AQA A-Level Law Unit Scenario Question Structure Help Needed

Watch
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Does anyone know what the best way to structure a question (25 marker) based on Assault for Unit 3? I have seen a few "model" answers but i highly doubt that they are of an A* standard... I am confused as to how to define, explain and apply the law. For example do i Identify the Law (state the act ) then define it (just give it's definition from the act) then explain it (step by step break down the definition with relevant cases) and THEN apply it to the scenario? Or do i apply the law to the scenario during my explanation of the law? Sorry if my question is long and nonsensical but i am basically asking for a "Perfect" 25 marker scenario question structure for Unit 3... Any help would be greatly appreciated... Thanks a lot
0
reply
Milk Tea
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by andrew9204)
Does anyone know what the best way to structure a question (25 marker) based on Assault for Unit 3? I have seen a few "model" answers but i highly doubt that they are of an A* standard... I am confused as to how to define, explain and apply the law. For example do i Identify the Law (state the act ) then define it (just give it's definition from the act) then explain it (step by step break down the definition with relevant cases) and THEN apply it to the scenario? Or do i apply the law to the scenario during my explanation of the law? Sorry if my question is long and nonsensical but i am basically asking for a "Perfect" 25 marker scenario question structure for Unit 3... Any help would be greatly appreciated... Thanks a lot
This is what my sixth form teaches

Paragraph 1:

The crime and what act it's under
The actus reus
Relevant cases - a lot of people waste time writing out every single case they know for the AR even though it's not relevant to the scenario e.g if the threat hasn't been written in words don't bother explaining R v Constanza
Apply

Paragraph 2:

Any causation issues if relevant

Paragraph 3:

The mens rea of the came
Relevant cases
Apply
0
reply
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by cafebee)
This is what my sixth form teaches

Paragraph 1:

The crime and what act it's under
The actus reus
Relevant cases - a lot of people waste time writing out every single case they know for the AR even though it's not relevant to the scenario e.g if the threat hasn't been written in words don't bother explaining R v Constanza
Apply

Paragraph 2:

Any causation issues if relevant

Paragraph 3:

The mens rea of the came
Relevant cases
Apply
Great this was just what i was looking for... Thank you so much. Do you have any examples on how you define/explain the laws. For example Assault, how would you state the actus reus? How much do you write etc...? Thanks again. Image
0
reply
Milk Tea
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by andrew9204)
Great this was just what i was looking for... Thank you so much. Do you have any examples on how you define/explain the laws. For example Assault, how would you state the actus reus? How much do you write etc...? Thanks again. Image
I do! I'm out rn but I'll take a picture of the sheet my teacher gave us when I get back
0
reply
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by cafebee)
I do! I'm out rn but I'll take a picture of the sheet my teacher gave us when I get back
That would be great, thank you so much!
0
reply
new1234
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by andrew9204)
Does anyone know what the best way to structure a question (25 marker) based on Assault for Unit 3? I have seen a few "model" answers but i highly doubt that they are of an A* standard... I am confused as to how to define, explain and apply the law. For example do i Identify the Law (state the act ) then define it (just give it's definition from the act) then explain it (step by step break down the definition with relevant cases) and THEN apply it to the scenario? Or do i apply the law to the scenario during my explanation of the law? Sorry if my question is long and nonsensical but i am basically asking for a "Perfect" 25 marker scenario question structure for Unit 3... Any help would be greatly appreciated... Thanks a lot
I do
- definition
- work through the actus reus whilst applying to the scenario.
- mention any relevant cases throughout application
- work through the mens rea and apply to scenario
- mention relevant cases throughout application
- conclusion = guilty/not guilty and sentence
0
reply
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by new1234)
I do
- definition
- work through the actus reus whilst applying to the scenario.
- mention any relevant cases
- work through the mens rea and apply to scenario
- mention relevant cases
- conclusion = guilty/not guilty and sentence
How come you mention the relevant cases at the end? Doesn't that make your life harder?
0
reply
new1234
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by andrew9204)
How come you mention the relevant cases at the end? Doesn't that make your life harder?
Not really at the end, more as I work through the application I add a case on at the end of the sentence and then explain what it outlined or why it applies.
0
reply
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by new1234)
Not really at the end, more as I work through the application I add a case on at the end of the sentence and then explain what it outlined or why it applies.
ahhh i see, thanks a lot for the help
0
reply
emarsden16
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by andrew9204)
Does anyone know what the best way to structure a question (25 marker) based on Assault for Unit 3? I have seen a few "model" answers but i highly doubt that they are of an A* standard... I am confused as to how to define, explain and apply the law. For example do i Identify the Law (state the act ) then define it (just give it's definition from the act) then explain it (step by step break down the definition with relevant cases) and THEN apply it to the scenario? Or do i apply the law to the scenario during my explanation of the law? Sorry if my question is long and nonsensical but i am basically asking for a "Perfect" 25 marker scenario question structure for Unit 3... Any help would be greatly appreciated... Thanks a lot
My college teaches us the IDEA structure: Identify, define, explain, apply (explain, apply), and this is the model answer I've always used for our timed assessments in class and I've always done well


Identify: The defendant may be charged with assault.

Define: Defined in common law

Explain actus reus: The actus reus of assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
DPP v Logdon shows that apprehend means believe, or think
Smith v CCoW shows that ‘immediate’ means in the near future
Read v Coker shows that gestures can amount to assault
R v Ireland shows how spoken word and silence can amount to an assault
R v Constanza shows how written word can amount to assault
Tuberville v Savage shows how words can also negate an assault
Apply actus reus

Explain causation:
R v Pagett - the but for test (factual causation)
R v Smith - the operative and substantial test (legal causation)
Apply causation

Explain mens rea: The mens rea of assault is intention or recklessness as to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
R v Mohan - intention means to aim to achieve the prohibited consequence
R v Cunningham - recklessness means foreseeing the risk and continuing regardless
Apply mens rea
0
reply
andrew9204
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by emarsden16)
My college teaches us the IDEA structure: Identify, define, explain, apply (explain, apply), and this is the model answer I've always used for our timed assessments in class and I've always done well


Identify: The defendant may be charged with assault.

Define: Defined in common law

Explain actus reus: The actus reus of assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
DPP v Logdon shows that apprehend means believe, or think
Smith v CCoW shows that ‘immediate’ means in the near future
Read v Coker shows that gestures can amount to assault
R v Ireland shows how spoken word and silence can amount to an assault
R v Constanza shows how written word can amount to assault
Tuberville v Savage shows how words can also negate an assault
Apply actus reus

Explain causation:
R v Pagett - the but for test (factual causation)
R v Smith - the operative and substantial test (legal causation)
Apply causation

Explain mens rea: The mens rea of assault is intention or recklessness as to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
R v Mohan - intention means to aim to achieve the prohibited consequence
R v Cunningham - recklessness means foreseeing the risk and continuing regardless
Apply mens rea
thank you so much
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (141)
37.2%
Take autumn exams (120)
31.66%
Look for a job (12)
3.17%
Consider an apprenticeship (16)
4.22%
Take a year out (67)
17.68%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (23)
6.07%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed