Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    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!
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • 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.

  • 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

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