Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Year 13 Mock Jan 2013

Upcoming SlideShare
Consent 2011
Consent 2011
Loading in …3

Check these out next

1 of 41 Ad

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)


Year 13 Mock Jan 2013

  1. 1. Year 13 Mock 1 Preparation Miss Hart 2012-13
  2. 2. Starter: Do you know your exam paper? Using the paper you have been given, and your own knowledge… Complete the grid outlining the demands and the mark break down for criminal law
  3. 3. What would you answer? Look at the paper. 1. Decide which three questions you would answer 2. Now go through all of them. Identify the areas that you would need to include in your response to that question. 3. RAG each question
  4. 4. Dominoes of Pain! You know the drill… put them in the correct order to relieve the pain with a lollipop! Hint: Be careful what you say yes to! If you are stuck… Then you may use your notes or a textbook to help, and still be rewarded with a lovely sticker. If it’s all too quick and easy… Use the information to help you complete the AO1 for your essay plan
  5. 5. What’s the link... Which is the odd one out?
  6. 6. Thin skull rule/ Life Support Unreasonable actions of 3P Palpably wrong medical treatment “practical solutions” “sound moral principles” Challenge: Could you expand the causation discussion into mens rea?
  7. 7. Complete the AO2 Using your understanding and the sample essay, complete the rest of your AO2 for the Causation Essay. Look at the student’s overall marks. What general advice would you give them to improve their responses?
  8. 8. What does A* look like? Comment: This is a full marks A* grade essay. It has used a wide-range of cases demonstrating accurate and detailed confident knowledge of this area of the law and developed the AO2, identifying relevant points of criticism and showing good understanding of the current debates, with a logical and well informed conclusion. Tasks: Read through this essay and pick out as many strengths of the essay as you can, explaining why in the margin next to it. What do you notice about the way the author has used the cases? What can you learn about the structure of an essay from this example?
  9. 9. HALT & CHALLENGE Can you write an A grade passage?
  10. 10. 'Despite the development of the defence of automatism, a mentally disordered defendant is not always dealt with justly under English law Discuss whether the common law governing the offence of murder is satisfactory or is in need of reform by Parliament. “Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do ‘the right thing’ in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need.’” Mens Rea requires fault on the part of the defendant. The current law on intention and recklessness is uncertain and unjust. “Insane and non-insane automatism are similar defences involving mental abnormality. It is vital that the distinction between them is fully understood since they produce very different consequences for a defendant who relies on one or other of them 'Despite recent reforms, the law relating to loss of control as a special and partial defence to murder remains muddled and occasionally unjust. What’s the topic?
  11. 11. Intoxication is/ is not a true defence. D is either arguing that he does not have the actus reus/ mens rea because he was so intoxicated or that because of it, he made a mistake/ cake. Generally speaking involuntary/ voluntary intoxication is no defence as D intended/ was reckless as to whether or not they took the intoxicant to begin with. Public policy does/ does not play a strong part in the limitation of intoxication as an excuse in court.
  12. 12. Now can you complete this using only your memory? Hint: the cases are at the bottom of the page!
  13. 13. “The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justice for an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.” Assess the accuracy of this statement. Stage One: Outline plan.... Intro Main Conclusion What are you supposed to cover? What does this mean for this essay?
  14. 14. “The defence of intoxication represents a satisfactory compromise between justice for an individual defendant and the demands of public policy.” Assess the accuracy of this statement. Introduction: Means: Comes from: Main issues:
  15. 15. AO1 Plans and Coverage: Rules: Cases (AO1) Voluntary Intoxication: Specific • can negate MR needed • works as partial defence to most of these offences • Dutch courage is no defence. • drunken intent is nevertheless an intent. Voluntary Intoxication: Basic • reckless comes from the drinking • needs some accompanying action to demonstrate • no defence Involuntary Intoxication: • if successful can be complete defence • different effect • not if D has mens rea before • Perhaps not if strict liability offence. Mistake: General and Fact • judged by ‘honest standards’ • if mistake one would have made if sober, then may have a defence. • some statutory exceptions. Mistake: Excessive Force • not applied to manslaughter, murder or other crimes • confirmed in statute. Reforms • Clarify need for knowledge as if sober • Mistake would apply to SL crimes •Diabetics would be included in mistake • Butler Committee – alternative ‘dangerous intoxication’
  16. 16. AO2: It’s all about the debate and discussion! Public policy is an issue as intoxication is linked to a large amount of criminal conduct Need to balance personal responsibility and protect those are vulnerable and may be the victims of crime Does D really have a mens rea and set out to commit a crime if drunk? Problem of the fall back offence... ... More effective with certain crimes e.g. theft. Arbitary nature of distinctions between specific and basic intent Should D have a defence where they have no choice over intoxication? Should voluntary intoxication be a defence to all crimes (Australia; Law Com 1995) “Candidates are unlikely to achieve level 5 AO2 without a discussion that focuses both on intoxication and its problems. This can be demonstrated by candidates whose discussion also identified with role of judges, Parliament, the Law Commission potential avenues for reform and the influence of policy in decision making.” Why is an offence of dangerous intoxication rejected? Is it just a risk of ‘doing something stupid’? Does the approach to MR here fit in with the general rules?
  17. 17. Do you understand how to answer essay style questions? Simply naming cases No sense of time or logical order Reach a conclusion related to the title Recounting all the facts of a case Prefer law to facts Show a wide range of knowledge Forgetting to comment or analyse  Detailed knowledge of the law and reforms Repeating the command word from the question Leave all comment to the end Forgetting the introduction or conclusion Analyse and comment throughout  Conclude and be consistent
  18. 18. A whole other problem... Section B It’s all about knowledge and application to the question! At least eight cases, well applied and considered (although I’d say 10-14 is a more realistic aim!) Let’s start with what not to do... James would be guilty of murder because he stabbed Louis in the chest. As James has stabbed Louis in the chest, he has clearly caused him to die and so has fulfilled the actus reus of murder, according to Lord Coke. In addition, by stabbing him, it is clear he has a clear desire to bring about the consequence, which is the definition of specific intent under Mohan and so has the mens rea for at least GBH, which is sufficient for liabilty for murder following the case of Cunningham. Sean is insane because he is sleepwalking. Graham is depressed and this means that he has a defence of diminished responsibility to the murder of his wife. Sam is like T and can rely on automatism Because Jane was drunk she can rely on intoxication as a defence to assault.
  19. 19. Let’s apply this lovely new found knowledge... Corinne has been in a steady relationship with David for over ten years. They have always had arguments during which David has often hit Corinne. He has also threatened her that if she ever tries to leave him he will track her down and “sort her out”. This has made Corinne feel depressed and trapped in the situation. She has been to her doctor who has placed her on medication to treat her depression. One evening, Corinne and David argue again and, in the course of the dispute, David insults her calling her “pathetic and useless”. Corinne starts to cry so David slaps her face and tells her to “grow up”. David then goes to bed. Corinne sits and watches television for two hours before going to the bedroom. When she sees David asleep she is suddenly overcome with anger and picks up the bedside lamp which she smashes over David’s head, killing him instantly. Corinne has now been charged with David’s murder. Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David, including any partial defences available to her
  20. 20. Discuss Corinne’s potential liability for the murder of David, including any partial defences available to her Stage One: Outline plan.... Intro Main O C D Conclusion What are you supposed to cover? What does this mean for this essay?
  21. 21. Modelling Section One: Liability for Murder Point Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean for Corrine’s liability and why?) Liability for Murder  Common law offence – Lord Coke  Unlawful killing of human being  Malice aforethought •Specific intent ‘true desire’ Mohan •Oblique intent ‘virtual certainty’ as evidence Woollin Smashed on head – actus reus causation of death. Clearly at least intends to cause GBH (Cunningham) through violence of action. Sample Answer: The offence committed by Corinne is murder – a common law offence. She has to commit both the actus reus and the mens rea. She has committed the actus reus which is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace. Murder is a specific intent crime and the prosecution would be likely to find beyond reasonable doubt that she has an intention to kill or cause GBH because by picking up the lamp and smashing it, she is clearly causing his death.
  22. 22. Now complete the AO2 for the first partial defence: loss of control Point Cases/Statutes/Definitions etc. Application (What does this mean for Corrine’s liability and why?) Loss of Control s.54-5 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Loss of Control  not sudden and temporary (Duffy)  must exist (Cocker) Cooling off (Thornton)  Cumulative (Humphreys) Qualifying Trigger s.55  threat of serious violence to D or another (Ahluwalia; Thornton No.2)  Circumstances of extremely grave character, causing justifiable sense of being seriously wronged Person of D’s age and Gender in those circumstances. (Camplin)  not characteristics (Smith)  cumulative (Humphreys) This is your challenge! Can you apply it to Corrine and conclude on liability.
  23. 23. Now complete both columns... There’s some information below to help... Byrne s.2 Homicide Act (as amended) Abnormality of mental functioning State of mind so different as to be abnormal Recognised medical condition Substantially impaired Provide an explanation for the killing Gittens Ahluwalia Brown Seers Thornton No 2 Not so trivial as to be minimal Interfere with the defendant’s ability to exercise control, understand what they are doing or form a rational judgement
  24. 24. Conclusion... Use your discussion to determine the likely liability of Corinne and explain why.
  25. 25. Starter Can you name the case and ratio? All of you should be able to identify the facts or name of the case depicted. Most of you should be able to match it to the relevant ratio. Some of you will be able to divide the cases into AO1 and AO2, and explain how the courts’ interpretation of this area links to the concept of public policy.
  26. 26. Introduction: Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last topic, to highlight and annotate this problem? Mike, a drug dealer, meets Shirley, Rita and Zara in his house where he sells them heroin. Mike sees that Shirley is suffering from withdrawal symptoms and sympathetically suggests that he inject her there and then with a 'shot' of heroin from a syringe which he prepares. Mike injects the heroin into Shirley's arm. He then helps Rita to prepare her arm so that she may inject herself with some heroin. Rita injects the heroin herself. Shirley, Rita and Zara then leave. Next day Shirley and Rita die from the effects of the heroin. Zara is so overcome with grief that she injects herself with heroin and dies as a result. Medical evidence states that they have all died as a result of overdosing on the drug. Discuss the liability of Mike for the manslaughter of Shirley, Rita and Zara.
  27. 27. A different way of planning...
  28. 28. Plenary Which of these sentences sums up your status on writing at the end of the lesson? I can discuss a wide range of points in a scenario and reach a well informed conclusion. I can apply the law to a scenario and reach a logical conclusion I can apply some points of law to a scenario, but struggle to reach a conclusion I can identify at least one relevant point in a scenario I can identify a wide range of points and support them with detailed description and citation. I can identify a range of points, and add some detail to some of them. I can explain at least one point fully, and illustrate it with an example. I can identify a range of relevant points. Essay Writing Section A Application Question Section B
  29. 29. Starter: What’s wrong?  Jordan held that the actions of the doctor broke the chain of causation because by dropping V, they reduced V’s chances of survival by over 70%..  Lamb confirms that a civil crime is not sufficient for D to be liable for the constructive manslaughter of V. Under the doctrine of transferred malice, Larkin was liable for his assault with a belt on the victim.
  30. 30. Introduction: Can you use the skills and understanding we practised in the last topic, to highlight and annotate this problem? Raul and Christiano are standing in a queue at a bus stop when they begin arguing with one another. Raul pushes Christiano who staggers backwards and collides with Margaret, an 83 year old lady. Margaret falls backwards onto the pavement. She is injured and in pain. Margaret is taken to hospital where x-rays reveal that she has broken her hip. Doctors agree that the injury is made worse partly because she suffers from osteoporosis (a disease which makes her bones unusually brittle). Although Margaret is elderly, Doctor Smith decides to operate in order to allow Margaret any chance of being able to walk in future. A few days later, Margaret is recovering slowly from the operation when she develops a secondary infection. Doctor Smith prescribes Margaret penicillin but she is allergic to the drug and dies. Discuss the potential criminal liability of both Raul and Doctor Smith for the death of Margaret
  31. 31. An example essay: What do you think of this? Tips for improvement? Technique to follow? Now, write the next stage on causation for Raul’s liability
  32. 32. Task One: Write the introduction! What do you do?
  33. 33. Starting with the AO1 then... Raul Area Definitions, terms, cases etc. Murder Involuntary Act Manslaughter Gross Negligence Reckless Act Causation Other issues
  34. 34. Now, you complete Dr Smith’s AO1! Dr Smith Area Definitions, terms, cases etc. Gross Negligence
  35. 35. AO2 points to consider... Apply the principle of transferred malice and apply to Margaret’s injury The act must be criminal/a push, though trivial, is a battery Is it ‘dangerous’? Would V suffer some harm in the eyes of a jury? Has it made a factual and more than minimal contribution to Margaret’s death? Margaret’s injuries are far more serious than could have reasonably been foreseen... Is he still liable? Has the medical negligence broken the chain of causation? Arguable – discuss and apply Jordan; Smith; Cheshire to a reasoned conclusion Is a duty of care owed to Christiano (and Margaret)? Has the duty of care been broken? Is Raul’s conduct so far below that to be expected of a reasonable person in those circumstances as to amount to a crime? Is there a risk of death? (This is debateable) There was clearly a very small risk of death and Margaret has eventually died but would a jury think it existed when Raul pushed Christiano? Discuss and apply the principle of transferred malice N.B. Candidates who do not discuss every potential type of manslaughter offence may nevertheless attain a Level 5 answer if they discuss only one or two provided the causation/transferred malice elements are addressed. Did Raul foresee a risk of death or serious harm to Christiano?
  36. 36. What’s have these got to do with your course?
  37. 37. Intro: What does the examiner think? Read through the report you have been given and identify two things you will focus on to help you attain your aspirational grade
  38. 38. Section C: The Last Step Term Means Origin Murder Specific intent Diminished Responsibility Automatism Loss of control Insanity M’Naughten Mohan s.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.2 Homicide Act 1957 Bratty Coke
  39. 39. Erica has been in a steady relationship with Bob for several months. He has often hit her and Erica feels trapped and depressed. Her doctor has been giving her medication to treat her depression. One day during an argument, Bob calls her a ‘useless pathetic item’. Bob falls asleep in his chair. Erica goes to her bedroom where she drinks several glasses of whisky in an hour. She goes back downstairs and when she sees Bob asleep she suddenly picks up a heavy ashtray and smashes it over Bob's head, killing him instantly. Statement A: Erica can be charged with murder Statement B: Erica may successfully plead intoxication as a defence. Statement C: Erica cannot plead loss of control as a defence. Statement D: Erica will be successful if she pleads the defence of diminished responsibility.
  40. 40. Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medication which he normally takes three times per day. He fails to take his insulin for a whole day and during the evening, while driving, he suffers from a blackout. He loses control of his car and crashes into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on the pavement. Larissa dies instantly. Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above scenario. Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of Larissa because the condition was self-induced. Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatism Statement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution for the mentally disordered if found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' [20]
  41. 41. Homework Prepare and annotate your mock in preparation for completing it in our next double lessons. Remember: No sentences You cannot answer the involuntary manslaughter essay question If you choose to complete qu4, you cannot complete qu7. Highlighters are ok.