2. SUBSTANTIVE LAW Qs ISSUES DON’T! Continuing reference to Charging Standards. (Don’t refer to them at start of the answer. ‘The charging standards say…’ If Ss use these then it limits what they focus on. DO ‘This offence could be ..’ If you’re in doubt as to what offence it could be, then explain that it could be more than one, but focus more on one area than the other (will cover all PC that way)
3. SUBSTANTIVE LAW Qs ISSUES PROBLEMS LAST YEAR: Persistent fault in the definition and explanation of the actus reus and mens rea of non-fatal offences Poor use of case authority Failure to apply rules to facts in sufficient (sometimes any) detail
4. Actus reus & mens rea issues ‘Immediacy’ in assault Discuss Constanza legal rule & then apply to relevant details of scenario. The definition of abh Concentrate on Chan Fook, rather than Miller The definition of wound in relation to gbh Problem: Ss don’t understand there are 2 categories! You don’t need to have a ‘wound’ for there to be GBH. However, if there’s bleeding then think wound! The mens rea of s20 & s18 Ss confused! You must know definition correctly (s.20 ‘some harm’ & s18 specifically ‘cause GBH & resist arrest’ not wound
5. Use of case authority PROBLEMS: You don’t need details about facts; time constraints! Further explanation necessary only where something significant is added e.g. to clarify the law/facts sufficiently similar. Don’t discuss cases that don’t support nor assist answer, just because you know the case. You need to get the legal rule right!
6. Introduction of irrelevant material Particularly for murder e.g. on ar – careful to pick out relevant parts for ar elements in answers. Murder: only discuss ‘human’ of coma etc Mens rea: Likelyhood that ‘malice aforethought’ will be an issue on murder Q Inappropriate discussion of oblique intention in minor NFO (mention for murder & s.18 only) Don’t discuss sentencing/mode of trial etc, because there are no marks on Law03 for this Don’t use partial defences for murder to NFO
7. General Defences Intoxication:If there are a series of events and there is a drunk person, then Intox would be discussed generally. However, if it’s a complicated question & seems automatism/intox, then discuss it in more detail. Answers tend to present only partial explanation of defences
8. General Defences Consent Frequently appears on exams! Give a clear explanation – you must be able to explain where consent fits in. Moreover, start answer with ‘You can’t consent to an injury which amounts to abh or worse.’ Self Defence/Prevention Don’t just give basics e.g. he used knife, so using fists as self defence is necessaary. Do: requires proof; necessity & proportionate - explain
9. Application of rules to facts Crucial aspect of answer! Tip: Think about it being a client/lay person, so application is just as important as explanation Answers frequently assume or assert an application without using relevant detail of facts. Assume ALL FACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT e.g. NFO: cuts, scratch, bruise, headaches, all say something about actus reus. If mind/mental then look to mens rea.
10. Application of rules to facts Students often try to evade responsibility for application by referring to ‘jury issue.’ You must give your view! How might law apply based on facts of scenario? Look for parallels in cases
11. The evaluation questions in LAW03 For the criminal law evaluative questions, three areas will be covered: • murder (including voluntary manslaughter) • non-fatal offences against the person • defences - a general question, with candidates being required to illustrate their answer with examples taken from two defences of their choice.
12. Evaluative Questions Major weaknesses in answers: you can almost prepare your essays beforehand, so why would you wait until the exam to do so? Get stuck into cases in more detail Don’t do criticisms and reforms together; do criticisms and then reforms at the end Do: rely on Law Commission & commentators
13. MAJOR WEAKNESSES ON LAW03 Issues frequently identified, but little development of explanations Lack of depth & clarity Superficial analysis of cases & statutes Reform poorly understood Unstructured – often ungrouped Mere statements that change is required
14. Defences Discussion of criticisms of any two general defences from list on specification: Defences not prescribed – candidates choice BUT it excludes partial defences to murder. Pick the ones that have most criticisms & will ask for reforms of one of them Can treat insanity & automatism as seperate Proposals for reform required for only one defence
15. Evaluation of Murder / Voluntary Manslaughter The problem posed by reform of partial defences in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
