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

    2
    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 believe whatever offence you said for loss of consciousness will be correct as long as you explain why. Its how you interpret the facts of the case and as long as you back it up with facts and cases then both S47 and S18/S20 will be correct.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    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 write for insanity? i said:

    Statement A - accurate as will lead to acquittal if found she did have complete loss of control and to spark epilepsy there would be external factor

    Statement B - accurate as can claim insanity as epilepsy is disease of mind etc

    Statement C - accurate, cant remember what about

    Statement D - not accurate, hospital order only for murder since Criminal
    Procedure Act, unlikely given one as won't comply with Mental Health Act
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GFEFC1)
    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
    hope you did well good luck for friday!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    hope you did well good luck for friday!
    You too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    what did you write for insanity? i said:

    Statement A - accurate as will lead to acquittal if found she did have complete loss of control and to spark epilepsy there would be external factor

    Statement B - accurate as can claim insanity as epilepsy is disease of mind etc

    Statement C - accurate, cant remember what about

    Statement D - not accurate, hospital order only for murder since Criminal
    Procedure Act, unlikely given one as won't comply with Mental Health Act
    I put different so i think ive got it wrong
    A - i think i said about it being due to not taking medicine which is internal not external like in Quick/Hennessy situation for diabetes
    B - I cant remember tbh
    C- Accurate i think
    D - inaccurate for the same reasons
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalie97)
    I put different so i think ive got it wrong
    A - i think i said about it being due to not taking medicine which is internal not external like in Quick/Hennessy situation for diabetes
    B - I cant remember tbh
    C- Accurate i think
    D - inaccurate for the same reasons
    i might have done A wrong i wasn't sure as kept changing my mind
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    i might have done A wrong i wasn't sure as kept changing my mind
    Same i couldnt decide so ive sort of accepted i wont have got more than 15 marks for section C
    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
    No you are right! I did this one as well, it just said discuss the liability for murder. I wrote a little about causation, murder and then voluntary manslaughter (diminished responsibility and loss of control) so the special and partial defences that were available to him. My teacher said this was right.
    Offline

    1
    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
    Voluntary manslaughter is loss of control and diminished responsibility. I did the involuntary manslaughter and mentioned unlawful act - (Lamb, Lowe, Goodfellow, Dalby and Newbury and Jones) then GNM - (Adomako, Singh and Misra) then reckless - (Lidar)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloehayes)
    Voluntary manslaughter is loss of control and diminished responsibility. I did the involuntary manslaughter and mentioned unlawful act - (Lamb, Lowe, Goodfellow, Dalby and Newbury and Jones) then GNM - (Adomako, Singh and Misra) then reckless - (Lidar)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    did u have to talk about voluntary even though the question was in voluntary coz I didn't do that 😭


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is the question 2 likely to be for the consent special study topic? Any ideas?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanWasdell)
    What is the question 2 likely to be for the consent special study topic? Any ideas?
    Our teacher predicts the exam and generally gets it spot on. For todays exam he taught us intoxication, murder and general defences. For the Special study Q2, we have been told to learn an essay (i don't even know what the question will be) but the general gist is public policy, its basically talking about;

    Implied consent
    List of exceptions (properly conducted sports and games, reasonable surgical interference) -->these are necessary in the public interest
    Explain valid, true consent--> the person bust be legally capable (e.g., adult)
    Exceptional categories:
    Properly conducted sports and games- if injured through sport, conviction would not be in the public interest. R v Barnes.
    Vigorous sexual activity- consent recognised, but only for an inadvertent infliction injury. Deliberate injury=no consent--> this judgement was made on the grounds of public policy. Talk about R v Wilson in comparison to R v Brown and Others.
    Horseplay- can access consent even for serious injury because D lacks any MR for offence. Reflects legal principle, & ironically ignores the fact it is not in the public interest.

    Further limitations:
    fraud/deception cases- where V does not know the true identity of the D.
    Sado-masochism cases: not socially beneficial & no good reason to accommodate it.

    Sorry thats so long winded but hope it helps!! I haven't put anything above about reform which i think may come up too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TailaMiller)
    Our teacher predicts the exam and generally gets it spot on. For todays exam he taught us intoxication, murder and general defences. For the Special study Q2, we have been told to learn an essay (i don't even know what the question will be) but the general gist is public policy, its basically talking about;

    Implied consent
    List of exceptions (properly conducted sports and games, reasonable surgical interference) -->these are necessary in the public interest
    Explain valid, true consent--> the person bust be legally capable (e.g., adult)
    Exceptional categories:
    Properly conducted sports and games- if injured through sport, conviction would not be in the public interest. R v Barnes.
    Vigorous sexual activity- consent recognised, but only for an inadvertent infliction injury. Deliberate injury=no consent--> this judgement was made on the grounds of public policy. Talk about R v Wilson in comparison to R v Brown and Others.
    Horseplay- can access consent even for serious injury because D lacks any MR for offence. Reflects legal principle, & ironically ignores the fact it is not in the public interest.

    Further limitations:
    fraud/deception cases- where V does not know the true identity of the D.
    Sado-masochism cases: not socially beneficial & no good reason to accommodate it.

    Sorry thats so long winded but hope it helps!! I haven't put anything above about reform which i think may come up too.
    Very nicely put, my teacher said the same thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    yeah I kinda did that too but i didn't say that when he took the bike it was robbery because there was no force in relation to the theft of the bike so it was theft not sure if that's right


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    the force does not have to happen at the same time as the theft, thus he was guilty of robbery
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    what are the grade boundaries???/ cant wait to get a U as per
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I thought unlawful act manslaughter was relevant for the case of cyril as he did a dangerous act unlawful act etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    I thought unlawful act manslaughter was relevant for the case of cyril as he did a dangerous act unlawful act etc
    what dangerous act unlawful act did he supposedly do?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also in the mark schemes for invol manslaughter questions they also want you to outline the unlawful act manslaughter gross negligence manslaughter and reckless mansluaghter
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by GFEFC1)
    ...
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    ...

    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    the force does not have to happen at the same time as the theft, thus he was guilty of robbery
    Yes. Remember, appropriation is a continuing event. (R v Hale talks about when the force can operate, I've summarised below).

    AR
    - Appropriation of property belonging to anotherUUsing force
    On any person
    Immediately before or at the time of theft
    MRo Dishonestly intention to permanently deprive - Intending to use force to steal

    R v Hale
    - Hale and accomplice entered V’s house and stolebox of jewellery- Whilst accomplice upstairs grabbing the jewellery,Hale downstairs holding hand over V’s mouth- Accomplice back down the stairs and they bothtied her up before leaving Firstly, putting the hand over her mouth coulditself amount to robbery.Argued the Trial Judge’s instruction could haveled Jury to conclude that robbery had occurred simply at the point where theytied her up. Argued this was impossiblebecause by the time they had tied her up the theft had already taken place.
    CA disagreed with this argument: “appropriation is a continuing act. Appropriation does not end when D does onething to assume one right of the owner. There will come a point, on the facts, where appropriation is complete,anything done after that point will not contribute to the theft thereforecannot make theft robbery.On the facts of this case it was open to theJury to decide that appropriation was still continuing when V was tied up,therefore direction correct and Jury entitled to conclude that robbery tookplace taking into account the force used to tie her up.

    Hope that helps prove you're definitely right (at least at Postgraduate level, may be different for A-Level).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel_xo)
    did u have to talk about voluntary even though the question was in voluntary coz I didn't do that 😭


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No you don't as the question was purely involuntary!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.