The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Official OCR A2 Criminal Law 2016 Thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 460
Avatar for Mimir
Mimir
20
I did
Original post by bethc1998
Yesss! This is what I applied anf everyone told me Ii was wrong! I spoke about Aitken and Jones and said that they could not prove intention whilst the powers of horseplay as a defence of consent extend to severe and serious situations and therefore it is likely that it would be avaliable here!


I did another post on the example I gave (R v Lamb) a couple of posts down from this OP.

Edit: I think your answer is most likely correct. I didn't see the question but case authority generally suggests horseplay can be used to show no intention, but there are limits to the remit.

Remember, horseplay isn't a "defence" - it's simply used to show no mens rea.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Mimir
I did

I did another post on the example I gave (R v Lamb) a couple of posts down from this OP.

Edit: I think your answer is most likely correct. I didn't see the question but case authority generally suggests horseplay can be used to show no intention, but there are limits to the remit.

Remember, horseplay isn't a "defence" - it's simply used to show no mens rea.



Oh I know :smile: Constantly referred to consent as the partial defence here with horseplay being the factor considered as the mitigating factor allowing the defence :smile:
What did you guys get?
Original post by null.and.void.
What did you guys get?


A, you?
Reply 464
Avatar for GFEFC1
GFEFC1
6
Two A's, can't believe it!!
Original post by SilverHorsey
A, you?
Original post by null.and.void.
What did you guys get?
A* overall 71 in criminal law special study paper and 111 in criminal law paper.
Reply 466
Avatar for GFEFC1
GFEFC1
6
Original post by Hope_at_last
A* overall 71 in criminal law special study paper and 111 in criminal law paper.


101 and 69 for me, well done!!
Original post by GFEFC1
101 and 69 for me, well done!!
Thank you. Well done to you too, they are amazing results.
Got an A* overall, 112/120 in Criminal Law and 80/80 on the special study.
Got an A 95/120 and 72/80
Original post by Liberal 123
Got an A 95/120 and 72/80


Congratulations
Original post by Suraj98
Congratulations

Thanks and congratulations to you to
...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by BIGJohnson777
How the hell have you managed to get 80/80 on the special study? That's amazing!
I've got 73 on the special study and 119 in Criminal Law.

oh wow nearly full marks in criminal law, that's amazing. Well done!
...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by _howl
Got an A overall.

74/80 for the Special Study and 111/120 in Criminal Law.


How is that not an A*? You have got 92.5% of UMS.
Original post by _howl
My AS grade was a B, and despite resitting, it remained a B (mainly due to my lack of organisation).

I'm still surprised I got an A. I thought I completely flopped the Special Study.


An A is still stellar, congrats.
Original post by Liberal 123
Got an A 95/120 and 72/80

If you got an A, what UMS score did you get? (I'm trying to work out how close to an A i was!)
Original post by rhiannaf
If you got an A, what UMS score did you get? (I'm trying to work out how close to an A i was!)

329 ums overall, you needed 320 for an A
Reply 479
Avatar for WGE
WGE
1
For the Special study we are predominantly looking at the following 8 cases:

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]
R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997]
R v Clarence [1888]
R v Wilson [1984]
R v Cunningham [1957]
JJC (a minor) v Eisenhower [1983]
R v Bollom [2003]
R v Golding [2014]

Anyone who could provide case analysis on each including critical points, analytical points, a linked case and what ever else they feel worthy of note, it would be HUGELY appreciated.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you