The Student Room Group

OCR A-Level Law 2024

Hi there, anyone studying A-Level Law (OCR spec) have any predictions for the papers?

How’s everyone’s revision going?
Sorry you've not had any responses about this. :frown: Are you sure you've posted in the right place? :smile: Here's a link to our subject forum which should help get you more responses if you post there. :redface:
Reply 2
Original post by avdlnx
Hi there, anyone studying A-Level Law (OCR spec) have any predictions for the papers?
How’s everyone’s revision going?

Do you take contract law? If so, do you have any model answers for evaluations for contract? 🙂 Thank you
Original post by avdlnx
Hi there, anyone studying A-Level Law (OCR spec) have any predictions for the papers?
How’s everyone’s revision going?

I believe that it will be non fatals eval on paper 1
Reply 4
Original post by Stealthswarm3
I believe that it will be non fatals eval on paper 1

interesting , my teacher thinks intoxication
Reply 5
Original post by andre_7b
Do you take contract law? If so, do you have any model answers for evaluations for contract? 🙂 Thank you


Hi I have some model answers if you would like
Reply 6
Original post by kenzoo
Hi I have some model answers if you would like

could you send them to me please
Reply 7
Original post by kenzoo
Hi I have some model answers if you would like

Yes please!
Original post by Stealthswarm3
I believe that it will be non fatals eval on paper 1
I hope that will come up, it’s the only one I know by heart
Original post by Stealthswarm3
I believe that it will be non fatals eval on paper 1

i think specifically assault and battery since it came up with the AS paper
Does anyone have a good evaluation on self-defence or even just some points? Really struggling with this one evaluation. Thanks!
Original post by andre_7b
Does anyone have a good evaluation on self-defence or even just some points? Really struggling with this one evaluation. Thanks!

A first point is that the ‘all or nothing’ approach to murder is unfair. A defendant may only be acquitted of murder based on self-defence if the force he used was proportionate to the threat. So, in a case where some force was justified, but the defendant ‘went over the top’, he will be convicted of murder and thus be given a mandatory life sentence - and not of a lesser crime such as manslaughter. For example, in Martin, where a farmer shot dead a burglar, whilst some force was justified in such a terrifying situation, Martin’s response was judged to be disproportionate and he was convicted of murder, provoking outcry in the media. However, the level of fault will be reflected in the tariff.
A second point is that the ‘pre-emptive strike’ rule is too wide. Whilst the law on self-defence clearly states that a person can act first to prevent an imminent attack a sensible rule as someone should not have to wait to be stabbed for example before they attack - it has been interpreted too widely, producing unfair decisions. In Beckford a policeman who shot dead an unarmed man who he thought was a threat, was acquitted of murder due to self-defence, which seems very unfair on the victim and morally wrong. The law is surely not there to protect reckless policemen. There may be argument that the defence is “two-tier”, and the general public are treated differently to those with a public duty. Linked to this, it may also be difficult for the jury to decide whether force was necessary producing inconsistent decisions.
A third point is that the ‘genuine mistake’ rule is too wide. A defence can be successful where a defendant honestly but mistakenly believes that force is necessary, as in Williams. However, this has been interpreted too widely, producing unfair decisions. The abovementioned case of Beckford is one example. Another example is in the case of Harry Stanley, where the victim was shot when the police believed him to be an armed, dangerous, Irish terrorist, when in fact he was Scottish and simply left a pub carrying a table leg in a plastic bag which had earlier been repaired by his brother. No-one has ever been prosecuted in this case.
A fourth point is that the law now is too generous to homeowners. In burglary cases, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 states that the degree of force will be reasonable unless it is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the threat, which means that excessive force may be used, which is unfair to burglars and in breach of their human rights. This has produced controversial decisions, such as in Collins where the defendant was not prosecuted having put an intruder in a headlock until he turned purple causing him brain damage. This shows that the law supports the view that a homeowner has the moral right to defend themselves on their property using force.
Another issue posed by this defence is the inconsistency that could be produced under the “burglary” cases exception. A shop owner who is confronted by an intruder in the shop area may use disproportionate force to defend himself and potentially his family who may be living upstairs, but this does not apply to a customer in the shop who uses force against the intruder. It may be argued that it is unjust to allow anyone to use disproportionate force, but this could be counter-argued by suggesting people should be able to go to any lengths to protect themselves and family.
One final problem is that often the defendants’ characteristics are not taken into account, when deciding whether it was necessary to use force, or whether the force used was reasonable. This is a problem in cases such as Martin and Cairns, where both defendants suffered from medical conditions, which meant they perceived the world around them differently to others. It seems unfair to sentence people who are mentally ill to life sentences because of a comparison to the average person. However, the defence of diminished responsibly somewhat rectifies this problem.
Original post by Bonnieiisj
A first point is that the ‘all or nothing’ approach to murder is unfair. A defendant may only be acquitted of murder based on self-defence if the force he used was proportionate to the threat. So, in a case where some force was justified, but the defendant ‘went over the top’, he will be convicted of murder and thus be given a mandatory life sentence - and not of a lesser crime such as manslaughter. For example, in Martin, where a farmer shot dead a burglar, whilst some force was justified in such a terrifying situation, Martin’s response was judged to be disproportionate and he was convicted of murder, provoking outcry in the media. However, the level of fault will be reflected in the tariff.
A second point is that the ‘pre-emptive strike’ rule is too wide. Whilst the law on self-defence clearly states that a person can act first to prevent an imminent attack a sensible rule as someone should not have to wait to be stabbed for example before they attack - it has been interpreted too widely, producing unfair decisions. In Beckford a policeman who shot dead an unarmed man who he thought was a threat, was acquitted of murder due to self-defence, which seems very unfair on the victim and morally wrong. The law is surely not there to protect reckless policemen. There may be argument that the defence is “two-tier”, and the general public are treated differently to those with a public duty. Linked to this, it may also be difficult for the jury to decide whether force was necessary producing inconsistent decisions.
A third point is that the ‘genuine mistake’ rule is too wide. A defence can be successful where a defendant honestly but mistakenly believes that force is necessary, as in Williams. However, this has been interpreted too widely, producing unfair decisions. The abovementioned case of Beckford is one example. Another example is in the case of Harry Stanley, where the victim was shot when the police believed him to be an armed, dangerous, Irish terrorist, when in fact he was Scottish and simply left a pub carrying a table leg in a plastic bag which had earlier been repaired by his brother. No-one has ever been prosecuted in this case.
A fourth point is that the law now is too generous to homeowners. In burglary cases, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 states that the degree of force will be reasonable unless it is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the threat, which means that excessive force may be used, which is unfair to burglars and in breach of their human rights. This has produced controversial decisions, such as in Collins where the defendant was not prosecuted having put an intruder in a headlock until he turned purple causing him brain damage. This shows that the law supports the view that a homeowner has the moral right to defend themselves on their property using force.
Another issue posed by this defence is the inconsistency that could be produced under the “burglary” cases exception. A shop owner who is confronted by an intruder in the shop area may use disproportionate force to defend himself and potentially his family who may be living upstairs, but this does not apply to a customer in the shop who uses force against the intruder. It may be argued that it is unjust to allow anyone to use disproportionate force, but this could be counter-argued by suggesting people should be able to go to any lengths to protect themselves and family.
One final problem is that often the defendants’ characteristics are not taken into account, when deciding whether it was necessary to use force, or whether the force used was reasonable. This is a problem in cases such as Martin and Cairns, where both defendants suffered from medical conditions, which meant they perceived the world around them differently to others. It seems unfair to sentence people who are mentally ill to life sentences because of a comparison to the average person. However, the defence of diminished responsibly somewhat rectifies this problem.

Ahh, thank you! You're an angel!!
Original post by avdlnx
Hi there, anyone studying A-Level Law (OCR spec) have any predictions for the papers?
How’s everyone’s revision going?
Hello!! My exam is on Thursday- eek!! Guys last year the questions were
SA:
Role of employment tribunal
Different ways of obtaining funded civil advice
Disadvantages of mediation to solve civil dispute
Advantages of judicial independence

SB (both parts):
Theft
Duress by threats
Unlawful act/ constructive manslaughter
Non fatal offences

Essay question: discuss extent to which consent is not fit for purpose

So I predict it wont be these questions, but elements of these offences may come up in scenarios, like consent and theft etc

Good luck!!
Reply 14
Original post by j3nn1ferH
Hello!! My exam is on Thursday- eek!! Guys last year the questions were
SA:
Role of employment tribunal
Different ways of obtaining funded civil advice
Disadvantages of mediation to solve civil dispute
Advantages of judicial independence
SB (both parts):
Theft
Duress by threats
Unlawful act/ constructive manslaughter
Non fatal offences
Essay question: discuss extent to which consent is not fit for purpose
So I predict it wont be these questions, but elements of these offences may come up in scenarios, like consent and theft etc
Good luck!!

mine too! good luck
Original post by avdlnx
Hi there, anyone studying A-Level Law (OCR spec) have any predictions for the papers?
How’s everyone’s revision going?
I think we’re gonna get fatal offenses cause last years paper was centered around non fatals and intoxication. Also, for the evaluation but, my best bets on intoxication because last year got self defense and the previous year got consent I believe

Quick Reply

Latest