Starter:What’s the case?How many of these can you name… give key facts… and assign to one of the areas?Tories are out toget me (aren’tthey?)Zzzz… Wack!Kicking off over acup of tea?Who’s mental: meor the patient?Mince pies canmake you (almost)forget anythingTumours don’tmake for gooddads. (Splash!)The break up wasHardie on me!What a sneeze!I don’t thinkstockings suitanyone’s neckThat defence willsuit me to a T.Aura brown… badperson.Things not to saywhen you’rearrested?I’m not insulinatedagainst sugar…That’s a lowe thingto do to your dadA bottle of wine and avideo… that’s not theending I had in mind!You’ve got to behard-hearted to dothat to your wife!Even when snakesaren’t on a plane it canstill be deadly!Sexsomnia
So what’s this paper all about?This paper is focused on pullingyour knowledge of AS and A2together to evaluate, apply andexplore one area of the law.You will have the synoptic bookletin the exam.The majority of the marks areAO2You must use the source booklet insupport of each of your argumentsor application.
It will be on the importance or significance ofone of these eight cases...R v Quick 1973 QB 910R v Sullivan 1984 AC 156R v Hennessy 1989 1 WLR 287M’Naughten 1843 All ER 229R v Burgess 1991 2 QB 92Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 286 HLR v Kemp 1957 1 QB 399R v T 1990 Crim LR 25615minutesExaminer’s Tip:Identify the critical point of the case and link it totwo other points… how has the law developedsince? How did the case change the law?Relating it at least one other significant case.Question One12 marks AO2 + 4 marksAO1What do you have todo?Identify what the critical pointof law from the case is (using thesource)How far it confirms the priorlawHow far it changes the law(with reference to at least oneother case).
Sample Question & Answer:1. Explain the significance of R v Sullivan to the development of the law on insanity In Sullivan, the House of Lords confirmed that indefining what was meant by a disease of the mindunder M’Naughten, the court should take into accountthe chance that D’s condition would recur in violenceas this is what underpins the operation of insanity as adefence (Source 2, lines 13-16).The HL followed their earlier decision in Bratty, whereLord Denning had held that even transient conditionscould amount to a disease of the mind, as long as themental disorder manifested itself in violence. ForSullivan, that meant that despite his medicalcondition being temporary – the result of a epilepticfit – this was of no relevance to deciding whether Dhad the defence of insanity open to him..Sullivan, therefore, is significant as it provided a cleartest for the courts to differentiate between thedefences of insanity and automatism, based verymuch on public policy rather than medical treatment.This means that those who are medically ill may stillbe classed as insane, which is confirmed by thefigures with two or three each year arguing insanityon the basis of epilepsy.In addition, the decision has meant that, like Sullivanhimself, some defendants will plead guilty to theoffence rather than have themselves labelled asinsane, and so be subject to the judges’ discretion insentencing. (Source 4, lines 8-9)Sullivan has been criticised by the Law Commissionand the Courts in Australia, who argue that it shouldbe used more as guidance than as a strict rule ofinterpretation. The 2012 scoping paper argues that thereoccurrence in danger theory is a policydistinction, rather than reflecting medical knowledgeor principles.
Evaluate the importance of Quick to the development of the law on insanity Section: Proposed ContentImportance ofthe case:Relationship toprior casesRelationship tofollowingcases:Conclusion on‘importance’
Examiner’s Tip:Focus on balance andreason in your answer,and make sure toidentify the point of thequestion in yourintroductionYou also need to beaccurate and precise inyour use of the sourcematerial.Time:35 minutes(technically)around 50Question Two34 marks (16 AO2 + 14 AO1 + 4 AO3)It will be a question on insanity or automatism, and willuse a quotation from one of the sources as a start. Youshould start your response by putting this quote intocontext: what is the source arguing? Why are they arguingit?You will need to look at what the law under the /Bratty is,and the difficulties that the judges have had in clarifyingand interpreting this law.Really you are looking at whether the development of thelaw has been reasoned and consistent, or subject tochange.The quote will identify a theme to focus on, and youshould be referring back to this throughout.You will need to use a range of quotes from the source,and add your own knowledge to the 8 cases in the source(in other words look to use about 15+ cases)
Example Question:AO1 Guidance:Level 5Responses are unlikely to achieve level 5 without wide ranging, accurate detailed knowledge with a clearand confident understanding of relevant concepts and principles of the law in this area. This wouldinclude wide ranging, developed explanations and wide ranging, developed definitions of this area oflaw to includestatutory/common law provisions, where relevant.Responses are unlikely to achieve level 5 without including 8 relevant cases of which 6 are developed*.Responses are likely to use material both from within the pre-release materials (LTS) and from beyondthe pre-release materials which have a specific link to the area of law.”Level 4Responses are unlikely to achieve level 4 without good, well-developed knowledge with a clearunderstanding of the relevant concepts and principles of the law in this area. This would include goodexplanations and good definitions of this area of law to include statutory/common law provisions, whererelevant. Responses are unlikely to achieve level 4 without including 6 relevant cases, 4 of which will bedeveloped*.AO2 Guidance:Level 5Responses are unlikely to achievelevel 5 without sophisticatedanalytical evaluation of therelevant areas of law, being veryfocused on the quote andproviding a logical conclusion*with some synoptic content.Level 4Responses are unlikely to achievelevel 4 without good analyticalevaluation of the relevant areas oflaw and good focus on the quote.
Examiner’s Tip:You should be able toidentify at least threepoints of application plus acase for each high formarksThere will be at least onecritical point (this the bitof law which jumps out atyou when you read thequestion!) but you willneed to also identify atleast two other points.Time:25 minutesQuestion Three30 marks (10 AO1 + 20 AO2)This will consist of three short problem questionsto which you need to identify the relevant aspectsof law, and then apply it to the situation coming toa sensible conclusion.Remember that most of the relevant definitionswill be the sources ...I suggest that you tackle these first....
Example problem:Remember: there’d be three in the real thing!Your answer:
Precedent means...Ratio decidendi....Obiter dicta...Material facts...Can you identify any cases in thisarea which you could use toillustrate any of these rules?The synoptic paper aims to bring together your AS and A2 learning.
Starter:Recalling your knowledgeAll of you should be able to name most of the casesMost of you should be able to assign them to either the mens rea or actus reusof attemptsSome of you should be able to work out the facts of Jones using the picture...
What should an essay look like?Task: Read the enclosed example and mark it...Use your mock essay as a guide to gauge how to respond andthe levels.
Level AO1 Marks AO2 Marks5 Wide-ranging, accurate, detailed knowledge witha clear and confident understanding of therelevant concepts and principles.Candidates will be able to elaborate with widecitation of relevant statutes and case law21-25Ability to identify correctly the relevant and importantpoints of criticism, showing good understanding of currentdebate and proposals for reform, or to identify all of therelevant points of law in issue.A high level of ability to develop arguments and reach acogent, logical and well-informed conclusion.17-204 Good, well-developed knowledge with a clearunderstanding of the relevant concepts andprinciples.Candidates will be able to elaborate by goodcitation to relevant statutes and case-law.16-20 Ability to identify and analyse issues central to the question,showing some understanding of current debate andproposals for reform, or to identify most of the relevantpoints of law in issue.Ability to develop clear arguments and reach a sensible andinformed conclusion.13-163 Adequate knowledge showing reasonableunderstanding of the relevant concepts andprinciples.Candidates will be able to elaborate with somecitation of relevant statutes and case-law.11-15 Ability to analyse most of the more obvious points centralto the question or to identify the main points of law in issue.Ability to develop arguments and reach a conclusion.9-122 Limited knowledge showing generalunderstanding of the relevant concepts andprinciples.There will be some elaboration of the principles,and where appropriate with limited reference torelevant statutes and case-law.6-10 Ability to explain some of the more obvious points centralto the question or to identify some of the points of law inissue.A limited ability to produce arguments based on theirmaterial but without a clear focus or conclusion.5-81 Very limited knowledge of the basic conceptsand principles.There will be limited points of detail, butaccurate citation of relevant statutes and case-law will not be expected.1-5 Ability to explain at least one of the simpler points centralto the question or to identify at least one of the points of lawin issue.The approach may be uncritical and/or unselective.1-4
All of youshould beable to namethe key casesMost of youshould beable toexplain theimportanceof the casesSome of youshould beable todeterminewhich is theodd one outand why.
Got it?Check your understandingby completing the sheet**No handouts!
Can you find the followinginformation?One of the keys to this paper is knowing where you can find the information you need.1. Where will you find the definition of automatism?2. Where will you find the facts of Burgess?3. Where will you find reference to the recent reformsto the law on disposals?4. Which two sources discuss the meaning of ‘diseaseof the mind’?5. Where will you find the role of the judge indetermining whether D can plead mental disorder?Source 5, Line 6-9Source 3, Line 1-3Source 4, lines 19-23Source 2, line 16Source 1; Source 3Source 3, lines 7-11;Source 6, lines 1-6
How do we decide which defence it is?Complete the flow diagram to outline the operation of the defence.Aiming for the top?Link these to the sources!
Applying that flow chart:Answering Question 33. Discuss whether a defence of insanity or automatism is most likely in each of the following situations.James suffers from hardening of the arteries, which causes him to blackout sometimes. He isdriving home from work one day when he blacks out and hits Anton, who is cycling along,breaking his leg.According to the case of M’Naughten, James will be presumed sane, but can argue insanity onbalance of probabilities (source 5, lines 17-19) if he was suffering from defect of reason caused bydisease of the mind, such that he either doesn’t know it’s wrong or he doesn’t know the nature andquality of what he is doing. By blacking out, James is clearly suffering a a complete absence of“reasoning power” (Source 2, line 24) which would be sufficient for a defect of reason.reason.However, it is the cause which is central to his defence. Although it is a physical disease, it isdisease, it is similar to the case of Kemp, where D was found guilty but insane regarding the attackregarding the attack on his wife, even though he was suffering a physical disease rather than arather than a brain disorder. The law has made it clear that the definition is “a legal, not a medicallegal, not a medical one” (Source 2, line 18) . This means the fact that there is a “danger of“danger of recurrance” and it is caused by an internal factor are key. As he has blacked outblacked out before, he would appear to meet the Sullivan criteria, and the hardening is clearly andhardening is clearly and internal cause affecting his ordinary faculties of reasoning.reasoning.Although, if James knows that he is likely to black out and chose to drive, this may be enough formay be enough for recklessness in the law and so, deny him as defence as he would have thewould have the mens rea necessary.In conclusion, he is most likely to argue insanity to the attack on Anton and succeed, which meanssucceed, which means he will be subject to the disposals open to the court (Source 4, lines 20-(Source 4, lines 20-23).
Now you apply it!Susan has suffered from sleepwalking all her life. It is normally brought on by stress andworry. One night, following a particularly difficult time at work, she sleepwalks into hersister’s room and cuts her sisters throat, thinking that she is cutting bread for a sandwich.Introduction: Links tosources:Linked case(s):First Point:Second PointThird pointandconclusion:
Source FourQuestionWhy do you think a defendant would havepreferred to plead guilty than NGRI beforethe reforms?What do Quick, Hennessey and Sullivan havein common?Which of the three cases is the odd one outand why?What difference have the recent reformsmade?What difference did the recent reforms fail tomake?What happens as the result of a specialverdict?Can you fill out some valuable AO2?Can you explain the argument,and then use the source tosupport it?Help with Question 2Can you develop your explanation of the key terms?Help with Question 2Hospital Order Absolute DischargeSupervision OrderCan you build on critical statements and developyour understanding?Help with Question 2Butler Committee 1975‘not guilty onevidence of mentaldisorder.’Would this address the problemsidentified in the sources?
Starter...Time for a lollipop challenge*!*this will help you with question one!How much have you understood?One the cards you have the eight key cases (and rememberone of them will be question 1!)Can you sort them out?Lollipop-spectacular?Match them with yourbrains!Sticker-satisfactory?Use the sources oryour notesToo easy?Can you link to thesources to support theanswer (withoutlooking at them!)?
Examine whether the precedent in R v Burgess [Source 3] lead to justice or injustice.Section Content?Identify the relevantfacts, and the criticalpoint of the law (usingthe source)The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for s.18 GBH holding that the sleepwalking was a disease of themind for the purposes of the M’Naughten rules (Source 3, line33-36), and therefore amounted to insanity inthe law. D had wanted to argue that due to his sleep walking he was acting either automatistically or withno mens rea and so was not liable.How far does thisconfirm the existinglaw?Critical point 2This conclusion may be unfair to D, as previous obiter from the House of Lords in Bratty (Source 5, line 9)appeared to make it clear that the judges viewed sleepwalking as a “self – evident” example of automatism.However, The Court of Appeal followed the precedent of Quick in determining that for automatism theproblem must be caused by an external problem and here the cause was internal (the sleep disorder). Theyalso cast some doubt on Lord Denning’s “prone to recur in violence” test, as they make it clear that is oneconsideration, but not the only consideration in determining whether a condition will be classed as insanityor automatism in the law (Source 3, lines 31-35).How far it changes ordevelops the lawCritical point 3This approach to the law has been followed by the lower courts in the case of Lowe, who plead NGRI to themurder of his father on the basis of sleepwalking. However, the courts, both lower down the hierarchy, andin other countries have taken a different approach. In Parks, the Canadian Courts held that sleepwalkingwas in fact automatistic, as in this case the proximate courses were work anxieties, stress and depressionwhich were outside issues. In addition, where there is evidence that D’s condition may have been caused byan external condition, then automatism can be left to the jury, as has happened in a number of first instancesexsomnia cases such as Ecott. This means that there appear to be two separate approaches by the courtsto the same issue, depending on the cause which might be unfair to D.Conclusion: refer backto the language of thequestion. Was it a ‘fairdevelopment’Burgess, therefore, is significant as it confirms that if D is suffering from sleepwalking at the time of theincident, his only recourse is to plead NGRI under M’Naughten. It also confirms that in determining whethera disorder is automatistic or a disease of the mind the internal/external division is key, although this maylead to unfairness for some defendants.Answering Question 1: An Example
Can you create your own answer?Briefly explain the importance of T [Source 6, lines 24-26] to thedevelopment of the law on automatism.1. Use the cards and the sources to help you... Therewill be information in the ‘surrounding’ sources tohelp.2. Plan out the four sections, and ensure that you havea clear linked case which you can explain, and a linkto the source.Critical point ofcase & outcomeLinked Caseand sourcelinksConfrimingexisting lawDevelopmentsinceOverallsummationNow... write it up!
If you’ve got it...You should be able to mark it!This is the official mark scheme.Take care – general statements receive no marks.Critical Point:TJ allowed automatism to goin front of the jury on thebasis of external factor ofrapeApplied Point:Extends the range of externalcauses available to someonepleading automatismApplied Point:Seems to allow a ‘partial’ lossof control to be allowed. Applied Point:Medical evidence key indetermining the defenceApplied Point:Narborough limits scope ofthe caseApplied Point:Importance of jury indetermining automatism,even where there is someevidence.Applied Point:Illustrates the problems ofthe internal and external –start as one and end up asthe other..
Can you find the following information?1. Where will you find the consequences of pleadingautomatism?2. Where is the stigma debate referred to?3. Where is Lipman referred to?4. Where will you find a list of automatistic causes?5. Where will you find the reason behind havinginsanity as a defence?
So, last but by no means least...How do you write an essay?Well, the short answer is you do itexactly like the other paper (almost!)Section Content Links to theSources?Introduction Put the quote into context What is the quotesaying, what was theargument of thesources?Main (1) Definition, origins, reasons for introducing &justification. What is the current law and why?Insanity – 1,2,3Automatism 5Main (2) Requirements of the defence – discuss eachelement separately looking at the overallconsistency of the courts.Insanity – 1, 2, 3Automatism – 1,5, 6Main (3) Consequences & their impact. Insanity - 2,4Automatism – 2,5Main (4) Reforms and alternatives e.g. LawCommission; Butler; DR etc.Source 4, 6Conclusion Go back to the quote and make a summativecomment on it
You all have a copy of the essay plan, and the sources...Can you put a level four plan together?Aim to achieve thislevelStretch yourself &include anelement of level 5Ensure you areconfidently able todo this...
Revision:Times and Help1. Take one of each of the revisionhandouts, which contain pastpapers, questions, plans etc.2. Perhaps focus a little more on these for thebig paper essays – duress & necessity;omissions; causation; attempts;intoxication.Topics unlikely to be essays: insanity &automatism; involuntary manslaughter;strict liability; self defence3. Revision times:firstname.lastname@example.org@hotmail.co.uk