Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgan_123)
    You need 8 cases/acts to get full marks and dates of cases aren't needed but dates of Acts you need to remember
    I am sure my teacher told me that if I don't include case dates, then these are marked as only partially correct.
    Even on the mark scheme there are separate markings, i.e. C (case) and NO (Case- name only).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 28657)
    I am sure my teacher told me that if I don't include case dates, then these are marked as only partially correct.
    Even on the mark scheme there are separate markings, i.e. C (case) and NO (Case- name only).
    Are you doing OCR A2 criminal law?
    I don't see anything like that on my mark schemes, from what I see even the mark scheme doesn't have case dates so the marker won't even know the dates themselves let alone expect us to
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgan_123)
    Are you doing OCR A2 criminal law?
    I don't see anything like that on my mark schemes, from what I see even the mark scheme doesn't have case dates so the marker won't even know the dates themselves let alone expect us to
    Yep, I am doing this.
    It is weird that they don't have dates on them, but on the 1st page of every mark scheme there is an indication.
    http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/235896-...l-law-june.pdf
    Just check the page no 1.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 28657)
    Yep, I am doing this.
    It is weird that they don't have dates on them, but on the 1st page of every mark scheme there is an indication.
    http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/235896-...l-law-june.pdf
    Just check the page no 1.
    I think the 'name only' bit is if only the name of the case is stated without an explanation of the facts or how it developed the law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katieicharlton)
    I think the 'name only' bit is if only the name of the case is stated without an explanation of the facts or how it developed the law.
    Maybe, I'll try to learn all the cases anyway, but it is good to know that in case if I forget a date, this shouldn't **** things up too much.
    PS: still learning cases + dates from September.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I'm writing an essay in Murder (2014, Q1 - to be specific). I was wondering when writing about legal causation, should I say that the conduct must be more than de minimis, or should I say the conduct must be the operating and substanstial cause of the death?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    I'm writing an essay in Murder (2014, Q1 - to be specific). I was wondering when writing about legal causation, should I say that the conduct must be more than de minimis, or should I say the conduct must be the operating and substanstial cause of the death?
    I would introduce legal causation with the de minimus principle and use a case like R v Kimsey. The "operating and substantial" test is a test for novus actus interveniens, where there is an intervening act after the original act, that may have broken the chain of causation. So you would take about them both, because they are slightly different things. The DM principle is the general meaning of what legal causation is (the law doesn't deal with trifles) & the operating and substantial test is used when there is an intervening act.

    For legal causation, you would want to make reference to
    - De Minimus Principle/ R v Kimsey
    - Thin Skull Rule/ R v Blaue
    - Victims own act/ R v Roberts/ R v William & Davis
    - Operating and Substantial test/ R v Smith, and also talk about R v Cheshire because it is Court of Appeal authority.
    - R v Jordan/ when Medical treatment is "palpably wrong" is when the chain of causation can be broken.

    Finally, Turing off a life support machine, does not break the chain (R v Malcherek & Steel)
    Good luck in your exams and I'm here to help if you have any other questions!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    I would introduce legal causation with the de minimus principle and use a case like R v Kimsey. The "operating and substantial" test is a test for novus actus interveniens, where there is an intervening act after the original act, that may have broken the chain of causation. So you would take about them both, because they are slightly different things. The DM principle is the general meaning of what legal causation is (the law doesn't deal with trifles) & the operating and substantial test is used when there is an intervening act.

    For legal causation, you would want to make reference to
    - De Minimus Principle/ R v Kimsey
    - Thin Skull Rule/ R v Blaue
    - Victims own act/ R v Roberts/ R v William & Davis
    - Operating and Substantial test/ R v Smith, and also talk about R v Cheshire because it is Court of Appeal authority.
    - R v Jordan/ when Medical treatment is "palpably wrong" is when the chain of causation can be broken.

    Finally, Turing off a life support machine, does not break the chain (R v Malcherek & Steel)
    Good luck in your exams and I'm here to help if you have any other questions!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks!

    Although, the mark scheme states that I should only briefly outline the law on causation in murder - which considering it's not an essay on causation, makes sense. I mentioned:
    - The factual causation, the 'But For' test and the case of Pagett.
    - The legal causation, 'operating and substantial' as presented in the case of Chesire.
    - The 'thin skull' rule, presented in Blaue.

    Do you think that suffices for the question? ('The need to update the common law offence of Murder is as strong as ever if the law is to serve defendants and society well' - Discuss to the extent to which this statement is accurate.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    Thanks!

    Although, the mark scheme states that I should only briefly outline the law on causation in murder - which considering it's not an essay on causation, makes sense. I mentioned:
    - The factual causation, the 'But For' test and the case of Pagett.
    - The legal causation, 'operating and substantial' as presented in the case of Chesire.
    - The 'thin skull' rule, presented in Blaue.

    Do you think that suffices for the question? ('The need to update the common law offence of Murder is as strong as ever if the law is to serve defendants and society well' - Discuss to the extent to which this statement is accurate.)
    Yes you won't need as much depth in a murder question because you have other areas to address! Sorry I misread :')

    So, yeah when talking about causation in a murder essay you are right to include those things! The list I mentioned above would be more suitable in a causation essay. Obviously through out the whole piece, make sure you constantly address whether each of these tests and principles serves defendants and/or society as whole!

    Have you had the exam yet?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Any predictions
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    Yes you won't need as much depth in a murder question because you have other areas to address! Sorry I misread :'

    So, yeah when talking about causation in a murder essay you are right to include those things! The list I mentioned above would be more suitable in a causation essay. Obviously through out the whole piece, make sure you constantly address whether each of these tests and principles serves defendants and/or society as whole!

    Have you had the exam yet?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thanks! Nope, that was just a mock I was doing. I have around 3 weeks left
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Quite confused and frustrated. Can someone briefly explain what the law in Wood said about the defence of diminished responsibility, please?

    swagyolo420, would you know about this?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garyshortall)
    Shouldnt really just ask one person like but its pretty striaghtforward
    The courts accepted that a person can be so drunk that this can lead to an abormality of mind and that they act involuntary. Therefore the defenceof diminished responsiblity can be relied upon. However, where the drinking is voluntary e.g simply giving into a crave then dimished responsibilty cannot be relied up. This even extends to alcoholics who only suffer from minor withdrawal symptoms.
    Thanks!

    What about Alcohol Dependency Syndrome where the defendant drinks voluntarily and it leads to an abnormality of the mind?
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    Yes you won't need as much depth in a murder question because you have other areas to address! Sorry I misread :'

    So, yeah when talking about causation in a murder essay you are right to include those things! The list I mentioned above would be more suitable in a causation essay. Obviously through out the whole piece, make sure you constantly address whether each of these tests and principles serves defendants and/or society as whole!

    Have you had the exam yet?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by L2311)
    Any predictions
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    Thanks! Nope, that was just a mock I was doing. I have around 3 weeks left
    (Original post by garyshortall)
    Does anyone have any good revision notes to share and any predictions on what questions might come up? Pretty hard to predict i know haha.
    anyone here doing contract or tort law?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    anyone here doing contract or tort law?
    I doubt anyone is on this thread considering it's specifically for A2 Criminal law
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    Thanks!

    What about Alcohol Dependency Syndrome where the defendant drinks voluntarily and it leads to an abnormality of the mind?
    ADS is a medically recognised disease according to the law of dim res, and so it is sufficient as long as the drinking is damaging the brain or something along those lines from what I remember

    [R v Tandy]
    [R v Dietschmann]

    Voluntary intoxication alone is obviously not enough for the defence, but when you have a disease caused by drinking, which is fuelled by drinking, and it damages the brain, this is sufficient for dim res. Because it becomes involuntary at that point.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing the OCR Criminal Law paper in a few weeks and was wondering do we have to do conclusions in both Section A and Section B questions?
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by null.and.void.)
    I doubt anyone is on this thread considering it's specifically for A2 Criminal law
    hmmm. fair point. you sound really familiar for some reason. is this your clone account? have you done tort or contract?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    hmmm. fair point. you sound really familiar for some reason. is this your clone account? have you done tort or contract?
    Maybe...

    PM who you think I am, and I'll confirm whether it's me or not.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    ADS is a medically recognised disease according to the law of dim res, and so it is sufficient as long as the drinking is damaging the brain or something along those lines from what I remember

    [R v Tandy]
    [R v Dietschmann]

    Voluntary intoxication alone is obviously not enough for the defence, but when you have a disease caused by drinking, which is fuelled by drinking, and it damages the brain, this is sufficient for dim res. Because it becomes involuntary at that point.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh okay, thank you very much for clearing it up!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 4, 2017

University open days

  1. University of Cambridge
    Christ's College Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Sep '18
  2. Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 28 Sep '18
  3. Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.