Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

2017 Law unit 2 aqa unofficial markscheme Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    4) Outline ABH and apply it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chichaldo)
    What did you say instead? It might be viable if explained and applied
    Pretty much all you had to do besides the transferred malice. For some reason, I thought it didn't apply but then I kinda doubt it? But oh well, not to sound cocky but I think I did reasonably well that not answering this question properly will not affect me too much. But I know it still is


    How did it go for you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deavk006)
    4) Outline ABH and apply it.
    Was this assault occasioning actual bodily harm??


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    no battery occasioning ABH
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i think indirect battery would get you marks as indirect battery does apply to the situation and is similar to the case of Haystead where D pushed a person who was holding a child resulting in the child to get hurt. Therefore it could be indirect in which case you may not need transferred malice?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For one question I used to wrong case as I was confused and panicked on the assault and better question & for another question I spelt the case name wrong, does this matter and will it affect the marks?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deavk006)
    I got confused with Q4 and put rules of causation only?

    But i talked about assault and battery occasioning ABH on Q3?

    Please help, will i lose all the marks still?
    You will not lose all the marks and will get causation marks as it is part of the actus reus. However you are limited in the number of marks you will achieve and it is unlikely to achieve a lot. Sorry!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rdlewiss)
    For one question I used to wrong case as I was confused and panicked on the assault and better question & for another question I spelt the case name wrong, does this matter and will it affect the marks?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Using irrelevant cases will mean your answer does not show sound understand possibly and has been criticized by examiners in the examiner reports. As long as you described the case correctly and it was not mispelt to the exent that it does not even look like the actual name of the case. I spelt Pembliton as Pemblton but they resemble each other so I doubt the examiner would be that harsh. Might lose SPAG marks??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    Using irrelevant cases will mean your answer does not show sound understand possibly and has been criticized by examiners in the examiner reports. As long as you described the case correctly and it was not mispelt to the exent that it does not even look like the actual name of the case. I spelt Pembliton as Pemblton but they resemble each other so I doubt the examiner would be that harsh. Might lose SPAG marks??
    Funnily enough Pembliton is the one I misspelt. When I was writing my notes I wrote it as Dembilton so I wrote that in my paper lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rdlewiss)
    Funnily enough Pembilton is the one I misspelt. When I was writing my notes I wrote it as Dembilton so I wrote that in my paper lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Haha what a coincidence. Hmmmm I think if you explained it right the examiner will know what you were on about and you wont lose marks. You may not gain marks for the QWC if it was on this question and if you have a harsh examiner they may not credit that case. Not detrimental to your mark though dont worry! How do you feel you did?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    Haha what a coincidence. Hmmmm I think if you explained it right the examiner will know what you were on about and you wont lose marks. You may not gain marks for the QWC if it was on this question and if you have a harsh examiner they may not credit that case. Not detrimental to your mark though dont worry! How do you feel you did?
    Absolutely horrible! I've been getting A's & B'a throughout the year but this exam just threw me off I'm not sure why. My answers were so rushed and all over the place. My cases were all over the place too and I'm sure I used the wrong cases half of the time. I'm ready for a big fat D or C on my results paper lol. How did you find it?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Great mark scheme, but did anybody else find the paper pure hell? I just thought the scenarios were way too short and didn't provide enough detail, especially for the damages question. Might've just seemed hard due to the questions being different to what we've seen before, not sure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undefined..)
    Great mark scheme, but did anybody else find the paper pure hell? I just thought the scenarios were way too short and didn't provide enough detail, especially for the damages question. Might've just seemed hard due to the questions being different to what we've seen before, not sure.
    Yep I'm with you on this one. Would've preferred to sit last year's paper and that's saying something!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rdlewiss)
    Yep I'm with you on this one. Would've preferred to sit last year's paper and that's saying something!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Haha, exactly! Last papers was way better I think, just the scenarios give us something to go off. When I first opened the booklet and saw the question on question I was buzzing, but after that it just started getting a bit odd - Indirect Intent and Transferred Malice?! Such an odd one to ask
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undefined..)
    Haha, exactly! Last papers was way better I think, just the scenarios give us something to go off. When I first opened the booklet and saw the question on question I was buzzing, but after that it just started getting a bit odd - Indirect Intent and Transferred Malice?! Such an odd one to ask
    Tort was probably the weirder section, couldn't believe the two part test rather than 3 part test as I'm not sure how much you can really write to get the full 7 marks & the whole factual and legal causation in tort question where there were 2 supposed defendants?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rdlewiss)
    Tort was probably the weirder section, couldn't believe the two part test rather than 3 part test as I'm not sure how much you can really write to get the full 7 marks & the whole factual and legal causation in tort question where there were 2 supposed defendants?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Tbh I didnt find it too bad but yeah it was very different to normal.I did rubbish in unit 1 so im glad this paper made up for that! Sorry yours went bad. Maybe it wont be that bad and you are underestimating your answers!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    That's what I thought as it seemed to be a trick question. Personal injuries and monetary injuries seemed to be charged differently. With monetary (Pecuniary) repairs for her greenhouse were under £400 which is less than £10,000 therefore it couldn't be in fast track. I thought her pecuniary claims would be small claims then concerning personal injuries (pain and suffering) it would be fast track since the maximum required for personal injuries in small track is £1,000 and she had non-pecuniary injuries worth £2000.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    (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:
    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.
    I put s47 oap 1861 is that correct for the criminal questions
    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)
    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!!!
    . Hey for the question regarding IPA and gorgon I put that John was guilty under the s47 offence against the person act is that okay: Ell it still count as a mark. Real worried
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinahiwo)
    . Hey for the question regarding IPA and gorgon I put that John was guilty under the s47 offence against the person act is that okay: Ell it still count as a mark. Real worried
    IPA?? Sorry dont know what that means? What did you miss off? the year?? Probably will as there is only one offences against the person act.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    IPA?? Sorry dont know what that means? What did you miss off? the year?? Probably will as there is only one offences against the person act.
    No I put Section 47 Offences Against ThePerson Act 1861 when defining assault and battery and Johns actus reuse and mens rea. Is that okay?x
 
 
 
Poll
Still A Remainer Or A Brexiteer?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.