2017 Law unit 2 aqa unofficial markscheme
(DISCLAIMER: I cannot remember the exact questions so these are rough ideas. I have not included all content and other things could be credited. What I have written I said in the exam is not necessarily right but I thought I would write it down to help remind me when results day comes nearer. Some of this has been extracted from previous mark schemes.)
Scenario's: (thanks Chicaldo for the scenarios, rdlewiss for the amounts and CHarrisMedia for the personal injury amount!)
John saw his ex, Pia with Gordon. John had criminal convictions and Pia had told Gordon that he was dangerous. John approached them and started shouting and accused Gordon of stealing his girlfriend. Gordon was frightened.
John pushed Gordon roughly, who then staggered into Pia who fell over the kerb and sprained her ankle. John walked away laughing.
Raza's garage was near Debbie's house and Raza fitted some wheels on Martin's car. Martin then drove by Debbie's house where one of the wheels fell off and hit Debbie's greenhouse and cut her. Debbie was told her claim for the injuries was £2000. Repairs for green house were under £400 and Martin's car repairs was £600.
CRIMINAL
1) Explain the meaning of the term 'causation' in criminal law. [8 marks].
Potential Content (A)
Explanation of the meaning of causation.
Factual causation – “but for” test and explanation, case used to illustrate, eg White, Pagett
Legal causation - this can include:
Significant contribution / substantial and operating cause eg Cheshire, Smith novus actus interveniens: cases/examples to illustrate, eg medical negligence, eg Smith, Jordan, Cheshire
contribution of others, eg Benge
victims own contribution, eg Roberts, Williams
take your victim as you find him, eg Blaue, Hayward
For Sound both factual and legal causation must be dealt with. Max 4 for factual causation only.
2) Explain the meaning of indirect (oblique intent) and transferred malice (8 marks)
oblique intent (where the consequence is virtually certain, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions knowing that is the case + example, e.g. Woollin)
Transferred malice: meaning - mens rea directed toward one person is transferred to the victim
an understanding that the rule operates from person to person or object to object, but not object to person or vice versa discussion of malice to be transferred. cases and/or examples in support, eg Latimer, Mitchell, Pembliton
3) Outline and application of battery and assault
If someone can remember the scenario I can write an answer but here is the general principles.
Battery = Application of unlawful force with a lack of significant injury.
AR: Force ( in the scenario it was pushing) - Thomas. Unlawful - Collins v Wilcock.
MR: Direct intent or reckless. I did direct intent in the scenario as he pushed V "roughly". - Mohan/Cunningham
Assault = causing the apprehension of unlawful immediate personal violence.
AR: Positive act (in the scenario it was shouting) Ireland/Constanza
Apprehension (Frightened in the scenario). Unlawful. Immediate (went up to him). Causation present.
MR: Intent or reckless. I did reckless. Cunningham/Mohan.
= 6 months imprisonment or £5000 fine under s39 CJA 1988.
4) Outline ABH and apply it.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
AR: Battery proven first. Force = push. Unlawful. Could be indirect. MR for battery was direct intent/reckless and transfers to Pia through transferred malice - Latimer/Mitchell. Causation present. ABH "sprained ankle" more than trivial Chan fook.
MR: No further MR needed.
= 5 years imprisonment. s47 OAPA 1861.
5) pre-trial procedure to summary offences.
Bail/legal aid applied for. First appearance at Mag's Court represented by a duty solicitor. Enter plea. Guilty = sentenced or pre-sentence report. Not guilty = pre trial review and summary trial at a later date at the MAgs court.
6) Types of sentences
Custodial (immediate or suspended term of imprisonment)
Community – eg carry out between 40 and 300 hours unpaid work as 'Community Payback' etc
Financial – fine and/or compensation order
Conditional or absolute discharge
TORT
1) Proximity and fair just and reasonableness.
is there proximity by space, time or relationship between claimant and defendant? Explained through cases such as Bourhill v Young, McLoughlin v O'Brien.
is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Explained through cases such as Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Mitchell v Glasgow City Council.
2) Outline 2 risk factors of your choice.
Brief explanation with cases of the meaning of any one risk factor and the effect that has on the standard of care, eg:
special characteristics of the claimant – if known to the defendant to be more vulnerable, then higher standard expected – explained through a case such as Paris v Stepney BC
the size of the risk – the reasonable man does not take care against minute risks, but does against big risks – explained through a case such as Bolton v Stone
practical precautions – taking reasonable but not excessive precautions – explained through a case such as Latimer v AEC
the benefits of taking the risk – emergencies and public utility – explained through a case such as Watt v Herts CC
3) Res ipsa loquitur applied for both claims towards Raza and Martin(thanks Chichaldo for verifying his name)
Brief explanation and application of the principle. This can include:
recognition that proof of breach of duty normally rests with the claimant
definition of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves)
res ipsa loquitur involves an obvious case of negligence
description of test:
the thing that causes the harm was wholly under the control of the defendant the accident would not have happened unless someone had been negligent there is no other explanation of the injury caused to the claimant.
burden of proof shifts to the defendant. cases in support, eg Byrne v Boadle, Pearson v NW Gas Board, Mahon v Osborne, Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks
application to scenario I said Raza was in control as he fit the wheels, it was due to negligence as he fit the wheels and there was no other explanation so RIL applied. I said Michael was not in control of the wheel, it was not his negligence and the other explanation was Raza not fitting the wheel properly. So RIL applied to Raza but not to Martin.
4) Damage and remoteness application
Brief explanation of factual causation – but for the defendant's breach of duty, the consequence would not have occurred, e.g. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
brief explanation of the meaning of remoteness of damage – reasonable foreseeability test, e.g. The Wagon Mound
explanation of the effect that the kind of damage/method of damage has on remoteness, e.g. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, Hughes v Lord Advocate, Bradford v Robinson Rentals.
I said factual causation was present for both.
I said the damage to Debbie's greenhouse and her injuries were foreseeable as a result of a wheel coming off the car and Martin's car repairs were forseeable so not too remote. I said despite the method of damage being unusual it is still forseeable.
5)Outline the three-track case management system used in the civil courts and identify which track and which court would be used in any claim that Debbie could make against Raza
Outline of tracks (small claims, fast and multi) + financial limits – Civil Procedure Act 1997
Identification with respect to Debbie's claim, fast track for entire loss, (as over £1000 personal injury, but not likely to be complex), so in County Court.
6) Outline how a court calculates an award of damages and briefly explain how the court would calculate an award of damages to Debbie and Martin.
Outline explanation of the calculation of damages: general and special damages; pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damage (damage to property + expenses incurred, loss of future earnings, loss of amenity, pain and suffering, ‘tariff’ award based on the injury itself) mitigation structure of awards (lump sum or structured settlement).
I said Debbie would receive general damages for any medical expenses which is pecuniary losses and for pain,suffering and loss of amenity as a result of her cut which is non-pecuniary. I said both Debbie and Martin would receive special damages for the damage to their property (greenhouse and car). I said they would both receive the damages in a lump sum as it is a small amount under the damages act 1996. They are both expected to mitigate their losses.
If anyone has any edits or there are any errors please let me know and I will change it.
Sorry people who do contract!! Maybe someone can PM a mark scheme for this.
Thanks for all the rep!!!
Scenario's: (thanks Chicaldo for the scenarios, rdlewiss for the amounts and CHarrisMedia for the personal injury amount!)
John saw his ex, Pia with Gordon. John had criminal convictions and Pia had told Gordon that he was dangerous. John approached them and started shouting and accused Gordon of stealing his girlfriend. Gordon was frightened.
John pushed Gordon roughly, who then staggered into Pia who fell over the kerb and sprained her ankle. John walked away laughing.
Raza's garage was near Debbie's house and Raza fitted some wheels on Martin's car. Martin then drove by Debbie's house where one of the wheels fell off and hit Debbie's greenhouse and cut her. Debbie was told her claim for the injuries was £2000. Repairs for green house were under £400 and Martin's car repairs was £600.
CRIMINAL
1) Explain the meaning of the term 'causation' in criminal law. [8 marks].
Potential Content (A)
Explanation of the meaning of causation.
Factual causation – “but for” test and explanation, case used to illustrate, eg White, Pagett
Legal causation - this can include:
Significant contribution / substantial and operating cause eg Cheshire, Smith novus actus interveniens: cases/examples to illustrate, eg medical negligence, eg Smith, Jordan, Cheshire
contribution of others, eg Benge
victims own contribution, eg Roberts, Williams
take your victim as you find him, eg Blaue, Hayward
For Sound both factual and legal causation must be dealt with. Max 4 for factual causation only.
2) Explain the meaning of indirect (oblique intent) and transferred malice (8 marks)
oblique intent (where the consequence is virtually certain, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions knowing that is the case + example, e.g. Woollin)
Transferred malice: meaning - mens rea directed toward one person is transferred to the victim
an understanding that the rule operates from person to person or object to object, but not object to person or vice versa discussion of malice to be transferred. cases and/or examples in support, eg Latimer, Mitchell, Pembliton
3) Outline and application of battery and assault
If someone can remember the scenario I can write an answer but here is the general principles.
Battery = Application of unlawful force with a lack of significant injury.
AR: Force ( in the scenario it was pushing) - Thomas. Unlawful - Collins v Wilcock.
MR: Direct intent or reckless. I did direct intent in the scenario as he pushed V "roughly". - Mohan/Cunningham
Assault = causing the apprehension of unlawful immediate personal violence.
AR: Positive act (in the scenario it was shouting) Ireland/Constanza
Apprehension (Frightened in the scenario). Unlawful. Immediate (went up to him). Causation present.
MR: Intent or reckless. I did reckless. Cunningham/Mohan.
= 6 months imprisonment or £5000 fine under s39 CJA 1988.
4) Outline ABH and apply it.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
AR: Battery proven first. Force = push. Unlawful. Could be indirect. MR for battery was direct intent/reckless and transfers to Pia through transferred malice - Latimer/Mitchell. Causation present. ABH "sprained ankle" more than trivial Chan fook.
MR: No further MR needed.
= 5 years imprisonment. s47 OAPA 1861.
5) pre-trial procedure to summary offences.
Bail/legal aid applied for. First appearance at Mag's Court represented by a duty solicitor. Enter plea. Guilty = sentenced or pre-sentence report. Not guilty = pre trial review and summary trial at a later date at the MAgs court.
6) Types of sentences
Custodial (immediate or suspended term of imprisonment)
Community – eg carry out between 40 and 300 hours unpaid work as 'Community Payback' etc
Financial – fine and/or compensation order
Conditional or absolute discharge
TORT
1) Proximity and fair just and reasonableness.
is there proximity by space, time or relationship between claimant and defendant? Explained through cases such as Bourhill v Young, McLoughlin v O'Brien.
is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Explained through cases such as Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Mitchell v Glasgow City Council.
2) Outline 2 risk factors of your choice.
Brief explanation with cases of the meaning of any one risk factor and the effect that has on the standard of care, eg:
special characteristics of the claimant – if known to the defendant to be more vulnerable, then higher standard expected – explained through a case such as Paris v Stepney BC
the size of the risk – the reasonable man does not take care against minute risks, but does against big risks – explained through a case such as Bolton v Stone
practical precautions – taking reasonable but not excessive precautions – explained through a case such as Latimer v AEC
the benefits of taking the risk – emergencies and public utility – explained through a case such as Watt v Herts CC
3) Res ipsa loquitur applied for both claims towards Raza and Martin(thanks Chichaldo for verifying his name)
Brief explanation and application of the principle. This can include:
recognition that proof of breach of duty normally rests with the claimant
definition of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves)
res ipsa loquitur involves an obvious case of negligence
description of test:
the thing that causes the harm was wholly under the control of the defendant the accident would not have happened unless someone had been negligent there is no other explanation of the injury caused to the claimant.
burden of proof shifts to the defendant. cases in support, eg Byrne v Boadle, Pearson v NW Gas Board, Mahon v Osborne, Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks
application to scenario I said Raza was in control as he fit the wheels, it was due to negligence as he fit the wheels and there was no other explanation so RIL applied. I said Michael was not in control of the wheel, it was not his negligence and the other explanation was Raza not fitting the wheel properly. So RIL applied to Raza but not to Martin.
4) Damage and remoteness application
Brief explanation of factual causation – but for the defendant's breach of duty, the consequence would not have occurred, e.g. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
brief explanation of the meaning of remoteness of damage – reasonable foreseeability test, e.g. The Wagon Mound
explanation of the effect that the kind of damage/method of damage has on remoteness, e.g. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, Hughes v Lord Advocate, Bradford v Robinson Rentals.
I said factual causation was present for both.
I said the damage to Debbie's greenhouse and her injuries were foreseeable as a result of a wheel coming off the car and Martin's car repairs were forseeable so not too remote. I said despite the method of damage being unusual it is still forseeable.
5)Outline the three-track case management system used in the civil courts and identify which track and which court would be used in any claim that Debbie could make against Raza
Outline of tracks (small claims, fast and multi) + financial limits – Civil Procedure Act 1997
Identification with respect to Debbie's claim, fast track for entire loss, (as over £1000 personal injury, but not likely to be complex), so in County Court.
6) Outline how a court calculates an award of damages and briefly explain how the court would calculate an award of damages to Debbie and Martin.
Outline explanation of the calculation of damages: general and special damages; pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damage (damage to property + expenses incurred, loss of future earnings, loss of amenity, pain and suffering, ‘tariff’ award based on the injury itself) mitigation structure of awards (lump sum or structured settlement).
I said Debbie would receive general damages for any medical expenses which is pecuniary losses and for pain,suffering and loss of amenity as a result of her cut which is non-pecuniary. I said both Debbie and Martin would receive special damages for the damage to their property (greenhouse and car). I said they would both receive the damages in a lump sum as it is a small amount under the damages act 1996. They are both expected to mitigate their losses.
If anyone has any edits or there are any errors please let me know and I will change it.
Sorry people who do contract!! Maybe someone can PM a mark scheme for this.
Thanks for all the rep!!!
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Nice markscheme! I've added to to the big list of all unofficial markschemes Let me know if you make or see any more and I can add them in as well.
Let me know if you make or see any more and I can add them in as well.Original post by Chichaldo
Was Martin
Thanks changed it!
Original post by Fox Corner
Nice markscheme! I've added to to the big list of all unofficial markschemes Let me know if you make or see any more and I can add them in as well.
Let me know if you make or see any more and I can add them in as well.Thanks!!
Sufficient proximity - Osman v Ferguson
Original post by new1234
Thanks changed it!
Np.
John saw his ex, Pia with Gordon. John had criminal convictions and Pia had told Gordon that he was dangerous. John approached them and started shouting. Gordon was frightened.
John pushed Gordon roughly, bumped into Pia, fell from curb into road and sprained leg.
----
Raza fitted some wheels on Martin's car, hw drove, they fell, broke Debbie's greenhouse and cut her also. Repairs for car were 600 squid. Repairs for green house were under £10,000, personal injury to Debbie was over £1,000
Not precise numbers but correct ranges & the rough gist of the scenarios.
Original post by Chichaldo
Np.
John saw his ex, Pia with Gordon. John had criminal convictions and Pia had told Gordon that he was dangerous. John approached them and started shouting. Gordon was frightened.
John pushed Gordon roughly, bumped into Pia, fell from curb into road and sprained leg.
----
Raza fitted some wheels on Martin's car, hw drove, they fell, broke Debbie's greenhouse and cut her also. Repairs for car were 600 squid. Repairs for green house were under £10,000, personal injury to Debbie was over £1,000
Not precise numbers but correct ranges & the rough gist of the scenarios.
John saw his ex, Pia with Gordon. John had criminal convictions and Pia had told Gordon that he was dangerous. John approached them and started shouting. Gordon was frightened.
John pushed Gordon roughly, bumped into Pia, fell from curb into road and sprained leg.
----
Raza fitted some wheels on Martin's car, hw drove, they fell, broke Debbie's greenhouse and cut her also. Repairs for car were 600 squid. Repairs for green house were under £10,000, personal injury to Debbie was over £1,000
Not precise numbers but correct ranges & the rough gist of the scenarios.
Wasn't the damage to the greenhouse £400 and £600 for the car? I think
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rdlewiss
Yes that's right, then £2,000 for the personal injury.
Original post by CHarrisMedia
Yes that's right, then £2,000 for the personal injury.
Did you guys say small tracks for the damage to greenhouse & car but fast track for personal injury at that they're both at the county court?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rdlewiss
Did you guys say small tracks for the damage to greenhouse & car but fast track for personal injury at that they're both at the county court?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It was just for Debbie so the car didnt matter. Yes fast track for Debbie as over £1000 in PI
Original post by new1234
It was just for Debbie so the car didnt matter. Yes fast track for Debbie as over £1000 in PI
oh shoot I included Martin as well, will I loose marks?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rdlewiss
No as long as you did Debbie separately(fast track, county) and outlined all the tracks you should be fine. Wont lose you marks the examiner report will just say some students applied this to Martin also which was not necessary....
To be honest I thought they asked Martin too as in the last question they did but I reread it and realised.
So happy! If the mark scheme is right I've scored highly on most questions also i applied res ipsa in the right way which was what I feared the most since, I had never seen an application question before.
Hope everyone did well and we all get the grades we deserve for hard work!
Hope everyone did well and we all get the grades we deserve for hard work!
Okay, I guess I didn't do so bad but I did not mention transferred malice on the ABH question. Damn it! I knew it.
Original post by PaulinhoJC
So happy! If the mark scheme is right I've scored highly on most questions also i applied res ipsa in the right way which was what I feared the most since, I had never seen an application question before.
Hope everyone did well and we all get the grades we deserve for hard work!
Hope everyone did well and we all get the grades we deserve for hard work!
I applied res ipsa loquitur like the way above so dont know if it is 100% correct but I think you can say either way as long as you justify it.
Original post by sararodrigues
Okay, I guess I didn't do so bad but I did not mention transferred malice on the ABH question. Damn it! I knew it.
You could still get 10 marks if you did everything else right!!
Original post by new1234
Grade boundaries likely to be high based on everyone's response. Wish everyone good luck and hope they did well!!!!
Tbh most they will go up by is 2 on each unit so 4 in total, hopefully this isn't the case!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Psychology Paper 2 (2023) Unofficial MarkScheme
- Aqa biology a level paper 3 2023
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- Gcse biology aqa exam paper 1 2023
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 Unofficial Markscheme
- Btec grade calculator for uni
- A level biology AQA paper 2 2023
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) Unofficial Markscheme
- How to get help with all your 2023 exams on The Student Room
- Edexcel english literature conflict poetry anthology comparisons
- AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 (Higher Tier) 2022
- Edexcel biology A paper 2
- chemistry aqa a-level question help
- A Level Law Study Group 2020-21
- Aqa Alevel chemistry paper 1 2023 unofficial markscheme
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- AQA CS Skeleton Code help!
- AQA A-Level Biology Paper 1 [7th June 2023] Exam Chat
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Biology 4.1 Immunity (T cells and B cells)Last reply 6 minutes ago
want to break up with my boyfriend but i'm too ****ed up to be with anyone elseLast reply 7 minutes ago
Should I insure Warwick or Bristol for EconomicsLast reply 12 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 14 minutes ago
I don’t know what i want to do and subject choices are coming to a closeLast reply 14 minutes ago
Would I have Student finance help if I do a Foundation Year?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
AQA A-level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
AQA A-level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
