explaining assault in detail, I would say that V must be genuinely in fear of force to constitute to an assault.
    Oooo okay great thank you!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 4, 2017

2,819

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.