UNIT 3 TIPS!

A couple  of things I have noticed in unit 3 is they aim to catch people out with causation. In many situations I have found that people forget instances where the victims own act breaks the chain of causation. This may occur when say, V attempts to escape into a bush, or when D try’s to run out of the pub but slips. Kennedy tells us that this could negate D's actions from being reasonably foreseeable and so the legal part of causation fails, but only where d’s actions are disproportionate or unreasonable to the circumstance, William, not if V’s act is a natural and foreseeable cause of D’s conduct, Roberts.

I have also found 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. In reports they have mentioned these are the candidates who get the highest marks.

On top of this, there’s usually a lot going on so judgment on the relevant defences Is imperative. Judging if there is insanity or diminished responsibility is always hard - insanity being a more narrow offence only should call for a discussion if there isn’t already another person in the question to discuss, or if the defendant is clearly loopy.

In terms of transferred malice this occurs a lot. Often it can be to even two victims, the most important thing to remember is a similar offence can be transferred and not just the exact one in the scenario.

Contemporainity rules can also be an issue, its important to talk about this after ar and mr discussion to establish if they coincide.

Scenarios with issues of diabetes account for a discussion of both automatism and insanity, quick and Hennesy especially if facts are not explicit enough to suggest what caused D to go loopy - could be lack of insulin and so internal or lack of food external.

Its also important to remember sound candidates cannot and will not have time to express every issue, so just picking a few of the important ones is very important. Don’t neglect cases as they tend to create scenarios dedicated to one case, e.g. R v T - if you don’t know the basis of this case then you wouldn’t be able to discuss a defence and so loose out on potential marks. :)

Diminished responsibility wise - its 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 RMC, personality disorders include:

• being overwhelmed by negative feelings such as distress, anxiety, worthlessness or anger
• difficulty managing negative feelings without self-harming (for example, abusing drugs and alcohol, or taking overdoses) or, in rare cases, threatening other people 
• odd behaviour
• difficulty maintaining stable and close relationships, especially with partners, children and professional carers

Point is a lot of people can have one of these things but doesn’t mean we can rely on the defence so always be sure to acknowledge it hangs on a knife edge.