A-level Law Exemplar scripts with examiner …

1 Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 1 of 21 RESOURCES A-level LAW LAW03 criminal Law (Offences against the Person) Exemplar scripts with examiner comments (2160) Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 2 of 21 Here is a selection of typical responses for you to consider. Using past papers, scenarios are set out and followed by the individual questions, mark scheme and typical answers. Commentaries on each answer are grouped together at the end of each topic. These can be used to give examples of answers with strengths and weaknesses identified, so that your students can look for improvements and refine their techniques. In some instances, two answers to the same question have been provided, along with commentary.

2 These can be used for purposes of comparison and contrast. In some instances, part answers only have been provided. Note that answers are reproduced exactly as written, including grammar and spelling. Copyright 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 3 of 21 Contents criminal Law (Offences against the Person).

3 4 Scenario 1 .. 4 Potential Content .. 4 Student answer for consideration .. 5 Scenario 2 .. 8 Potential Content .. 8 Student answers for 9 Scenario 3 .. 12 Potential Content .. 12 Student answers for 13 Evaluative question .. 15 Potential Content .. 15 Student answer for consideration .. 16 Commentaries .. 20 Comment on Answer 1 .. 20 Comment on Answer 2 .. 20 Comment on Answer 3 .. 20 Comment on Answer 4 .. 21 Comment on Answer 5 .. 21 Comment on Answer 6 .. 21 Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 4 of 21 criminal Law (Offences against the Person) Scenario 1 Potential Content (A) In relation to Anna s liability for the injury to Beth: analysis of actus reus and mens rea of s47 assault (battery) occasioning abh; consent issues in organised sport (framework explanation of general rule and exceptions; specific detail of the organised sport exception).

4 Sound s47 + consent weak sound battery + consent clear s47 weak clear battery or s20 + consent some s20 or consent Note: in this, and in other, parts of the mark scheme, a level (sound, clear, etc) identified should be regarded as the maximum level available for appropriate treatment of the specified content. (B) In relation to Anna s liability for the injury to Charlie: analysis of actus reus and mens rea of unlawful and malicious wounding and/or infliction of gbh (s20); recklessness and transferred malice issues; reference to applicability of consent (by analogy with transferred malice). weak sound s20 but mens rea without discussion of transferred malice weak clear s47 assault (battery) abh, addressing transferred malice some s47 but mens rea without discussion of transferred malice Just after the ball had gone out of play during a football match, Anna tackled Beth very forcefully.

5 The tackle bruised Beth s leg and also caused her to fall onto Charlie, a 4-year-old boy, who was riding a bicycle by the side of the pitch. Charlie s head struck his handlebars and he suffered a long, deep cut to his face. This led to an argument between Anna and Ellie, Charlie s mother. When Ellie later returned to her car, she found a note on the windscreen which read, Watch out! I ll get you. She was so upset that, when she drove off, she crashed into a lamppost and suffered a mild neck injury. It was later discovered that Anna had written the note. Discuss the possible criminal liability of Anna for the injuries to Beth and to Charlie. Discuss Anna s possible criminal liability arising out of the note left on the windscreen of Ellie s car, and including Ellie s subsequent crash.

6 [25 marks + AO3 5 marks] Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 5 of 21 Student answer for consideration Answer 1 In relation to Anna s liability to Beth, she could be liable for battery. The AR of battery is Anna inflicts unlawful personal force on Beth. In Anna s case, her tackling Beth forcefully caused her to fall and bruise Beth s leg. As in R v Thomas, a battery is more than the slightest touch, in Anna s case tackling Beth forcefully is more than the slightest touch and is therefore a battery as it causes the bruising. Also Collins v Willcock states consent is implied in everyday situations. However, Anna s forceful tackle indicates she used a large amount of force, therefore the AR of battery is satisfied. The MR of battery is intention or recklessness as to inflicting unlawful personal force on Beth.

7 In Anna s case, this is likely to be intention directly, as in R v Mohan, as by tackling her very forcefully and whilst the ball is out of play this suggests Anna knows that force is not required at this time indicating she intends to injure Beth. Additionally, Anna s forcefully tackling Beth suggests she used a significant amount of force in order to cause the bruising. Therefore the MR is satisfied and Anna is guilty of a battery. Additionally, Anna could be liable for gbh in relation to Charlie s injury. This would be s20, the AR of gbh is Anna causes Charlie a gbh or a wound. In Anna s case, Charlie suffers a deep cut to his face which is long. As in JCC v Eisenhower, this is a wound, a break in both outer layers of skin , which clearly the deep cut has broken Charlie s outer layers of skin.

8 Similarly in Anna s case the infliction of gbh/wounding is indirect as in R v Martin, which states that force does not have to be directly applied to V. This is the case here as Anna in fact applies force to Beth by tackling her, who then subsequently falls into Charlie, causing him to suffer the deep cut to his face. Therefore gbh can be indirectly caused and Anna has satisfied the AR. The MR of gbh s20 is intention or recklessness as to some harm . In Anna s case, this is likely to be recklessness, as Anna s tackling of Beth forcefully whilst people are around is fairly likely to cause her to fall into someone and cause at least some harm (R v Mowatt). Also, Charlie is said to be riding the bicycle near the pitch, which further suggests that Anna is aware he is stood there, and by knocking Beth over she is likely to fall into him and cause at least some harm , which needs only be a battery, as in R v Exemplar scripts WITH COMMENTS A-level LAW LAW03 6 of 21 Cunningham.

9 Anna foresees the risk of causing harm yet takes this risk anyway. Additionally, the MR on Beth as to causing some harm , a battery, transfers person to person to Charlie as it s the same type of offence, a battery, therefore the mens rea for gbh s20 is satisfied. Anna could argue the defence of consent in relation to the injuries caused to Beth, where she argues Beth gave either express or implied consent to what would otherwise be a fatal or non-fatal offence. In Anna s case she inflicted a battery on Beth, which as in Cole v Turner, states that consent is implied in various situations, such as the greeting of friends. However, when the consent goes beyond this everyday expectation this will be unlawful force. In Anna s case her forcefully tackling Beth could go beyond the normal everyday expectation as its more than would be normally expected during a game of football as the ball had gone out of play.

10 However, if Anna was liable for abh, the consent would fall into one of the various exceptions. This would be normal sporting activities as the girls are playing a football match. However, as in Barnes, where the game does not follow the recognised rules and regulations of the game this cannot be consented to. In Anna s case, she tackled Beth when the ball had gone out of play and therefore injured Beth whilst not following the rules of the game. Therefore, this cannot be consented to as in Billinghurst. Anna s liability for abh means the defence of consent will not be allowed, as in AG s Ref No 6 of 1980, where it was held that where the injuries go beyond abh the violence is not in the public interest and therefore cannot be consented to. Therefore the defence of consent is not allowed.