A Level Law Unit 4 Substantive Law Perspectives
A Level Law Unit 4 – Substantive Law Perspectives
June 2019 – General Observations • This is the first sitting of this A Level law paper for the new specification. It appears to have been well received. The majority of candidates adhered to the rubric of the paper, answering the required number of questions. • Candidates also organised their time appropriately between the two required answers. • The most popular sections were criminal law and human rights law and within these sections, the most popular questions were questions 1 and 6. • The AOs being examined are AO 1 for 20 marks and AO 3 for 30 marks. Answers need to be evaluative in order to secure the top marks. Candidates also need to address the specific question set rather than writing all they know about a particular topic. • Once again, handwriting in a significant number of scripts is an issue. Centres should identify these candidates early on and, if no improvement, make the necessary alternative arrangements, if available. • Questions on contract and human rights were generally weaker than criminal. This might be down to the fact that this is a new required option for centres, whereas criminal has been taught before.
Section A Human Rights Question 1 Analyse and evaluate whether the protection of human rights within the United Kingdom would be strengthened by the introduction of a Bill of Rights. [50] • Popular question and some excellent, evaluative answers seen. • Sound information on the historical development of human rights law in the UK and the incorporation of Convention rights into the HRA in 1998. • Main provisions of the Act, e. g. S 2, S 3, S 4, S 6, S 7, S 10, S 19, were discussed by many and relevant case law frequently used to evaluate their effectiveness. • Against this backdrop, candidates then considered whether or not a Bill of Rights would be an improvement or a backward step on the current situation. • Other candidates focused less on the historical development of human rights protection, instead answering the question from the perspective of the Bill of Rights. • This was similarly creditworthy, when done well. However it was difficult to get into the top mark bands without an evaluation of the criticisms of the provisions of the HRA that would inevitably be addressed by a BOR.
Section A Human Rights Question 2 Analyse and evaluate whether the tort of breach of confidence provides an adequate solution to the problem of media intrusion in the lives of ordinary citizens. [50] This question was far less popular than question One. • Stronger responses considered the development of the law in this area with reference to relevant case law such as Coco v Clarke, Campbell and Venables and Thompson. • Candidates also tended to frame their answers with reference to the conflict between ECHR articles 8 and 10. In fact the strongest responses framed their evaluation in these terms. • Weaker responses (and there were a number of these) provided a vague overview of the law with no reference to authority. These also tended not to mention article 8 ECHR which was really critical to the answer. • It was important to focus on the evaluation required by the question – i. e. media intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens. • This evaluation was required throughout and centres are reminded of the need to ensure candidates develop written skills to support the evaluation required by these questions.
Section B Contract Law Question 3 Analyse and evaluate the importance of the doctrine of privity of contract [50] • This was a relatively straightforward question on privity of contract and responses tended to be in the mid to high range. • As was the case under the old specification, the contract law option is a less popular choice for centres. This question was the more popular of the two contract options. • Pleasingly, answers were mostly well structured and progressed logically through the key issues, with most candidates starting with an overview of the doctrine and then progressing to consider the common law exceptions. • Overall, there was decent citation of authority including the Road Traffic Act, Dunlop v Selfridge, Dunlop v Lambert, Tulk and Jackson v Horizon Holidays amongst others. • Evaluation required by the question was relatively straightforward, requiring an assessment of the importance of the doctrine. • Candidates are reminded of the need to evaluate throughout and to make reference to the question wording.
Section B Contract Law Question 4 Analyse and evaluate how well the law on economic duress protects a party from unfair pressure from another party. [50] • This was the less popular choice on the contract option. • Interestingly a significant minority of candidates confused this question with one on the criminal defence of duress and consequently scored no marks. • Centres should ensure candidates are familiar with the rubric and layout of the paper including clarity on which options their centre has studied. • This question had a narrow focus and should have been relatively straightforward but, overall, it was answered weaker than question 3 and had the lowest facility factor on Unit 4.
Section C Criminal Law Question 5 Analyse and evaluate the extent to which loss of control can provide a defence to a charge of murder. [50] • The overall standard of responses to this question was somewhat disappointing, particularly as it was a straightforward question with a relatively narrow focus. Most now use CJA 2009 except for where comparing the old and new defence. • Reference to S 54 and S 55 was scant, as was detail on the qualifying triggers • Many candidates appeared very confused by the limitations of the objective test under S 54(1)(c). Consequently, lack of explanation of such key aspects of the defence prevented them for progressing to evaluation worthy of the top mark bands. • Quite a number of candidates explained in detail the law on murder which wasted valuable time. • Main focus should have been on the defence of loss of control and therefore answers which focused mainly on the offence of murder did not attract much credit. • Candidates should focus on the precise question set and evaluation should be focused on that.
Section C Criminal Law Question 6 Analyse and evaluate the extent to which the law relating to bail contains ample safeguards to ensure that the public is not put at risk from suspected offenders. [50] • This was by far the more popular question in the section on criminal law. Candidates needed to discuss both police and court bail. • It was good to see frequent reference to the 28 day limit on police bail in the Policing and Crime Act 2017. • Many candidates provided a bail ‘timeline’ to reflect how the law has had to change in response to circumstances and evaluating the impact of the provisions, e. g. S 14, S 18 and S 19 CJA 2003, LASPO 2012 “no real prospect” test. • Cases such as Vass were noted by the majority of candidates. Commendably Art 5 and Art 6 rights were mentioned by many candidates which would perhaps not have been the case a few years ago. • Weaker candidates made no reference to PACE 1984 or the Bail Act 1976 but simply waffled, although they showed some understanding of the conditions which can be imposed on bail. • In addition, many erroneously commented that a defendant charged with murder would not be granted bail. • Weaker candidates merely provided common sense answers on bail without reference to any legal authority. Citation of the statutory provisions and relevant case law was essential to scoring a high mark in this question.
Improving performance • Candidates need to be encouraged to read the question – there were a lot of answers that missed the focus of the question. • In order to evaluate effectively, candidates must structure their answers with a clear introduction that unpacks the question, a paragraphed main body that evaluates back to the question and a conclusion that draws together the key issues and ‘answers’ the question posed. • Centres should develop writing skills in order to help candidates cope with the demands of these higher order questions. • Cases should not be ‘dumped’ but explained in evaluative terms.
- Slides: 9