Go to first unread
Back
to top
AQA A2 LAW UNIT 3 (LAW03) - 12th June 2018
Watch
Announcements
How did it go? I did scenario 1 and found it alright.
1) Assault, GBH (s20 and s18), and self defence
2) Murder, Diminished Responsibility
3) Memorised essay on murder
1) Assault, GBH (s20 and s18), and self defence
2) Murder, Diminished Responsibility
3) Memorised essay on murder
2
reply
Report
#2
I did assault and ABH for question 1. I’ve just looked at the case of K v DPP which is where a defendant was convicted of ABH for causing scarring. I didn’t really consider scarring to be permanent disfigurement??
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
1
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by EllieH12345)
I did assault and ABH for question 1. I’ve just looked at the case of K v DPP which is where a defendant was convicted of ABH for causing scarring. I didn’t really consider scarring to be permanent disfigurement??
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
I did assault and ABH for question 1. I’ve just looked at the case of K v DPP which is where a defendant was convicted of ABH for causing scarring. I didn’t really consider scarring to be permanent disfigurement??
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
0
reply
Report
#4
Multiple ABH is equals to GBH though. But I reckon you'll be credited for any one of them.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by EllieH12345)
I did assault and ABH for question 1. I’ve just looked at the case of K v DPP which is where a defendant was convicted of ABH for causing scarring. I didn’t really consider scarring to be permanent disfigurement??
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
I did assault and ABH for question 1. I’ve just looked at the case of K v DPP which is where a defendant was convicted of ABH for causing scarring. I didn’t really consider scarring to be permanent disfigurement??
For question 2 I did DR and ruled out LOC by saying that SI isn’t a qualifying trigger
1
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Nabz99)
The loss of control would be established through anger trigger with sexual infidelity as a contributing factor. But probably fails on reasonable man test at end
The loss of control would be established through anger trigger with sexual infidelity as a contributing factor. But probably fails on reasonable man test at end
hope I didn’t mess it up too bad
0
reply
Report
#7
Anyone do scenario 2?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Melon4)
Anyone do scenario 2?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
Anyone do scenario 2?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
I did exactly the same for Q5, my UAM was assault? I briefly mentioned it could be ABH due to psychiatric harm (this is probably wrong anyway).
I doubt you’ll lose a lot of marks for not including consent. My teacher said defences are usually 3-5 marks depending on the length of the other offences.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by rdlewiss)
I did the same! Didn’t do thin skull rule for the first question, did Harriet have a pre existing injury?!?! But I pretty much did the same. S18&S20 GBH.
I did exactly the same for Q5, my UAM was assault? I briefly mentioned it could be ABH due to psychiatric harm (this is probably wrong anyway).
I doubt you’ll lose a lot of marks for not including consent. My teacher said defences are usually 3-5 marks depending on the length of the other offences.
I did the same! Didn’t do thin skull rule for the first question, did Harriet have a pre existing injury?!?! But I pretty much did the same. S18&S20 GBH.
I did exactly the same for Q5, my UAM was assault? I briefly mentioned it could be ABH due to psychiatric harm (this is probably wrong anyway).
I doubt you’ll lose a lot of marks for not including consent. My teacher said defences are usually 3-5 marks depending on the length of the other offences.
Also, yeah I put assault for the UAM
0
reply
Report
#10
Did scenario one but I'm thinking it wasn't so comprehensive..
1) Talked about Assault, ABH, and Self Defence
2) Addressed Murder and LOC, but said he failed on LOC and so dismissed it.. didn't talk about DR..
3) Murder and vm essay was alright, didn't write a conclusion though ahh.
1) Talked about Assault, ABH, and Self Defence
2) Addressed Murder and LOC, but said he failed on LOC and so dismissed it.. didn't talk about DR..
3) Murder and vm essay was alright, didn't write a conclusion though ahh.
2
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by rdlewiss)
I did the same! Didn’t do thin skull rule for the first question, did Harriet have a pre existing injury?!?! But I pretty much did the same. S18&S20 GBH.
I did exactly the same for Q5, my UAM was assault? I briefly mentioned it could be ABH due to psychiatric harm (this is probably wrong anyway).
I doubt you’ll lose a lot of marks for not including consent. My teacher said defences are usually 3-5 marks depending on the length of the other offences.
I did the same! Didn’t do thin skull rule for the first question, did Harriet have a pre existing injury?!?! But I pretty much did the same. S18&S20 GBH.
I did exactly the same for Q5, my UAM was assault? I briefly mentioned it could be ABH due to psychiatric harm (this is probably wrong anyway).
I doubt you’ll lose a lot of marks for not including consent. My teacher said defences are usually 3-5 marks depending on the length of the other offences.
(Original post by Melon4)
Ah ok, thanks for the consolidation. I used the think skull rule basically to say that D must take his victim as he finds them seat belt or no seat belt. The prior weakness was the lack of protection. I do not think you would loose marks for not including it as it is very obscure.
Also, yeah I put assault for the UAM
Ah ok, thanks for the consolidation. I used the think skull rule basically to say that D must take his victim as he finds them seat belt or no seat belt. The prior weakness was the lack of protection. I do not think you would loose marks for not including it as it is very obscure.
Also, yeah I put assault for the UAM
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Kira-mai)
for the seatbelt bit I put it didn't break the chain of causation as part of victims own actions? - Roberts?
for the seatbelt bit I put it didn't break the chain of causation as part of victims own actions? - Roberts?
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Melon4)
Anyone do scenario 2?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
Anyone do scenario 2?
For Q4, I put GBH (could be ABH) with intoxication (forgot consent) and Wounding with transferred malice and causation issues regarding the seat belt as well as the thin skull rule saying D must take V as he finds her.
For Q5, I put UAM and GNM with the causation issues of action of the second thief and the think skull rule for the elderly lady
Anyone put anything else and think missing out the consent is a big loss of marks?
0
reply
Report
#15
did anyone fail to include causation in the murder question in scenario 1? i did, and i'm soooo nervous that i messed it up
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by Solitude12)
did anyone fail to include causation in the murder question in scenario 1? i did, and i'm soooo nervous that i messed it up
did anyone fail to include causation in the murder question in scenario 1? i did, and i'm soooo nervous that i messed it up
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Melon4)
I did not do scenario 1, however from reading markschemes before, not including causation is not a massive problem. Providing you did the other answers well, it is you probably still got a clear for the murder. Remember a Sound, sound and a clear is still 25/25. Also the causation issues on the other scenario were more important, meaning probably there was less of a focus for your answer.
I did not do scenario 1, however from reading markschemes before, not including causation is not a massive problem. Providing you did the other answers well, it is you probably still got a clear for the murder. Remember a Sound, sound and a clear is still 25/25. Also the causation issues on the other scenario were more important, meaning probably there was less of a focus for your answer.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Solitude12)
thanks, that's helpful. i did the murder one alright i think, but I i did loss of control instead of diminished responsibility. i knew it was DR, but i couldn't remember it. i think 1st question and the critical evaluation was OK though
thanks, that's helpful. i did the murder one alright i think, but I i did loss of control instead of diminished responsibility. i knew it was DR, but i couldn't remember it. i think 1st question and the critical evaluation was OK though
0
reply
Report
#19
i did scenario 1 and i raised diminished responsibility but cancelled it out because he said about “there’ll be more of that if you do it again” after he attacked him with the brick so i said that shows he understands it bad and therefore understands the nature of his conduct??? was this wrong??? and i raised loss of control too but didn’t cancel it out and said how sexual infidelity assisted the anger trigger?? and i didn’t mention anything about transferred malice either in regards to ellie/beth/alison and apparently there was??
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Have your say on 2021 assessmentOfqual and DfE want students' thoughts
- Applying to uni? Chat to others here
- Struggling with lockdown uni work
- Win a year of Headspace
- Housemate's BF just wont leave