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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mimir)
    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).
    thanks a lot Actually made my day that I got one of the 5 markers right, totally screwed up on this exam, hopefully consent will be better
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    thanks a lot Actually made my day that I got one of the 5 markers right, totally screwed up on this exam, hopefully consent will be better
    Crime is hard. It's all about structure and case law else you get lost. I was crap at it so don't worry too much.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (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
    Voluntary manslaughter is Murder on account of LoC or DR.

    Your case law is correct (although I might have used a different case as to Recklessness), provided you covered AR and MR of Murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    Very nicely put, my teacher said the same thing.
    That makes me feel much better then! Have you wrote much about reform?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dangerous act leaving the fire unlawful act not summoning the emergency services
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RHobbs)
    No you don't as the question was purely involuntary!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    oh ok thank god! still failed though


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TailaMiller)
    That makes me feel much better then! Have you wrote much about reform?
    Not at all.
    Our essay structure in short is something like that:
    - How the defence works and what invalidates it etc.
    - Situations where it is available for harm that is more than minor and reasons why it is available.
    - Situations where it is not available and why.
    - Discussion about whether public policy is the main focus of the defence.

    I doubt we need any reforms, but I will put something about how certain cases developed the law to match changing public policy/views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have a basic structure for Question 1 or any idea of what cases are likely to come up? Ive got all the notes but just not sure how to structure/ write the essay. What points need to be included?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    Dangerous act leaving the fire unlawful act not summoning the emergency services
    Yeah I started to write about that and then wasn't 100% sure whether he had the men's rea for the unlawful act so decided it was safer to go gross neg


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    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.
    (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.
    cheers u legend
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    **** my life.
    Anyone knows whether I would lose marks for putting a wrong statute in passing of a section A essay?
    The right one was to put CAA (1981) s1(2) about D being treated on facts as they believed them to be, but due to me being a retarded **** I have put Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) s76.
    Help.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    Dangerous act leaving the fire unlawful act not summoning the emergency services
    it has to be an unlawful criminal act, and leaving the fire/not summoning emergency is not an unlawful criminal act. what you describe is closer to reckless m/s than it is constructive i.e. Did the D foresee a risk and still decide to run it? (Lidar) yes he did (leaving the cigarette in the ashtray without fully ensuring it was put out is reckless)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    **** my life.
    Anyone knows whether I would lose marks for putting a wrong statute in passing of a section A essay?
    The right one was to put CAA (1981) s1(2) about D being treated on facts as they believed them to be, but due to me being a retarded **** I have put Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) s76.
    Help.
    doubt youll lose many, maybe 1/2 max? keep your head up
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anybody answer the theft question in section A? Could you please tell me if you were supposed to evaluate how the actus reus elements of theft are easier to prove than the mens rea or how certain actus reus elements are easier to prove than others, thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laureenx)
    Did anybody answer the theft question in section A? Could you please tell me if you were supposed to evaluate how the actus reus elements of theft are easier to prove than the mens rea or how certain actus reus elements are easier to prove than others, thanks!
    I believe I interpreted the question as "how is actus Reus of theft easier to prove than other offices" so I think just how elements of actus Reus are easier to prove than others. Did you write about omissions and causation? I got so confused and just wrote about how the actus Reus of theft is eaiser to prove than of other property offences didn't relaise it said "elements of actus Reus " 😭
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Everybody use this for the consent paper! Huge help.
    http://zigzageducation.co.uk/samplepdf/Law/s6107.pdf

    Charges £60 for the official copy, but you can view the example version for free. It gives a guidance on how to answer the questions and what is most likely going to come up!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverHorsey)
    it has to be an unlawful criminal act, and leaving the fire/not summoning emergency is not an unlawful criminal act. what you describe is closer to reckless m/s than it is constructive i.e. Did the D foresee a risk and still decide to run it? (Lidar) yes he did (leaving the cigarette in the ashtray without fully ensuring it was put out is reckless)
    How many marks do you think i will lose i think i did everything else right in revard to causation and involuntary masnlaughter and referenced around 15 cases to
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callummassey)
    How many marks do you think i will lose i think i did everything else right in revard to causation and involuntary masnlaughter and referenced around 15 cases to
    really not sure, hopefully not too many, thats just my opinion mate, youre answer might be right idk
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaz786)
    Everybody use this for the consent paper! Huge help.
    http://zigzageducation.co.uk/samplepdf/Law/s6107.pdf

    Charges £60 for the official copy, but you can view the example version for free. It gives a guidance on how to answer the questions and what is most likely going to come up!
    really dont feel like its worth £60 at all, maybe £6, tops
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by laureenx)
    Did anybody answer the theft question in section A? Could you please tell me if you were supposed to evaluate how the actus reus elements of theft are easier to prove than the mens rea or how certain actus reus elements are easier to prove than others, thanks!
    Obviously I didn't sit this paper, but if your question is the same as what you were asked, then you should have considered:

    AR:
    Appropriation;
    of property;
    belonging to another

    Easy enough. Work through statute for whether these are fulfilled (remember, appropriation isn't simply "taking")

    MR:
    With the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
    (Difficult)

    DISHONESTLY! (Ghosh two-step test)

    The MR is far more difficult to prove, as common law illustrates. If that's the question you were asked, that would be the general approach.

    Considering the alternative of proving different elements of the AR more easily. It would depend on a scenario:

    Property - defined at statute, so quite easy.

    Belonging to another - more difficult. Consider who is the 'owner'; have they 'abandoned it'; is is 'in their control'; ought the defendant reasonably known the property was another's etc.

    Appropriate - more than simply taking.

    Something like that then?
 
 
 
  • 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.