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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhiannaf)
    I think i had inaccurate, accurate, accurate, accurate? Really can't remember if that's right. Basically:

    Statement A: 9(1)(a) burglary when tried the door - he didnt enter so he can't have been guilty. (Cant remember if statement said he will or wont be guilty)

    Statement B: robbery when (cant remember)

    Statement C: 9(1)(b) burglary when entered the petrol station - he entered and attempted to steal cigarettes so would have been guilty

    Statement D: robbery when took the bike - he thieved the bike and used force immediately before. He would have been guilty.

    That's what i put, from what i can remember. Hoping others put these too!



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A: No entry, therefore no burglary could have been committed.
    B: No robbery of cigarettes as J refused to give them to D, so no theft and thus no robbery.
    C: Here, the question specified that it was a 9(1)b related to the breaking of the shelves, so unlawful damage which is not included in 9(1)b. Therefore no burglary. Although I agree that attempt to steal comes under 9(1)b, the question specified breaking of the shelves.
    D: Threat dic not immediately occur before the act of appropriation and threat was made to facilitate taking of cigarettes, thus irrelevant to the theft of a bike.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    did anyone do scenario 3


    I did scenario 3 in vol manslaughter but I didn't mention unlawful act manslaughter because I didn't think it was relevant but I did mention gross negligent and a bit of reckless less and I think I did 4 or 5 cases but they didn't really link with the point


    any one else do this


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    I couldn't even gave my teacher after that but I appreciate u letting me know I isn't explain it in depth but hopefully I'll get some marks


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I got confused on Section C as well, especially because I've had <10 minutes for it. I tried to reason my way through, but missed stuff like mens rea for no reason.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What AO1 did people include for Non-Fatal Offences?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    A: No entry, therefore no burglary could have been committed.
    B: No robbery of cigarettes as J refused to give them to D, so no theft and thus no robbery.
    C: Here, the question specified that it was a 9(1)b related to the breaking of the shelves, so unlawful damage which is not included in 9(1)b. Therefore no burglary. Although I agree that attempt to steal comes under 9(1)b, the question specified breaking of the shelves.
    D: Threat dic not immediately occur before the act of appropriation and threat was made to facilitate taking of cigarettes, thus irrelevant to the theft of a bike.
    Ahh ok. But with D, surely the force was at the time of the act because he stole it in order to escape? I did mention that it could be argued in my answer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On A i wrote not entry, on B no appropriation, on C criminal damage isnt part of 91b, and then on D I wrote that he WAS liable because he could only steal the bike because he had used force immediately before to scare Jill and she wouldnt of let him get away with ti if she wasnt scared still but now I think that was wrong. Hopefully the MS lets it go either way with some common sense.

    I did the question where Sandra brutally beat the **** out of Tayla, like holy **** that was brutal, but I feel I did okay on that. But I got Beard and T messed up, I wrote that Beard is the case where unconsciousness was bodily harm but then after the exam I realised it was T. Do you think I will lose many marks for that mistake with the case names?

    I ran out of time on Section A when I was doing the Theft actus reus question, I only wrote about 2.5 sides because I spent too long on B an C.

    But I only need a C really in this exam and the other, because I got an A in AS and I need a B overall, so a C this years fine and I think I should of got that okay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    did anyone do scenario 3


    I did scenario 3 in vol manslaughter but I didn't mention unlawful act manslaughter because I didn't think it was relevant but I did mention gross negligent and a bit of reckless less and I think I did 4 or 5 cases but they didn't really link with the point


    any one else do this


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah I don't think Unlawful act was particularly relevant so didn't right about it either. I just focused on gross negligence and reckless and the chain of causation


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do actua Reus and theft for section A I got so confused what did we have to actually put in this? Did we have to write about omissions and causation or theft and other property offences what would have been the ao2 ?

    Section c I done insanity that was a bad choice 😁
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do murder for section B? I did a bit on murder an then did voluntary manslaughter but now im worried that i should have just talked about murder!!
    I did theft for the first question and insanity for the last question as well
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhiannaf)
    did anyone else do these:
    Section A: attempts
    Section B: non fatal offences
    Section C: robbery/burglary


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    did same section A and B

    found A very limiting for A02 so hopefully i did alright for A01

    in B i found: one assault, two battery, two ABH, one s.20 GBH and one s.18 but then mentioned she could also be found guilty for s.20 if not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    did same section A and B

    found A very limiting for A02 so hopefully i did alright for A01

    in B i found: one assault, two battery, two ABH, one s.20 GBH and one s.18 but then mentioned she could also be found guilty for s.20 if not
    Same here, I struggled with AO2 as well. i just tried to 'twist' the usual AO2 points for attempts to answer the question if that makes sense?

    For section B I think I got No assault for pushing her down the stairs as she didn't fear force (but a battery), no assault for when she shouts at Tayla as she states she won't do anything, a S47 for loss of consciousness, a S20 for losing the teeth and then i argued that the fact she stays in all the time could be psychiatric injury for a S47, S20 or S18 but I doubt it as fear, panic or distress is not sufficient and the case stated she was frightened. (thats alls i can remember)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RHobbs)
    Yeah I don't think Unlawful act was particularly relevant so didn't right about it either. I just focused on gross negligence and reckless and the chain of causation


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yeah same but I didn't explain causation in depth like I just talked about duty of care like doctor patient and I put Singh in there aswell for duty of care. the doctors negligent medical treatment does break the chain but I also said would it not been for Cyril klaus would not have received negligent medical treatment

    I wrote about malcherek but it didn't really seem relevant x


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackie)
    On A i wrote not entry, on B no appropriation, on C criminal damage isnt part of 91b, and then on D I wrote that he WAS liable because he could only steal the bike because he had used force immediately before to scare Jill and she wouldnt of let him get away with ti if she wasnt scared still but now I think that was wrong. Hopefully the MS lets it go either way with some common sense.

    I did the question where Sandra brutally beat the **** out of Tayla, like holy **** that was brutal, but I feel I did okay on that. But I got Beard and T messed up, I wrote that Beard is the case where unconsciousness was bodily harm but then after the exam I realised it was T. Do you think I will lose many marks for that mistake with the case names?

    I ran out of time on Section A when I was doing the Theft actus reus question, I only wrote about 2.5 sides because I spent too long on B an C.

    But I only need a C really in this exam and the other, because I got an A in AS and I need a B overall, so a C this years fine and I think I should of got that okay.
    Loved that question and I don't usually get entertained in exams.
    What offence did you argued for knocking T unconscious? I put ABH under R(T) 2003, but then argued that because it is more than momentarily (5 minutes), it may amount to one of GBH offences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalie97)
    Did anyone do murder for section B? I did a bit on murder an then did voluntary manslaughter but now im worried that i should have just talked about murder!!
    I did theft for the first question and insanity for the last question as well
    What did you include in you're section A ? Did you talk about causation and what ao2?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    Loved that question and I don't usually get entertained in exams.
    What offence did you argued for knocking T unconscious? I put ABH under R(T) 2003, but then argued that because it is more than momentarily (5 minutes), it may amount to one of GBH offences.
    I wrote the same, but ofc used Beard instead of T because I got confused between the two.

    I wrote that in Beard(T lol) it was ABH because it was a momentary loss of consciousness, but in this case it was for five whole minutes, and I had already said that Saunders said GBH is "serious harm" and that a jury had to decide if five minutes was "serious", but that I did think a jury would decide it is serious so it would be S.20.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GFEFC1)
    Same here, I struggled with AO2 as well. i just tried to 'twist' the usual AO2 points for attempts to answer the question if that makes sense?

    For section B I think I got No assault for pushing her down the stairs as she didn't fear force (but a battery), no assault for when she shouts at Tayla as she states she won't do anything, a S47 for loss of consciousness, a S20 for losing the teeth and then i argued that the fact she stays in all the time could be psychiatric injury for a S47, S20 or S18 but I doubt it as fear, panic or distress is not sufficient and the case stated she was frightened. (thats alls i can remember)
    hmm i said assault for when she shouts because she said 'i'd kick your teeth in if not for...' which is similar to a case where they were found guilty of assault
    battery for pushing Tayla then s.47 as she sprains her ankle and possible psychological injury as she might have more than just fear
    then s.20 for unconsciousness as its classed as bodily harm not a wound then for losing teeth
    finally s.18 possible if prove Sandra intended wound when kick teeth
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahadams98)
    What did you include in you're section A ? Did you talk about causation and what ao2?
    I didn't have time to talk about causation and i cant really remember what AO2 I discussed, i think i talked a little about the problems with mens rea and stated that the law on Theft is generally fair other than in conditional theft situations where they get let off!
    What about you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    hmm i said assault for when she shouts because she said 'i'd kick your teeth in if not for...' which is similar to a case where they were found guilty of assault
    battery for pushing Tayla then s.47 as she sprains her ankle and possible psychological injury as she might have more than just fear
    then s.20 for unconsciousness as its classed as bodily harm not a wound then for losing teeth
    finally s.18 possible if prove Sandra intended wound when kick teeth
    Remember that words can negate an assault as seen in the case of Tuberville v Savage! and yeah i forget about the sprained wrist bit pretty much the same part from the assault bit
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackie)
    I wrote the same, but ofc used Beard instead of T because I got confused between the two.

    I wrote that in Beard(T lol) it was ABH because it was a momentary loss of consciousness, but in this case it was for five whole minutes, and I had already said that Saunders said GBH is "serious harm" and that a jury had to decide if five minutes was "serious", but that I did think a jury would decide it is serious so it would be S.20.
    It was a bit confusing however as to which acts we should have linked to the psychological trauma at the end, because there were so many. So I just linked them all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    It was a bit confusing however as to which acts we should have linked to the psychological trauma at the end, because there were so many. So I just linked them all.
    I just mentioned that she could be liable for the further psychiatric harm because Chan Fook said so, but I didn't go into detail about the differet offences because it'd take forever
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.