Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinahiwo)
    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
    No unfortunately not. The offences for battery and assault are under a completely different act so you would not get the mark. However this is only one mark and the examiner will understand that you just got the statue confused. Dont worry about it!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    No unfortunately not. The offences for battery and assault are under a completely different act so you would not get the mark. However this is only one mark and the examiner will understand that you just got the statue confused. Dont worry about it!!
    Oh so the whole naming the appropriate act is one marker? I defined assault and battery
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinahiwo)
    Oh so the whole naming the appropriate act is one marker? I defined assault and battery
    To be honest a single part does not constitute as one mark. The whole thing must reach all the potential content for sound and then you would get the marks. It is difficult to tell whether you would not get a mark or would but naming the wrong act would indicate a lack of sound understanding. However if this is the only thing you got wrong the examiner may write it off and give you the full marks anyway. Who knows ? Wouldnt worry if I were you, the max you would lose for this is a mark anyways.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone tell me whether they concluded either of the damage too remote in the Tort section??????
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    about the question regarding the types of sentencing available I've written about aims of sentencing but have mentioned about fines, custodial sentences, community orders and rehabilitation orders. what possible marks may i have scrapped if any ?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    Can someone tell me whether they concluded either of the damage too remote in the Tort section??????
    I included causation in fact and damages being too remote!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rebeccael28)
    I included causation in fact and damages being too remote!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh no way. Howcomes you found it remote? Did you find it not foreseeable?? Ahh kinda worried now as I said they were both not too remote as they were both foreseeable despite the method of damage being unusual.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    To be honest a single part does not constitute as one mark. The whole thing must reach all the potential content for sound and then you would get the marks. It is difficult to tell whether you would not get a mark or would but naming the wrong act would indicate a lack of sound understanding. However if this is the only thing you got wrong the examiner may write it off and give you the full marks anyway. Who knows ? Wouldnt worry if I were you, the max you would lose for this is a mark anyways.
    No, that's not necessarily true. I've taken unit two previously and when I tell you I knew literally nothing for that exam, I was not kidding. I wrote the most basic of things, saying things such as assault is when V is afraid, not stating any Acts or the names of the offenses. I did fail the module of course but when looking at my UMS points, regarding my grades I was shocked to see that marks were awarded. Definitely more than I had expected since I freestyled the entire paper and hadn't learned the module back then. It's positive marking meaning you are awarded marks for stated points, even if it's as small as stating causation includes factual and legal causation. So mentioning the correct mens rea for example, though the actus reus is incorrect would allocate marks. It wouldn't, however, reach band 5.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by new1234)
    Oh no way. Howcomes you found it remote? Did you find it not foreseeable?? Ahh kinda worried now as I said they were both not too remote as they were both foreseeable despite the method of damage being unusual.
    You shouldn't worry. The mark schemes are very flexible and usually allow more than one answer concerning conclusions that student's make.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If it helps, even if you don't answer a 10 marker question, together with a 5 marker question so you lose 15 marks yet you smashed everything else, that's still and A grade.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As I ran out of time I didn't get to write a conclusion as to whether it was remote or not but I did include all elements, will this affect my mark?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For question 08 (second question on Section B) I referred to the case of Paris v Stepney BC as 'Smith v Stepney BC' (I guess because of pressure due to time constraints). I correctly explained to details of the case when demonstrating the legal principle though. Would the mark not be awarded because of this minor confusion/error in the name of the case?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Help I didn't write about the thin skull rule in causation but I wrote everything else with case presidence and even mentioned a natural but unpredictable event, also I'm not sure if I wrote legal causation was the operating and substantial cause will I lose marks? It's clear that I know it as I wrote legal causation 💔 Will I not get full marks? Also for Pia I didn't really put any Case presidence ugh I just realised now using Savage you couldn't say he was reckless but I analysed the case study and said it was a battery that caused ABH !!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the 'outline the rules relating to causation and remoteness of damage and discuss whether it applies to Debbie and Martin's losses' I outlined causation, Wagon Mound, Bradford v Robinson Rentals, and Thin Skull Rule; but I only applied causation & WM. Is this likely to lose any marks? I said that it wouldn't have happened 'but for' .... and that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone's negligent work fitting wheels .... and then concluded that both damage not too remote, but didn't talk about method of damage because nothing in the scenario mentioned anything unusual. lol I really want full UMS and don't know if I have a chance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    No, that's not necessarily true. I've taken unit two previously and when I tell you I knew literally nothing for that exam, I was not kidding. I wrote the most basic of things, saying things such as assault is when V is afraid, not stating any Acts or the names of the offenses. I did fail the module of course but when looking at my UMS points, regarding my grades I was shocked to see that marks were awarded. Definitely more than I had expected since I freestyled the entire paper and hadn't learned the module back then. It's positive marking meaning you are awarded marks for stated points, even if it's as small as stating causation includes factual and legal causation. So mentioning the correct mens rea for example, though the actus reus is incorrect would allocate marks. It wouldn't, however, reach band 5.
    Yeah meaning it would not reach sound. So if someone states the wrong act they are not picking up a mark as others who have stated the correct act may. So they are technically not gaining a mark/reaching sound understanding.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rdlewiss)
    As I ran out of time I didn't get to write a conclusion as to whether it was remote or not but I did include all elements, will this affect my mark?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Noo dont think it will be detrimental to your mark. You probably wont pick up max one mark but even that is unlikely. As long as your conclusion could be interpreted from your answer I'm sure it will be fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    If it helps, even if you don't answer a 10 marker question, together with a 5 marker question so you lose 15 marks yet you smashed everything else, that's still and A grade.
    I messed up Unit 1 so i wanted a high A.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Albanian Wizard)
    For question 08 (second question on Section B) I referred to the case of Paris v Stepney BC as 'Smith v Stepney BC' (I guess because of pressure due to time constraints). I correctly explained to details of the case when demonstrating the legal principle though. Would the mark not be awarded because of this minor confusion/error in the name of the case?
    At the examiner's discretion I believe. Whether they can understand what case you meant will determine whether you gain a mark.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abbieayinde)
    Help I didn't write about the thin skull rule in causation but I wrote everything else with case presidence and even mentioned a natural but unpredictable event, also I'm not sure if I wrote legal causation was the operating and substantial cause will I lose marks? It's clear that I know it as I wrote legal causation 💔 Will I not get full marks? Also for Pia I didn't really put any Case presidence ugh I just realised now using Savage you couldn't say he was reckless but I analysed the case study and said it was a battery that caused ABH !!
    I did not write about the thin skull rule either. I wrote about medical negligence and the victims own act. You do not need to write about everything to gain full marks dont worry!!
    I said it was a battery that caused ABH too and I used Savage so not to worry. Savage does apply for this scenario you used the right case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Joe24_)
    For the 'outline the rules relating to causation and remoteness of damage and discuss whether it applies to Debbie and Martin's losses' I outlined causation, Wagon Mound, Bradford v Robinson Rentals, and Thin Skull Rule; but I only applied causation & WM. Is this likely to lose any marks? I said that it wouldn't have happened 'but for' .... and that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone's negligent work fitting wheels .... and then concluded that both damage not too remote, but didn't talk about method of damage because nothing in the scenario mentioned anything unusual. lol I really want full UMS and don't know if I have a chance.
    It was 8 marks wasnt it? You included factual causation, you included foreseeability and the effect this has on remoteness and you used relevant cases. You should be fine and it sounds like a sound answer to me. Remember you don't know where they might cap the ums so you could lose one raw mark but still come out with full ums. To be honest I only included the method of damage being unusual coz my answer looked to short and a wheel coming off a car and hitting a greenhouse is a little weirder than normal. I doubt this actually picked up marks for me and I was just trying to make my answer a little longer! Dont worry. You should be fine!!
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

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.