L26: Paper 2: Law in Action Technique
Specific techniques for Paper 2 of OCR J271 GCSE Law
Specific techniques for Paper 2 of OCR J271 GCSE Law
Specific techniques for Paper 2 of OCR J271 GCSE Law
For Paper 2: Law in Action Technique, you must know:
Q: What topics does Paper 2 of OCR J271 cover?
Q: How should you approach a negligence scenario in Paper 2?
Q: What is the key difference between Paper 1 and Paper 2 technique?
Q: Why are case authorities particularly important in Paper 2?
Q: How should you handle the optional topics in Section B?
✗ Discussing criminal law principles in a tort question ✓ Tort is civil law — use civil terminology (claimant/defendant, liability, damages, balance of probabilities) not criminal terminology (prosecution, guilty, beyond reasonable doubt)
✗ Forgetting to discuss all three elements of negligence ✓ Every negligence answer must address duty of care, breach and damage — missing any element means the claim cannot succeed and you lose marks
✗ Applying the criminal standard of proof to tort questions ✓ The standard of proof in civil cases is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), not beyond reasonable doubt — this is a fundamental difference from criminal law
✗ Attempting Section B questions on topics not studied ✓ Only answer questions on the two optional topics your school has chosen — answering on a topic you have not studied will almost certainly result in a poor mark
How should you approach a negligence scenario in Paper 2 of OCR J271 GCSE Law? (15 marks)
When approaching a negligence scenario in Paper 2, use the ILAC method systematically. First, identify the Issue: the question is whether the defendant is liable in negligence for the claimant's injuries or loss. Second, state the Law: negligence requires three elements. For duty of care, apply the Caparo v Dickman three-stage test — was the claimant a foreseeable victim (Donoghue v Stevenson), was there a proximate relationship, and is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? For breach, state that the defendant must meet the standard of the reasonable person — what would a reasonable person have done in those circumstances? If the defendant is a professional, the Bolam test applies: the standard is that of a reasonably competent practitioner in that field, though Bolitho adds that the court must be satisfied the professional opinion is logical. For damage, establish factual causation using the 'but for' test — would the damage have occurred but for the defendant's breach? Then check legal causation: is the damage too remote? Under the Wagon Mound test, only damage that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach is recoverable. Third, apply the law to the facts: use every relevant detail from the scenario. For example, if the scenario says the defendant was a doctor who failed to read a patient's notes, apply the Bolam test to the specific facts — a reasonable doctor would have read the notes, so there is a breach. If the claimant was warned of risks but proceeded anyway, consider contributory negligence under the Law Reform Act 1945. Fourth, reach a Conclusion: state whether the defendant is likely liable and what remedies may be available, primarily damages for the injury suffered. Acknowledge any areas of uncertainty in your reasoning.
AO1 (Knowledge & Understanding): Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of paper 2: law in action technique, including key legal rules, principles and concepts relevant to OCR J271.
AO2 (Application): Apply knowledge and understanding of paper 2: law in action technique to legal scenarios and problems, using legal reasoning and analysis.
AO3 (Analysis & Evaluation): Analyse, evaluate and critique legal rules, principles and reform proposals related to paper 2: law in action technique, constructing balanced and supported arguments.
Get the best revision books and guides to boost your grades.