I will appreciate if you help me structure and respond to this question below, In my previous TMA, I was asked to pay particular attention to my intro and conclusion. In view of the previous tutor on this platform, I was wondering if you can write up the intro and conclusion on this please.

EMA

End-of-module assignment (EMA)

The cut-off date for this EMA is 12:00 (UK local time)4 June 2024. This is the latest date by which your EMA must reach your tutor. To see how this fits in with your study of the module overall, see your study planner. You must submit your EMA using the online TMA/EMA service.

Before attempting to answer this EMA you should review the separateEMA guidance, which contains information about a number of resources to help you complete this EMA.

If you have not already done so, you may also find it helpful to view the online recordings of the following 'How to ...' sessions, available in the online tutorial room:

• How to reference at Level 2
• How to think critically
• How to make a written argument
• How to answer a problem question
• How to read and use case law
• How to carry out your own research.

The EMA is worth 40% of your overall score for the module. For more information on module assessment see theSection 3.2of theModule Guide.

This EMA consists of two questions, each worth 50 marks. You should answer both questions. Your answer should be written in your own words.

The word limit for this EMA is a maximum of 3000 words. Any words over this limit will not be credited, in accordance withSection 9of theLaw undergraduate guide. You should use up to 1500 words for Question 1 and up to 1500 words for Question 2. Remember that all the words you use to answer the question, including quotations and citations, but not footnotes, count.

You must provide a reference list and your word count at the end of your work. The reference list is not included in the word count.

You can find further advice about referencing and plagiarism on theReferencing and plagiarismpage of the Library website. This includes links to:

• Cite Them Right online, a practical guide to referencing that is commonly used by UK universities
• a downloadable and printableQuick guide to Cite Them Right referencing for Law modules.

Before you start work on your EMA, readGuidance on writing your assignment, including especially 'Application of assessment guidance'.

Question 1

Before answering Question 1 and Question 2, use a legal database in the OU Library to find and read the case ofR v Jogee[2016] UKSC 8. You should use this to support your understanding of the elements of the relevant law for Question 1, and to support your evaluation of the law for Question 2. For each question, you are expected to reference at least one source from your OU unit material, as well as carrying out your own independent research, beyond the module materials, into the applicable law to support your answer, using the OU Library and its legal databases.

You should use up to 1500 words for answering this question.

Question 1 is a problem question. You should use the IRAC method for answering law problem questions as set out inSection 6.1.4of theLaw undergraduate guide.

Read the scenario and answer the problem question that follows.

Lola and Jeff have been in relationship for two years. At the start of the relationship, things were good, and Lola enjoyed going on dates with Jeff, who bought her presents and treated her very well. After a year of dating, Lola agreed to move in with Jeff. However, after this, things started to change. Jeff became very controlling and possessive of Lola. He persuaded her to give up her job as an accountant, saying he would take care of everything but then he only gave Lola a small allowance every week for essential items like food. Jeff began isolating Lola from her family and friends, claiming they were a bad influence on her. Jeff also became quick to anger, and prone to outbursts, telling Lola she was worthless and putting her down. Due to Jeff's behaviour, Lola began to feel increasingly isolated and fearful. She became so distressed by the situation that she developed anxiety and could not bring herself to leave the house. One morning, in despair, Lola called her sister Ramona and confided everything in her.

Ramona was shocked to hear of Jeff's behaviour towards Lola. Lola planned on going to the police and reporting Jeff, but Ramona advised against this saying she would 'sort it'. That evening Ramona met with two of her friends, Hubert and Bianca. They agreed that they would go together to meet Jeff outside of the gym that he went to every night. They intended to tell him that they knew about this bad treatment of Lola, and they planned on 'teaching him a lesson' by 'giving him a few bruises'. The next morning, however, Bianca got cold feet and pulled out of the plan. Ramona and Hubert went to gym that evening and waited for Jeff to leave. Unbeknownst to Hubert, Ramona had a penknife in her pocket, which she put there 'just in case' it was needed.

Jeff left the gym at 10.30 p.m. He was walking towards his car when Ramona and Hubert approached him. Before he could react, they started to throw punches at Jeff, forcing him to the ground and beating him up. In the process, Jeff suffered extensive bruising and chipped a tooth. Sickened by Jeff's treatment of her sister and seeing red, Ramona pulled her knife out of her pocket and plunged it into Jeff's chest. Hubert is shocked and surprised and turns to run away, quickly followed by Ramona.

Jeff was seriously injured and died of his wound before an ambulance arrives.

Advise Jeff, Hubert and Bianca of their likely criminal liability for any offences arising from their actions.

You are instructed to advise three parties in respect of their possible criminal liability for any offences that may arise from their actions.

When answering this question you should:

• use the IRAC method for answering law problem questions as set out inSection 6.1.4of theLaw undergraduate guide
• reference at least one source from your OU unit material
• carry out some of your own research on the applicable law to support your answer beyond the OU material (units and textbook); however, youare not requiredto consider offences you have not studied on the W203 module units
• structure your answer correctly as a problem answer and advise each relevant party separately, in turn
• examine all of the elements that need to be proven for any criminal offences you think are relevant to the parties you are asked to advise
• state the law in relation to these elements and apply it to the facts in the scenario, identifying which facts help to prove that each element has or has not been fulfilled
• reach a conclusion as to the likely liability of the parties you are asked to advise, based on your analysis of the relevant offences.

When advising Jeff, you should consider relevant non-fatal offences against the person and advise him as if he were still alive and therefore subject to potential criminal liability.

When advising Hubert and Bianca, you should consider all relevant offences including inchoate offences and secondary liability.

You should not advise any other parties in the scenario.

(50 marks)

Note:before you complete this EMA you should readGuidance on writing your assignment.

Question 2

You should use up to 1500 words for answering this question.

Answer the following question in the style of an essay, using the guidance inSection 6.1.3of theLaw undergraduate guide.

Evaluate the legal impact on themens rearequirement for joint enterprise liability arising from the decision inR v Jogee[2016] UKSC 8. Do you think the law in this area is now satisfactory?

You should carry out some of your own independent research into the relevant law to answer this question, using theOU Library. You should also reference at least one source from your OU unit material.

This essay question requires you to:

• concisely explain themens rearequirement for complicity in a criminal offence and the legal implications of theJogeecase
• analyse whether theJogeecase modifies themens rearequirement for joint enterprise liability, and if so, how it does this
• evaluate the merits of the relevant law followingJogeein relation to the pre-existing legal position
• throughout the entire essay, develop a reasoned argument about whether you think themens rearequirement for joint enterprise liability is now satisfactory.

(50 marks)

Note:before you complete this EMA you should readGuidance on writing your assignment.

Learning outcomes

The EMA tests the following learning outcomes.

Knowledge:

• explain the law relating to relevant aspects of complicity, inchoate offences and fatal and non-fatal offences against the person.

Skills:

• conduct independent research (beyond OU material: units and textbook) and use the findings
• analyse and apply legal authority in a logical and coherent way to advise named parties
• evaluate the law to present a reasoned argument
• present answers clearly and concisely in an appropriate form, using correct referencing.

Guidance on writing your assignment

TheLaw undergraduate guidecontains definitions of words used in EMA questions. It also gives advice on referencing inSection 8. You should read this guide before attempting the EMA. You should also reflect on your feedback from previous TMAs to help you with answering the problem question and the essay.

This EMA is mainly designed to test your knowledge of elements of Units 12, 13, 16 and 19, but may draw on other units looking at the key principles and theories underpinning criminal law.

In your criminal law textbook (Kyd et al., 2020), you may find it helpful to review the following sections to support your understanding of the law:

• Homicide - Chapter 8, Part III
• Offences against the person - Chapter 7, Part I
• Inchoate offences - Chapter 5, Part III
• Participation in Crime - Chapter 6.

Your answer should be written in standard English. It should not include any sort of list. You should not write in the first or second person (for example, 'I', 'we', 'my', 'our', 'you', or 'your'); instead you should use phrases such as 'A person is ...' or 'This answer will ...'.

Your answer should be written in Arial, 12 pt with 1.5 line spacing. Your name and PI number should be included in a header: seeSection 7.3of theLaw undergraduate guide.

Question 1

The question requires you to find and read a case, reference at least one source from your OU unit material, conduct your own independent research, and answer a problem question based on the scenario provided, using the IRAC method. You should advise three named parties as to their likely criminal liability, based on the analysis and application to the facts of the elements of relevant criminal offences.

The recommended word limit for Question 1 is 1500 words, and you should allocate your words carefully between the people you are asked to advise to ensure that you have covered all of the relevant issues for each.

You will need to show that you are able to structure an answer properly using the IRAC method, identify relevant legal issues arising from a set of facts, accurately state the appropriate law with reference to authority, and apply the law to specific facts to reach well-reasoned conclusions.

You should supplement your answer to the question with your own research into the relevant law to develop your answer, using the OU library.

Question 2

This question requires you to conduct your own independent research, as well as referencing at least one source from your OU unit material, in order to answer an essay question about the law relating to secondary liability/participation in criminal offences, specifically themens reaof complicity with respect to joint enterprise offences.

You are required to write an essay that shows understanding of the relevant areas of the criminal law as well as demonstrating skills of analysis, evaluation and making a reasoned argument.

You should aim to define the key legal terms relevant to the question, explain the relevant law, analyse the legal position and evaluate the merits of the law while, from your introduction and throughout your essay, making an argument that answers the question set. You should critically evaluate the impact of theJogeecase on themens reain joint enterprise secondary participation cases, with regard to how the law has changed and the merits of this change. Your argument should focus on whether, in light of your evaluation, the law is now satisfactory, based on your understanding of the purpose of the criminal law and the appropriate limits of criminal liability.

You should structure and style your answer as an essay, including an introduction and conclusion. You may wish to include headings but should do so only selectively and when they add to the structure and flow of your answer. For guidance on the structure of a law essay, seeSection 6.1.3of theLaw undergraduate guide.

You should use your essay to present a coherent, well-reasoned answer to the question asked, supported by evidence. You should choose the evidence and arguments you use selectively and carefully, ensuring you are always focused on answering the question asked. You should write in your own words. Any quotations should be properly cited in-text.

When writing your essay you should:

• structure it appropriately in essay form, including an introduction and conclusion
• make an argument throughout that answers the question
• use evidence to support the points you make
• address points and evidence both for and against your argument
• link every point you make back to the question and connect each to your overall argument.