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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcb343)
    Its negative marking, so any wrong things you put they just ignore and you don't get marked down, but as you thought it was taylor who did the assault you may not get much marks, but marks for right points that you have stated?
    So that's positive marking, or am I confused?
    I think for writing it was T who committed an assault, only some of AO2 marks would be lost, i.e. for application, but because the offence of assault was explained, this mistake will not jeopardise any A01 marks.
    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

    For section c i did insanity and automatism.For statement A i put that the statement was inaccurate, because it was internal factor beause she had not taken her medication for automatism it is a complee defence and it must be an external factor and it cannot be self induced which is was? So she could not gain an accquital from automatism. Statement b: i put the statement was accurate, as you can gain an acquittal from insanity for epilsepy because her defect of reason was caused by her not taking the medication and therefore it was internal. as in the case sullivan where hwas an epilectic and was allowed the defenceStatement c; i said the statement was accurate as again it was she satisfied the criteria for the defence of insanity that she did not know the nature and quality of the act etc.statement d: i said te statement was inaccurate, as you are only detained when you are found not guilty by reasons of insanity for murder, the judge has no option to detain you. And just how the insanity and unfit to plead act 1991, gives the judge options of what sentence they can give you when you are found not guilty by reasons of insanity. So i said the statement is inaccurate and it is highly likely she would not be detained, but this is down to the jude to decide?What did everyone else get?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertypoiop)
    So that's positive marking, or am I confused?
    I think for writing it was T who committed an assault, only some of AO2 marks would be lost, i.e. for application, but because the offence of assault was explained, this mistake will not jeopardise any A01 marks.

    Ahhh im not sure, im pretty sure it is negative marking though! either way i made a few mistakes on section b too so I think it matters too much, maybe just loose a few marks. What did you do for the rest of the paper?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcb343)
    Its negative marking, so any wrong things you put they just ignore and you don't get marked down, but as you thought it was taylor who did the assault you may not get much marks, but marks for right points that you have stated?
    Yeah because I stated the following:
    • Assault
    o Causing fear of immediate unlawful personal violence potentially.
    o Was at least subjectively reckless as to whether the fear was caused, if not intended due to earlier hair being grabbed.
    o There was no touching.o
    Threat does not have to be instantaneous but can be imminent.

    • No Assault
    o But Tuberville/ Light… (I.e. wording indicates no violence will be used) so maybe no assault.o Also maybe Sandra didn’t fear violence as continued to pursue her so no assault.

    I get that some of this will be negated due to Taylor application but surely some is still credible, right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethc1998)
    Could also be gross negligence manslaughter in regards to the leaving the fire as he set in motion a chain of events and it is likely he had a duty to the victim due to his which he breached causing the death of V as seen through the analogy of Miller but then it has to be judged as to whether the medical negligence broke the chain of causation etc (didn't do this section B as I chose non-fatals instead so I didn't read it all!)
    yes it could be GNM too, could also talk about omissions too i guess? assumed responsibility? special relationship?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have standard essay structures to follow for the Consent paper? My teacher completely left us to our own decides for this paper so i'm a bit lost on what the examiner wants to see..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else finding remembering Question 1 answers tough? Criticising the law for the other questions seems a lot easier!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here is the essay for question 2. Well its all in note form but it has everything in it that you will need for question 2.
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx Special Study Question 2.docx (494.8 KB, 119 views)
  2. File Type: zip Special Study Question 2.pages.zip (330.0 KB, 142 views)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TailaMiller)
    Here is the essay for question 2. Well its all in note form but it has everything in it that you will need for question 2.
    These notes are so familiar that I am now wondering whether we have the same teacher, or our teachers just pulled the same stuff from the internet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcb343)
    For section c i did insanity and automatism.For statement A i put that the statement was inaccurate, because it was internal factor beause she had not taken her medication for automatism it is a complee defence and it must be an external factor and it cannot be self induced which is was? So she could not gain an accquital from automatism. Statement b: i put the statement was accurate, as you can gain an acquittal from insanity for epilsepy because her defect of reason was caused by her not taking the medication and therefore it was internal. as in the case sullivan where hwas an epilectic and was allowed the defenceStatement c; i said the statement was accurate as again it was she satisfied the criteria for the defence of insanity that she did not know the nature and quality of the act etc.statement d: i said te statement was inaccurate, as you are only detained when you are found not guilty by reasons of insanity for murder, the judge has no option to detain you. And just how the insanity and unfit to plead act 1991, gives the judge options of what sentence they can give you when you are found not guilty by reasons of insanity. So i said the statement is inaccurate and it is highly likely she would not be detained, but this is down to the jude to decide?What did everyone else get?
    i said i was unsure about first statement for myself as i originally put inaccurate but my teacher taught us (obviously wrong) that epilepsy can be considered external factor if something causes them to have it in that moment but even though case law contradicted this he used to be a successful lawyer so thought i'd trust him. in the answer i did mention it could be considered to be an internal factor though because of medication.
    other than that i wrote the same what other questions did you do on the paper?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bxnbrooks)
    Does anyone have standard essay structures to follow for the Consent paper? My teacher completely left us to our own decides for this paper so i'm a bit lost on what the examiner wants to see..
    Introduction (followed by evaluation)
    Capacity to Consent (followed by evaluation)
    Consent must be fully informed & discuss fraud (followed by evaluation)
    List of Exceptions (followed by evaluation)
    Reforms (followed by evaluation)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    Introduction (followed by evaluation)
    Capacity to Consent (followed by evaluation)
    Consent must be fully informed & discuss fraud (followed by evaluation)
    List of Exceptions (followed by evaluation)
    Reforms (followed by evaluation)
    What is the 'evaluation'? what do you evaluate and what would be an example?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    Introduction (followed by evaluation)
    Capacity to Consent (followed by evaluation)
    Consent must be fully informed & discuss fraud (followed by evaluation)
    List of Exceptions (followed by evaluation)
    Reforms (followed by evaluation)
    Thanks that's really helpful! What reforms do you have for consent?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bxnbrooks)
    Thanks that's really helpful! What reforms do you have for consent?
    · Law Commission reviewed law on consent in 1995 butoffered no suggestions · Most beneficial is carry on using common law as basedon cases which is more flexible and changes with society yet produces resultsparliament intended · Argued law is inconsistent due to allowing moral viewsto be included in decision as seen in R v Wilson and R v Brown as similar casesbut provided very different outcomes perhaps due to the nature of Browns case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xabsx)
    · Law Commission reviewed law on consent in 1995 butoffered no suggestions · Most beneficial is carry on using common law as basedon cases which is more flexible and changes with society yet produces resultsparliament intended · Argued law is inconsistent due to allowing moral viewsto be included in decision as seen in R v Wilson and R v Brown as similar casesbut provided very different outcomes perhaps due to the nature of Browns case.
    Hi, I'm not an A2 this year but I resat the G153 this year and did the intox special study. With regards to the reform of the law on consent, wasn't there a law commission consultation paper in 1996 which suggested...
    1. Extending the range of circumstances in which the defence of consent may be effective.
    2. That D should be able to rely on V's consent to an act that's intended/ likely to cause injury but not to one that's intended/ likely to cause serious injury.
    3. Removing the special considerations on sexual and horseplay activities.
    4. Special rules should be adopted in relation to boxing and other organised sports.

    However, these proposals were expressly excluded by the government in their own consultation paper on assault and (unsurprisingly) nothing has been done with these changes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have a structure for answering the third section? or have any idea what to write for it? i'm really lost!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Our teacher left us to work out what to do for Q2 and Q3...

    Could anyone help me with the structure of Q2 and Q3?

    Do we put cases in Q3?
    Do we quote the sources in Q2 and Q3?
    Thanks everyone!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawhelp)
    Does anyone have a structure for answering the third section? or have any idea what to write for it? i'm really lost!!

    If they ask about....

    Properly conducted sports and games
    1) *insert sport in the scenario*, as a contact sport is listed in the exceptional situations outlined in AG Ref (no 6 of 1980) and therefore consent is likely available for *abh/gbh*.
    2) Did the person have the legal capacity to give consent? *look for, were they an adult? did they understand the nature of the d's act? did they have any learning difficulties?*
    3) Did they give implied consent? *did they understand the rules of the game?*
    4) was it an on the ball or off the ball situation? On--> within the rules, Off--> outside of the rules or after the match.
    5) Was the conduct enough to be deemed criminal? Rv Barnes.
    6) Did the d have intention to cause the injury? Look for the words "temper," "force," "aimed".

    Vigorous sexual activity
    1) Did the V give consent to the first/original activity?
    2) Was this activity an example of an exceptional situation? If so, is there an infliction of injury? Rv Wilson.
    3) Was the injury deliberate? "force, pushed, aimed"
    4) Was the act classed as 'indecent' irrespective of consent? Sado-masochistic acts.
    5) Was the injury trifling or transient? If serious injury then no consent, the V consented to the act NOT the injury.
    6) Is consent available? Consider grounds of public policy and legal principle.

    Horseplay
    1) Generally, consent is unavailable for s47 offences.
    2) Horseplay is exceptional situation. AG Ref...
    3) Did V consent? Look for initial engagement in activity, did the V 'start' it.
    4) V's body language? Indiation of enjoyment? distress? were they 'laughing/joking?'
    5) True valid consent? Adult? Did they appreciate the nature of the act?
    6) What was the intentions of the d? "aggressively, jokingly"
    7) was a serious injury caused? although if it was, still possibly a defence. Aitkin- lacks mens rea.

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can anybody help me with question one for the consent paper. What critical and analyitical points does everybody have lined up for each case?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Am i right in thinking that any AO2 criticism can be applied to any Question 2? it seems so anyway...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.