UNIT 3: EVERY TIP YOU NEED TO EVER KNOW!

General Unit 3 pointers
General	-          Read question solely and focus on only the people concerned in the question not other people who are placed to distract you -          THIS EXAM ISNT ENTRIELY ABOUT COMMON SENSE – ITS MORE ABOUT LEGAL PRINCIPLES SO STUFF IS GOING TO BE STUPID AND FAR FETCHED -          DON’T forget causation with the whole victims own act thing they like that and judge it by Williams, disproportionate? Etc. -          ALWAYS CHECK BOTH PARA 1 AND TWO for facts because they may try to catch you out! -          If theres a lot going on in the q important to pick most relevant issues and defences so you get it right and don’t go on a tangent. Judge areas of discussion wisely. -          Omissions can form the basis for ANY actus reus, even in non fatals. -          Explanation of what is going on should be clear, concise, to the point. No sophisticated lexis because examiner wants to understand everything. -          Neat handwriting as well. -          Coming to a reasoned conclusion important as well if there’s time -          Keep law relevant only go into detail on the issues -          If issue is obvious mention briefly and move on -          ALWAYS come to a reasoned conclusion as to what you think the jury should do/ be prompted by/ the turn out. -          Don’t forget unit 2 stuff – transferred malice, single transaction, contemporainety rule, etc -          Always relate to facts and say why -          Never forget causation and IN MURDER THE MOST IMPORTANT, A NOVUS ACTUS! -          Choose q that is most specific -          Plan for couple of min’s -          Don’t forget Bollom for non fatals – if the victim is young or old the charge may be pushed up an offence considering it having a worse effect -          Be selective = obvious? Move on -          They prefer candidates who aim to write about two offences in the non-fatals questions. Usually this remains a debate between whether its s20 or s18, or abh or s20.
Voluntary manslaughter	-If advised to discuss murder discuss it Always - Don’t confuse insanity with diminished responsibility and only choose insanity if it’s only about one person and theres time/its obvious they are insane - Play close attention to who’s liability you should be talking about – highlight the name and what they do in the scenario - Don’t talk about ag no3 if not relevant - Always consider all types of intent - Murder can be committed by way of omission – gibbons v proctor Diminished responsibility: Start off essay saying this is a special partial defence, reduces conviction but not necessarily the sentence(still judge’s discretion ü  Don’t forget Uses of judges, Lord parker CJ and Edmund Davies j ü  Don’t forget 52(1)a,b,c ü  Don’t forget long term battered wife syndrome could be DM as well as loss of control ü  Don’t forget to mention that if D has a RMC medical evidence is needed to support the claim ü  Don’t forget intoxication and its effects – tandy, wood, dietchmann ü  Look for clues to suggest its possibility as its usually there – look hard ü  Remember this only applies to murder MENTION ON THE THIRD LIMB THAT SUBSTANTIAL DOES NOT MEAN TRIVIAL OR MINIMUL, IT IS SOMEWHERE INBETWEEN R v Lloyd -          End by saying BOP is on D and evidence would need to be given in court -          Diminished responsibility wise – it’s important to acknowledge that there are certain terms that can get you the marks, e.g. post traumatic stress, ocd, chronic depression, paranoid schizo, mental deficiency(speake) etc. Recognising what D has is important - also note, just because someone has a personality disorder does not mean a definitive Loss of control ü  Again talk about its special, partial, reduces conviction but not the sentence definitively ü  QT is subjective “fear of serious harm” which can be toward D himself or a family member ü  Second one in objective “justifiable” judge will examine not merely what d thought but whether he had a right to think in this way ü  Remember the possibility of having all qualifying triggers ü  Remember if LOC is battered wife, could be DM instead - overlap ü  Remember  “ d’s circumstances” for third requirement
Involuntary manslaughter	Start off by saying that this is an offence given when the defendant lacks an intention to kill, but has completed an unlawful act or been grossly negligent which thereby resulted in the victims death. ü  Avoid caparo style civil stuff, focus on duty of care adomako, and different situations – most likely will be an omission there ü  If causation isn’t a problem do not mention it ü  If you make an assumption that something is dangerous, apply it to the facts always ü  Remember Lord Mackay states GN in terms of gross breach is to be decided by the jury as “departed from the proper standard of care” “judged as criminal” ü  Do not get the two mixed up (UDCM AND DGRC) write them on exam paper! ü  If discussing adomako apply it to the context set ü  Don’t forget kennedy for unlawful act causes death
Defences	Begin with saying that a general defence is available possibly for D -          Know which defences are applicable to which crimes,e.g. automatism and self defence is to all, but insanity, intoxication and consent available to crimes with mens rea: specific intent crimes: and assaults here there is no injury or minor injury and sometimes s47 gbh -          Insanity is narrow, only choose if it’s really likely and enough time -          Insanity, remember  lipman for DOR which states voluntary intoxication is not available but alcoholism is for insanity -          Automatism, remember what bratty says about it, and the importance of bailey in establishing if d knew his conduct as likely to bring about an automatic state -          Intoxication, remember the influence of  R v Richardson & Iriwin – would d realise -           the risk sober( basic) -          If D has diabetes, discussion of both automatism and insanity is required if facts aren’t clear on the external/internal factors etc. -          Remember for consent – injury will be judged criminal if its sufficiently grave and a serious breach
Non- fatals	-          CAN be committed by way of omission, apart from assault of course, only where D has a duty of care owed -          Remember bollom – severity of injuries judged on v’s health and age -          Remember how abh = gbh if the injuries persist for a long time or if its bollom -          Better candidates offer up a discussion of 2 possible issues -          In regard to TM no need to restate mens rea -          If it’s to do with non -          ABH is caused by A or B choose and mention mens rea and actus reus of both -          Don’t forget the ins and outs of causation -          Immediate relatively means imminent or in the near future not occurring then and there -  D must be afraid, R v Lamb OF IMMEDIATE FORCE
Reforms	-          Quotations from reports greatly enhance essays and quotations from law lords -          Explanation is always important to get good marks, no time to plan so mentally do it -          CRIT, REFORM structure!!!!!