I wrote just over 1000 words for the essay section. Apparently (I was told today), the limit is 700. What uni is going to let me in when I'm clearly incapable of following simple instructions?
Have I messed it up properly, or do you think they might overlook it?
re A used necessity to preserve life. that's quite compelling. also, re A made an important point on the right to life.
duress is essentially if you dont do whatever death is real and imminent. otherwise it isn't duress and you shouldn't have done it. such factors will, of course, be entered in mitigation.
Um although thinking about it, there are a few exceptions that come into the 'real and imminent' point. The defendant has to prove that they 'believed' it was real and imminent, and then the jury are asked what a 'reasonable' person would have done - but that person can share the characteristics of the defendant so that's quite subjective in a sense. This doesn't mean the threat was necessarily real or imminent - just in the defendants mind. And characteristics such as mental conditions, sex, pregnancy etc come into play- So I think there are loop holes and ways around it...
Um although thinking about it, there are a few exceptions that come into the 'real and imminent' point. The defendant has to prove that they 'believed' it was real and imminent, and then the jury are asked what a 'reasonable' person would have done - but that person can share the characteristics of the defendant so that's quite subjective in a sense. This doesn't mean the threat was necessarily real or imminent - just in the defendants mind. And characteristics such as mental conditions, sex, pregnancy etc come into play- So I think there are loop holes and ways around it...
Not easily - it's subjective/objective with the weight on the objective. Yes, to get to the first hurdle the defendant must have believed it but then we hit modified clapham omnibus and that's a high hurdle to hit.
Not easily - it's subjective/objective with the weight on the objective. Yes, to get to the first hurdle the defendant must have believed it but then we hit modified clapham omnibus and that's a high hurdle to hit.
yeah it's all subjectively-objective, and since Hasan it's steered well towards the objective. But before Hasan there's a lot of cases which are very subjectively based, and looked at what the defendant thought to be real. And as there isn't any statute clarifying duress, it's precedent that we have to go on.
Although I do see your point, and Hasan pretty much blows my argument out of the water. It's okay though, because I'm always right, even when I'm wrong. That's my prerogative as a woman.
That's what 50 hour a week obsessive law geekiness does to you - I haven't studied criminal law since 2003
I just hope I start working like that when I hit uni. At the moment I cram - I mean I've started revising an hour ago for the exam on Friday. Today was the first time I've opened the source booklet. So I'm normally fine for the exam, but I forget it all afterwards. I think I'm just frustrated with A-levels though, having your own opinion or actually thinking for yourself is suicide. You have to think what the exam board wants you to think. Hopefully uni will challenge me a bit more...