Could anyone give me some sample answers/help with the negligence section in LAW02? feeling pretty anxious about it.
I'm in the same boat as you tbh unit 1 is a lot easier
I know right timing is a big issue for all us students in law I reckon haha, what do you think you'll achieve overall for law?
Just a heads up, law unit 2 is tricky... time wise but don't write about stuff that does not need to be. The criminal section should only take 40 minutes, it requires far less detail!
Really? I feel like unit 2 is easier. I wish I had started learning the content early though.
For unit 2, Criminal liability, am i mistaken to see a pattern where the following applies:
Q1+2 are a mixture of the following questions: strict liability, causation, mens rea explaination, actus reus explaination, omissions and contemporaneity rule
Q3+4 are a mixture of nonfatal application questions and the occasional legal application (not referencing the scenario only case knowledge)
Q5 are procedure and aims of sentencing questions.
and if this is the case are there others i have missed out?
im doing unit 2 law tomorrow aswell & i was wondering with the actus reus question would they only ask about the omissions or would they ask a question on you explaining the actus reus? because ive got a prepared answers for actus reus but it only has a small explanation on what the actus reus is then 3 examples of 3 of the omissions
If the question is not on omissions include state of affair crimes and Hills v Baxter for involuntary acts. Then include the omission cases, Pitwood, Gibbins v Proctor e.g.
thank you! and also for causation i'm struggling to explain legal causation without it being really long what are the main points to include. I've prepared and learnt half of my answer here is what i have so far:
Causation is the link between the defendant’s act and the criminal consequence. To prove causation, the prosecution must show that the defendants conduct was the factual & legal cause of that consequence & that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
To prove causation, we must establish that the defendant is the factual cause of the consequence. To prove factual causation, the ‘but for’ test is used which was established in the case of R v White. This states that but for the defendant’s actions would the prohibited consequence have occurred? If no then the defendant is not liable, if yes then the defendant is liable. The but for test is also used in the case of Pagett
Once factual causation has been established, the prosecution must prove legal causation. Establishing factual causation does not mean that there will be legal causation.
Causation is fairly straightforward, this is full mark template:
Explain there are two tests to see IF defendant has to cause the end harm to the victim
But for test
Explain white and the Arsenic is his mums tea
operating and substantial factor
Smith in the army barracks
Apply them both the the scenario is needed
Then explain the link between the act and consequence is the chain of causation
Then Think skull rule, Blaue
Unforeseen actions, Padgett
Palpably wrong medical care, Jordan
Victims of actions 'so daft' Williams
In a question on tort, about causation, should we mention nous actus interveniens
I'm so nervous for tomorrow!
Do you think actus reuse act will come up as a single question this year?
Does anyone have any predictions of what could come up on tomorrow's paper?
Anybody got any predictions for liability in negligence tomorrow?
There is no need for negligence predictions as every year all the topics come up, just in different forms. Duty of care test, breach of duty, rules on causation, remoteness, (maybe res ipsa), the track system and damages will come up.