The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
any1?
Hey, yes i do WJEC Law!
Basically, there are 3 papers, LW 1, 2 and 3

Law 1 is a stimulus response question; You will have a choice of 2 questions, and you do ONE. The stimulus material is either a graph or a piece of text. You answer three parts; part a (it could be part b but its usually a) is simply based on the stimulus. Part b will generally be a question which tests you A01 (i.e description and factual knowledge.) Part c will generally be a question which tests your AO2 - evaluation; this is critical comment.

The topics that generally come up on paper 1 are:
Civil Courts and procedures/ along with ADR and Tribunals (ARGH!)
Criminal courts and procedures
Legal aid and advice

However the following could also come up:
Legal profession- barristers and solicitors
Judiciary
Jury
Magistrates

Note that that is the TYPICAL structure; sometimes c will not mention critical comment specifically; sometimes you may need to refer to the source in mor than one part.

an example of a q (june 04 i think) is:
[source]
a) Identify and explain the reasons for the establishment of the CPS?
b) Explain the criteria employed by the CPS governing the decision to presecute.
c) To what extent have the reforms to the CPS achived efficiency and justice in the prosecution service.

_____

Paper 2:
These are essay questions; you have a choice of SIX and you choose TWO; any could come up; the qs are divided into part a and b; part a is usually description and part b is usually criticial comment though not always

e.g
a)Describe the role and training of judges
b) To what extent are judges representative of the communities that they serve (a popular question)

Any topic can come up.
_________________________________________
Paper 3 is application.
There is NO CHOICE; you answer ONE question; you get a fictional statute and you have to apply the law to that scenario, i.e state what the outcome would be any why. there are slightly different ways to approach application depending on the topic; the three most likely topics it will be are precedent, statutory interpretation and EU law.
Reply 3
Hi thank you very much for this post your my saviour :smile:

Got a question though, question 1 part c:

c) To what extent have the reforms to the CPS achived efficiency and justice in the prosecution service.

When answering this question, do I need to define the terms used in the question and then evaluate it?
Well you could briefly define CPS- as in its the Crown Prosecution Service, you'd have described it already in part b) , but I wouldn't think you'd have much time to do anything else!

I'd start of with an outline of the reforms and why they came about, e.g Narey Report and Glidewell Report outlined the problems regarding delay and high rate of judge ordered acquittals, therefore as part of the changes, the CPS have published a code of practice which outlines two tests they used to decide whether to drop the case or not (public and evidential test; desrcibe these and briefly say whichfactors are in favour of prosecution and which aren't), but keep your outline brief, remember most of your answer should be evaluation.

For your evaulation, you could say that they are successful because delay has decreased, the introduction of criminal justice units which also created better working relations between prosecution lawyers and the police.

then you'd counter argue and give examples of cases wehre the CPS has failed to give justice, resulting in unfairness and private prosecutions, i would use the case of Christopher Davies; case examples like that prove that the changes haven't achieved justice.

Also, an article in the Times said that the CPS had 'bungling' lawters, 1,800 of its cases were dropped each year, prosecutors didn't answer the phone, etc- this obviosuly goes against the idea that they achieved efficiency!

They have also been criticised for lowering the charge made; this makes a prosecution more likelu but the sentence given will be for a lessor crime; however the new changes do state that the victims must be told about any change in the case- but even so they could still be left feeling that justice has not been served. (i.e so it didnt achieve justice)

And finally, you conclude by answering the question directly.
(This is only BRIEF, just to show you how to do it, since you wanted an approach, this is by no means the full answer! you'd have to expand on a lot of points)

So you see, you wouldnt have much time to dfine. BUT if it came up in parts a and b i would advise you to almost certainly always define terms; also, try for part c but BRIEFLY, always be mindful of the time.

And finally you're very welcome :smile:
Reply 5
Dredz
Hi, is there any1 out there whos doing AS WJEC Law on 11th of June?
I had distance learning lessons and since the equipment at our school didnt work we had like 2 proper lessons this whole year. Our school didnt bother purchasing new ones.
Anyway, does any1 know on how to answer questions in the exam for LW1, 2 and 3? As in, how to construct the answer. Any help wud be appreciated :smile:


OMG I'm like in EXACTLY the same situation as you! :p:

..:s-smilie:
Aw, ok i have guidance notes for answering paper 3 questions (application questions): Basically, if you follow the standard procedures set out below, (there's separate procedures for EU, S.I and Precedent), then you should by able to apply the law to any scenario.

1. Precedent:
Remember, in the exam you will have fictional statutes and fictional cases; you then have to apply to law to the cases. Presumably with Precedent, you will probably get two cases and you will get asked for your decision in the 2nd case; the third part might then be "Would your answer be different if.. .(for example, if the Court of Appeal had set the precedent?). You may also get the text of the Practice Statement, with questions based on that; then they will give you scenerios and you'll have to apply the principles of precedent. This is how you do it:

1. Start off with stare decisis (latin for 'let the decision stand/ stand by the decision), and the two principles of stare decisis (like cases should be treated alike and higher courts bind lower courts)
i.e Generally, past precedents should always be followed to keep the law certain and fair- the Practice Statement 1966 mentions the importance of certainty in the law. (Then APPLY this; therefore, if i were to apply stare decisis, i would follow the decision made in [give the name of the case they tell you] and find the defendent [guilty/not guilty depending again on the first case]- or something to that effect)

2. Consider if any methods of avoidance apply
(there are 3 methods of avoidance- distinguishing, overruling and repealing. Repealing however, only occurs in an appeal case, so UNLESS the question tells you to apply the law to an appeal case, you will not need to talk about repealing, you will just say, 'this is not an appeal case and therefore, i will not be able to repeal the decision made in [the earlier case]'.
If you are DISTINGUISHING a case, make sure you point out the differences you are using to distunguish! Give examples as well, of cases that have been distinguished, e.g Merrit v Meirrt and Balfour v Balfour- so for example
"However, having considered that generally, law the should be certain, ther are three methods of avoidance i could use. I could distinguish the cases in the following way, [state clearly what the differences are]; distingishing was used in the case of Merrit v Merrit, to avoid following the precedent set in Balfour v Balfour"

If the scenario involves two House of Lords cases, then you will be using the Practice Statement so you will be overruling; if it's 2 Court of Appeal cases, and one of the exceptions stated in Young v Bristol Aeroplanes apply then you will also be overruling: Therefore, the next step is....

3. Consider whether the case is a H.O.L or Court of Appral case:
House of Lords will need application of the Practice Statement; The Practice Statement allows H.O.L judges to depart from previous decisions when it is right to do so- therefore you have to say WHY you think (or don't think) it is right to do so), and you have to bear in mind that the Practice Statement speaks of 4 areas of law that require law (settlement of property, contract, fiscal arrangements (= tax) and especially criminal law) - so if your scenario involves these 4 areas (it ls likely to be criminal law) remember to mention that the Practice Statement emphasises how important certainty is/

If the case in the scenario is a Court of Appeal case, you may need to cite the three exceptions given in Young v Bristol Aeroplane (i.e normally, Court of Appeal decisions are binding on itself, except in three situations which were established in this case.) If you don't know the 3 examples, they are:

1. Where there are 2 conflicting Court of Appeal cases, the court may choose which to follow and which to discard
2. Where a later H.O.L decision conflicts with the Court of Appeal precedent then the later one of the H.O.L must be followed (remember this is due to one of the principles of stare decisis which is higher courts bind lower courts)
3. Where a previous decision of the Court of Appeal was made per incurium, i.e 'in error'- this usually means without relating to a relevant statue.

Don't forget to give examples of incidents where these 3 exceptions were used in case you don't know any examples, here are possible ones:
1. For overruling- e.g the H.O.L used the Practice Statement in Herrington v BRB to overrule Addie v Dumbreck on the issue of occupier's liability to tresspassers.
2. Distingushing - Merrit v Marrit and Balfour v Balfour, as descrbied
3. Reversing- Cutter v Eagle Star

4. Final step: Try and work out if the scenario you are given is similar to any REAL case you know; if it is, point out the similarities, and say that that case should be followed; (so for example, if the question is about whether someone should be found guilty for marital rape, you go through the procedure outlined above and then say "however, I could just follow the decision made in the recent case of R V R, which made marital rape an offence. Therefore, despite the first case, the defendant (who has been charged with marital rape) would be found guilty. This step will not always apply because you may not always know cases.

REMEMBER: Most of us will reach different conclusions- this is ok becasue different judges make different decisions- what is important is your application of the LAW. Make sure that is correct; so if you want to find the defendant guilty, make sure you back it up legally, same if you want to find them not guilty.

I hope this helped and I'm sorry it's so long! This JUST covers PAPER 3; Essay questions on Precedent which could come up on paper 2 will look completey different; they will be the standard part a - describe and part b - critical comment as outlined in a previous post
(Example of past paper question on precedent in paper 2:
a) Describe the doctrine of precedent
b) To what extent does precedent curb judicial creativity. )

I'll do how to apply EU law and statutory interpretation in the next post; i'm sorry if this is unclear it's very hard to explain without using actual papers.
Reply 7
Thanks alot, you've already taught me more than my distance teacher did in a whole year. Is there any source from which I can get revision notes online? Or maybe some past papers, as once again, our school didnt get us any because they werent free.

PS. Who was your distance learning teacher? Mine was Beverly
Application of EULaw (Paper 3)

Ok in paper 3, for EU law, they are likely to give you a source of law (e.g a treaty, regulation or directive) and a scenario. In the scenario, someone's rights may have been breached; you will probably be asked to advise them on what they can do

Anyone whose rights have been breached will want to take the case to court and have thier rights enforced; they can only do this if the source of law has direct effect: So this is how you approach an application question:

1. Does the source of law (given in the paper) have direct effect?
Remember, the case of Van Gend en Loos set out when a source of law will have direct effect: if it meets two criteria, it will have direct effect
1. If it gives individuals rights
2. If those rights are sufficiently clear and unconditional

You have to apply this, and SAY whether the source of law meets these or not.

If the answer is yes, then the person affected CAN bring an action.

2. Is the direct effect vertical or horizontal?

Remember:
Horizontal: action can be brought against a private individual/company
Vertical: action can be brought against state/ part of the state.

If the source of law is a treaty or regulation: These have both direct and horizontal effect; so the person affected can sue anyone.

If it is a directive:
They will
1. ONLY have vertical direct effect (i.e individual CAN'T sue an individual or private comPANY; they can ONLY sue the State or state-owned company/part of the state)
2. and ONLY if the TIME LIMIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION HAS PASSED

So, you look at the source of law and scenatio they are giving you and say whether, following these principles, the individual can sue or not.

If they CAN'T (i.e because it is a directive and the person wants to sue an individual or private company), then you fo the 3rd step:

3. Other strategies:
1. Francovich Damages (allows the person effected to sue the STATE even if rights were breached by a private individual or company)
BUT ONLY if the following 3 conditions are met:
1. Directive's purpose was to give individuals rights
2. Those rights are easily identified in the directive
3. There is a clear causal link between the individual's loss and the state's breach.

So you look at your directive and write whether these 3 conditions are met; if so, you explain how and say they can uyse Franchovich Damages; if not you explain why.

(Clearly, if the STATE has failed to implement a directive/ to create a statute which complie with the directive after the date of implementation, and the individual suffers, then it is evidence of a causal link, but make sure you explain this.)

2. Interpretative obligation (indirect effect.)


Once again, ALL THROUGHOUT YOUR APPLICATION, GIVE CASE EXAMPLEs:
I've given some here:
1. Vertical claim succesfully made- in Gibson v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
2. - Duke v GEC Reliance -is an example of the fact that directives don't have horizontal effect so you can't sue a private individual under them.
3. Francovich v Italian Republic- obviously, example of where Francovich damages was allowed

And that's it!

ALWAYS remember, to APPLY the law, i.e don't just DESCRIBE the 3 situations in Van Gend En Loos- SAY whether these 3 criteria are met in the source you are given, and if so, what this MEANS (i.e, this source of law does meet the two criteria [explain how, from the source] and therfore, it has direct effect, meaning [name of claimant] can enforce those rights in British courts of law.)

Once again, sorry if that was confusing

REMEMBER again this is only for Paper 3

Paper 2 essay questions are again, part a) explain or describe, part b) evalauate (generally not always)
e.g
a) Desrcibe the sources of EU law
b) What impact has EU Law had on the UK?
(or SOMETHING like that though in this case part b is not strictly critical comment though you should add some)

Application guidelines on statutory interpretation comes next but i might not have time to do it until tomorrow.

Good luck!
Sorry Dredz, I don't know any good sites, I did look at the WJEC website but they don't publish thier past papers online!

I also did not have a distance learning teacher, i had usual lessons. I guess its a lot harder with a distant learning teacher.
Reply 10
Do it whenever you can, its already great that your spending time helping me and maybe a few others :smile:

Btw, I heard that if you back up every major point you make with a case it might impress the examiner and you might get extra marks. Is this true?
Yes, that's why i wrote in big letters to give case examples! Cases, statues, quotes, all of these bump up your A02 marks, but this is more important in Paper 2 (& 1) which is essay based, because paper 3 is testing A03 skill (application), but cases help illustrate your point and give your answer authority, so yes whenever you can add a case, or a quote from a judge or a phrase from a newspaper article.

I'll try and do more paper 2 style questions later on, if i have the time! The problem is it's only 3 days before the exam so we don't have that much time... but I will try my best. Have you even got a textbook you can look at? I think you should go down to the library and find an AS Level Law book and borrow it for a few days, the AQA book is pretty similar to the WJEC specification but we don't do any of the criminal law stuff in the first year.(and our exam questions are slightly different too)
In fact i have a checklist of things we need to know, i'll try and post that on here , too, right now my whole family is trying to kick me off the computer! So hopefully later on, ok, for now good luck.
Reply 12
Yes in fact I have got a book, I borrowed it from the library. I've started reading through some topics from which I know that they are on the syllabus.
However it would be great if you could get post the checklist here. Ill try and revise the topics that are needed for paper 1 and see how far I get.
Hey, got back on! :biggrin:

Statutory interpretation application: (i think it'll either be this ir EU law, they might even mix the two, i find this one the hardest :frown:)

So remember, a paper 3 application will normally have a made up statutue, and a senario; you have to apply the rules of interpretation (You MUST know the rules on interpretation (literal, mischief, and golden rules) with examples, and you MUST know the rules of language (i.e the latin ones, 'ejusdem generis, expressio unius exclusio alterius and noscuitar asociis') .. PLEASE tell me you know those! - (also the 3 presumptions) because you wil have to interpret a section or phrase.

First, you read the statute v. carefully, looking out for bait words:

e.g

1. if it's a statutue which creates a criminal offence:
It would be necessary to establish that the defendant had the necessary mens rea for the crime (the presumption of mens rea is one of the 3 presumptions)
The case to illustrate this presumption, is Sweet V Parsley. (or any case you've been taught)

2. If the statute dates a date of when it was passed, and the dates of when the act was breached by someone in the scenario:
This will mean you;ll have to talk about the presumption that statues will not apply retrospectively.

3. If there's a common rule law (i.e a judge made decision) on the same point of law as the statute:
You'll have to talk about the presumption that common law will apply unless the statute makes it clear otherwise.
Case example for this : Leave v R (or any other one you've been taught.)

4. Reports written before the act was passed.
E.g Reports by Law Commission/ pressure group.
This is a type of extrinsic aid; youll need to mention this and how it helps you to interpret the meaning of the stature.

5. If you are given a given a statement made by someone supporting the bill during parliamentary debate:
This will be recorded in Hansard.
You'll have to talk about the case of Pepper v Hard and the 3 situations in which Hansard can be used. (Do you know these?)

6. If the statute states a list of words, and then general words (e.g "and other" follow- this means you have to use ejusdem generis rule of language.
Case example for when this rule was used: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse.

7. If it gives a list of words not followed by any general words :
The rule of language you must use is: Expressio Unius exclusio alterius
Case example: Tempest v Kilner (or any other you have been taught)

8. A list of words followed by non-specific words (so e.g 'dogs, puppies and food):
You must use the Noscitur asociis rule of language (i.e the 'food' will mean dog food because of the words before it)
Case example: Inland Revenue v Frere (or anything else you've been taught.)

Those are most of the bait words, when reading the statue keep those on mind. BTW for this topic when you give the CASE, you MUST also give the STATUTE (if you know it) and the PHRASE interpreted- i haven't given it here in case you know other examples, or in case you already know, so tell me if you don't)

So, there's so many rules, which one do you start with?

1. Start with LITERAL rule, because judges always use it first:
How do you apply the rule?
.1 Identify the rule = e.g "the first rule one should use, is the literal rule'
.2 Describe the rule- e.g ' " This rule gives words their ordinary, everyday meaning of the words, even if this leads to absurdity..."
3. Elaborate on that rule with authority (cases and statutes) e.g "... this is illustrated in the case of Whitely V Chappell, where the phrase 'any person entitled to vote' was given its literal meaning; this resulted in the defendant, who had impersonated a dead person, being found not guilty (i.e because literally, a dead person is not entitled to vote)
4. Apply this- by explaining the result you will arrive at if you were to use this rule (e.g "therefore, if i applied the literal rule in this case... [name of defendant] would be found ]guilty/not guilty])

2. Then, try to use the mischief rule, i.e by looking at what the statutue was aiming to prevent. Remember to use clues from any intrinsic or extrinsic aids to help.
The way you do that is the same as the way above- you identify the rule, explain it, elaborate on it using cases and statutes, and then you apply it; for the mischief rule, first cite 3 points in Heydon's case, and then a good case example to use is 'Smith v Hughes', where the phrase 'inthe street' of the 'Street Offences Act 1959' was interpreted.

3. Try to use to Goldren rule but ONLY if it is obvious that the word has more than one meaning/ you clearly wanna modify the meaning.

If you use Golden Narrow- explain the two meanings; and explain the one you think is the least absurd.
If you use Golden wider- giv the word you want to change, and what you'll change it to. Remember cases:
A good case for goldren narrow - R V Allen (phrase 'to marry' of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was being interpreted.)
A good case for goldren wider: Re Sigsworth (the word 'issue' in the 'Administration of Estates Act 1925 modified to mean 'children, but not those who have killed thier parents (!)

4. Consider any rules of language or any presumptions.
Be careful with the presumption of mens rea, don't ever try and guess what it is since we aint done criminal law so we don't know; instead , when applying it just say 'before [defendant's name] could be convicted of this crime, it would need to be established that he had the necessary mans rea' - but don't say what the mens rea IS because we won't know e.g the mens rea for murder may not just include intention to kill, but also intention to cause GBH; we simply wouldnt know so don't try to guess.

5. Remember to try and use any intrinsic or extrinsic aid that they've given; say whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic, and IF it's Hansard, then say the 3 situations that Hansard can be used in, as illustrated in Pepper v Hard.

That's it!
If you can't use any ofthe rules (e.g you might not be able to use golden narrow if a word only has one meaning) - then just say 'the ........ rule cannot be applied here because.... ' don't try and apply everything if it can't be done! but don't leave it out of your answer, clearly state that it cant be used and why; this'll show examiners that you still know the rule.

PS: Like i said, if you don't know all the rules, then you'll have trouble understanding this, so i'm sorry in advance if thats the case!
Reply 14
Stressed Chick
Hey, got back on! :biggrin:

Statutory interpretation application: (i think it'll either be this ir EU law, they might even mix the two, i find this one the hardest :frown:)

So remember, a paper 3 application will normally have a made up statutue, and a senario; you have to apply the rules of interpretation (You MUST know the rules on interpretation (literal, mischief, and golden rules) with examples, and you MUST know the rules of language (i.e the latin ones, 'ejusdem generis, expressio unius exclusio alterius and noscuitar asociis') .. PLEASE tell me you know those!


To be completely honest with you I know less than 50% of all the notes you gave me.. As I said in my very first post, I've only had a few lessons this year, therefor I only know the basics from revising now and again.. I VERY much appreciate your notes and you taking your time to help me out, but as I said I understand less than 40%. However, I will revise these few days like crazy, atleast 7-8 hours a day and hope that I can scrape an E or a D. This is basically learning AS Level Law in 3 days..

Ive read your notes through and they make sense, even though I don't understand all the terms. I'll read it all thru a few times after I've learned all the definitions.

PS. Sorry if you think you wasted your time
Checklist: You need to know:

1. Statutory Interpretation:

1. Three rules of interpretation, with cases to illustrate (literal, goldren and mischief)
2. Three rules of language, with cases (i.e the latin ones) (ejusdem generis, noscitor asociis, expressio unio exclusio alterius)
3. The three presumptions, with cases to illustrate. (common law will apply, statues aren't retrospective, mens rea)
4. Advantages and disadvantages of the 3 rules
5. For extra marks, state the statutes and phrases involved in the case examples that you give. Also, state the case of Holley (2005) which changed stare decisis in that it allowed decisions of the Privy Council to overrule H.O.L decisions where a) the pt of law concerned English law, and b) the Council is made up mostly of law lords.

2. Judicial Precedent:
1. How precedent operates (e.g stare decicis and the 2 principles; ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, system of law reporting.)
2. Three types of precedent- with case examples of each.
3. 3 types of avoidance- with case examples
4. Advantages and disadvantages of precedent.
5. Precedent and the constitutional role of judges ("to what extent does precedent uphold the constitutional position of judges?" - i've seen that as a q before)
6. Approaches of H.O.L (Practice Statemrnt) and C.O.A (Young v Bristoal Aeroplanes) to precedent (i.e are they bound by thier decisions, is this a good thing, etc.)
7. The new Supreme Court and how this links to the Practice Statement.
8. Application structure.

3. EU Law:
1. Institutions - thier role and composition, particularly the role of the ECJ in detail, - thier supervisory role, Article 234 and thier judicial role.
2. Sources of Law
3. Concepts- e.g direct effect, direct applicability, etc.
4. Impact of EU law onj parliamentary sovereignty
5. Application structure.


3. Legal procession- barristers and solicitors
1. Thier training routes, work and control (diff. for each)
2. Criticisms
3. Changes to the profession- Clementi review, 'Tesco Law' . 'Fusion' of the professions.

4. Judiciary:
1. Hierarchy
2. Appointment, training, retirement, dismissal (popluar part a qs in paper 2 include 'describe the role, training and dismissal of judges', ... note that its diferent for superior and inferior judges)
3. Criticisms of judiciary- e.g educational backgrouhd, separation of powers and social background as well as gender, (popular part b q is 'to what extent are judges representative of the communities that they serve?'- use cases to illustrate)
4. Independence of judiciary with CASES for for and against ("to what extent are judges independent?)
Extra marks- awareness of changes to role of Lord Chancellor , appointments process ,new Supreme Court.) Ther are also LOTS of quotes and cases for this topic.

5. Magistracy:

1. Types, appointmentd, traning role, retirement, dismissal.
2. Advantages and disadvantages.

6. Jury:

1. Qualifications,role in various courts, selection, including challenges and vetting, with cases to illustrate each challenge.
2. Advantages and disadvantages of trial by juruy, LOTS of cases for this!

7. Constitution:
1. Nature and sources of constitution
2. 2 principles: supremacy of parliament, rule of law and separation of powers; especially for part b you need to comment on the extent to which these are upheld .

8. Common law and equity:

1. How they developed- timeline
2. Relavance of euitable principles used today, CASES NEEDED.

9. Legislation:

1. Legislative process 2. Criticisms of statutes; link to supremacy of parliament.

10. Delegated legislation:
1. 3 types of delegated legislation; give examples
2. Control over delegated legislation (Parliament and Courts)
3. Advantages and disadvantages

11. Law Reform:
1. The main pressures on law making
2. Composition and role of agencies of law reform- plus examples of what they've done.
3. Role of pressure groups in the law reform process.
4. Temporary bodies of law reform, with examples of thier work
5. Critical consideration of their success (esp. for a part b type q in paper 2, or a part c in paper 3)

12. Civil Process

1. Problems pre-1999 (e.g cost, delay, adversarial process, complexity, injustice)
2. Woolf Reforms- 'track system', procedural changes, changes in the terminology, changes in the way claims are started (the claim form) and case management for judes, etc. (encouraging use of ADR)
3. Critically comment on how successful these reforms are (popular part b in paper 2 and part c in paper 3)
4. Civil remedies (i.e not just damages, other civil remedies)
5. Civil appeals process (including 'leap frog procedure' and circumstances of when this is allowed.)

13: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
1. General description; links to Woolf Reforms;
2. Three types of ADR (arbitration, mediation, concilliation; note that some of these are even split further!)
3. Advantages anf disadvantages of EACH type; try to get studies and quotes to back these up to improve A02 marks.

14. Tribunals

1. General descriptions, including a contrast with the court sysrem/
2. The two types, with examples
3. Advantages and disadvantages; again, try and quote from reports etc.

15. Criminal Process- Bail
1. Description of Bail Act ; link statutes to 'golden threat of criminal law' - i.e everyone is innocent until proven guilty
2. Additional restrictions on bail- link with 'balancing conflicting interests'
3. Advantages and disadvantages

16. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

1. Reasons why it was established and the act it was created by.
2. Composition
3. Role
4. Glidewell and Narey Reports; problems with CPS
5. The Code of Practice and its two tests (public interest tests, evidential test); for extra marks, have some examples of factors under tests, both in favour and against continuation of the case.
6. Critical comment on how efficient it is, and how well it promotes justice (e.g 'to what extent is the CPS effective in promoting efficiency and justice')

17. Criminal Process:
1. Pre-trial hearings (for all three types of offences)
2. Appeal routes (and cases to illustrate)

18. Legal Aid and Advice:
1. Old system of state funding and its problems
2. New system of state funding
3. 'Access to justice' and 'unmet legal need'
4. Advantages and disadvantages of the new system
5. Be able to assess whether the new system has 'increased Access to Justice' (therefore you need to define the phrase access to justice; if this comes up as a part b question or part c in paper one, define what is meant by access to justice and then evaluate the extent to which the new system has or has not improved it, with relevant cases, reports, examples, and a good quote from Mr. Justice Darling, for example, comparing the openness of British courts to the doors of the Ritz Hotel)
6. Conditional fees- and advantages and disadvantages of these.
7. Other ways of seeking free, or cheap, legal advice and assistance.
Hey!
Yep i also had Distant learning this year in AS Law and the same examining board as you, 'WJEC'.
We also had one lesson a week preparing and completing one unit for the next video conference lesson.
But we were given these revision packs listing all the things we needed to know for each topic and i guess that really helped. In my mock i got a 'B'.
My Law exam will be next Monday and yaaay it will be my last AS exam!
But im actually going to drop Law this year and carry on with my other 3 AS subjects which are, English Literature, History and Sociology.
I really don't enjoy Law and i think it's really down to the fact that we have one lesson a week and its video conferencing :mad: So good luck to all the others who are giong to carry on with it to A2!
Hey, no don't worry i don't think you wasted my time and i'm glad to be of help :smile:.. Exams stress us all out eh, let's all share the burden.. and if i'm writing it out it helps me to remember and understand too.

Well it's cool if you don't know the definitions and stuff now, so long as you know them before the exam so that you can apply them! that's why i stressed to make sure you know the terms.

Try and make sure you know at least briefly the stuff in the list though it's long! Awww man i feel your pain, trying to learn it in 3 days, i'm trying to revise it in three days and that's difficult enough... but everyone knows the 3 days before any exam are to CRAM CRAM CRAM right :smile: Hopefully you'll be ok, remember in paper 2, there's a choice of 6, and u only answer two so hopefully you'll be able to pick your best two; paper 3, is application, those 3 topics (EU, S.I and precedent) are MOST likely to come up (though some other topics apparently can too, but only those 3 have come up in the past) so if you just stick to those guidelines hopefully that'll be ok; i find paper 1 the hardest topic; that's the ADR, Tribunals, Civil Courts, etc (i think i outlined it in the first post i wrote here) which i hate! But you still have a tiny choice of 2 questions so you can pick your best.

I will try and post up some popular questions for paper 2, with brief essay plans on how you would answer them, if i get the time later on.

For now, seriously man good luck and let me know if you need any more help on something. Take care!
lemoncake sucks
Hey!
I really don't enjoy Law and i think it's really down to the fact that we have one lesson a week and its video conferencing :mad: So good luck to all the others who are giong to carry on with it to A2!


Lemoncake: Hey yeah i guess you can't really enjoy law if you're learning through a video, i mean we have a couple of hours a week and that's hard enough! But i enjoy law, and hopefully, if i get the right grade i'll do it at A2, so thanks for the luck i'm sure ill need it!

Congratulations on the B for your mock exam, looks like you did still do well for just learning one one lesson a week, though i guess the notes on what you need to know would have really helped; I'm sure they would have helped you, too, Dredz.

Good luck on Monday!
Reply 19
lemoncake sucks
Hey!
Yep i also had Distant learning this year in AS Law and the same examining board as you, 'WJEC'.
We also had one lesson a week preparing and completing one unit for the next video conference lesson.
But we were given these revision packs listing all the things we needed to know for each topic and i guess that really helped. In my mock i got a 'B'.
My Law exam will be next Monday and yaaay it will be my last AS exam!
But im actually going to drop Law this year and carry on with my other 3 AS subjects which are, English Literature, History and Sociology.
I really don't enjoy Law and i think it's really down to the fact that we have one lesson a week and its video conferencing :mad: So good luck to all the others who are giong to carry on with it to A2!


Atleast you had a mock. I've never even seen a Law exam question until today. Is there any extra book or anything you got or just the pack? Did you revise it all from the pack?

@Stressed Chick - Thanks for all the help :smile: I will pass these notes on to my mates who also do Law, so you haven't just helped 1 person, you helped about 15 people :cool:

To be honest, I quite enjoy Law and Im looking to do it in university. If I drop it next year, would it matter?