Core principles

Question 1

What are the two aspects of causation?

Answer 1

• Factual causation- the jury must be satisfied that the acts or omissions of the accused were in fact the cause of the relevant consequence.
• Legal causation- it must be established that the acts or omissions of the accused were a legal cause of that consequence.

Question 2

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 2

Factually, it must be proved that ‘but for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did

Question 3

What is the test for legal causation?

Answer 3

the defendant must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence

Question 4

What can break the chain of causation?

Answer 4

• medical negligence
• acts of a third party
• acts of the victim
• thin skull rule
• natural events.

Question 5

The defendant punches the victim and while most people would have sustained a bruise, the victim dies due to having brittle bones.

Which one of the following describes the legal causation issue?

Answer 5

Thin skull rule

Question 6

A woman disagrees with a man. Enraged, the woman grabs a heavy object and uses it to hit the man several times with full force to the head. The man is taken to hospital for treatment. The doctor misreads the man’s notes and administers the wrong medication. The man suffers an allergic reaction and dies from his injuries.

Which of the following statements best explains the woman’s actus reus?

The woman may satisfy the actus reus, as the doctor’s misreading of the notes were not so potent in causing the man’s death and so independent of the woman’s actions that it breaks the chain of causation.

The woman may not satisfy the actus reus, as he was not aware of the man’s medical condition when he attacked him which breaks the chain of causation.

The woman may not satisfy the actus reus, as the man’s medical condition means that he died when an ordinary person would have survived which breaks the chain of causation.

The woman will satisfy the actus reus, as the courts never consider the chain of causation broken due to negligent medical treatment such as the doctor misreading the man’s notes.

The woman may not satisfy the actus reus, as the doctor’s misreading of the notes was so potent in causing the man’s death and so independent of the woman’s actions that it breaks the chain of causation.

Answer 6

The woman may satisfy the actus reus, as the doctor’s misreading of the notes were not so potent in causing the man’s death and so independent of the woman’s actions that it breaks the chain of causation.

Question 7

When can acts of a third party will break the chain of causation?

Answer 7

Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free, deliberate and informed

Question 8

What is the general rule for omissions?

Answer 8

The general rule is that a defendant cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act, as there is no general duty to act to prevent harm

Question 9

What the requirements for crim liability for omissions?

Answer 9

In order to secure a conviction based upon a failure to act, the prosecution must prove that:
i. the crime is one which is capable of being committed by an omission. Some offences can only be committed by an act, e.g. unlawful act manslaughter (R v Lowe);
ii. the accused was under a legal duty to act;
iii. the accused breached that duty;
iv. the breach caused the actus reus of the offence to occur; and
v. should the offence so require, that the accused had the required mens rea.

Question 10

When is there a legal duty to act?

Answer 10

• doctors and patients
• parents and their children
• spouses
• special relationship;
• voluntary assumption of a duty if care;
• contractual duty;
• creating a dangerous situation; and
• public office.

Question 11

A woman starts to look after her elderly uncle who is bed-bound and unable to feed himself. The woman goes on holiday and forgets to feed her uncle and he dies of starvation.

Which one of the following best describes the legal duty to act the woman may be under?

Special relationship

Creating a dangerous situation

Public office

Voluntarily assuming responsibility

Contract

Answer 11

Voluntarily assuming responsibility

Question 12

A parent fails to feed her child. The child dies of starvation.

Which one of the following best describes the legal duty to act the parent may be under?

Public office

Contract

Creating a dangerous situation

Voluntary assumption of responsibility

Special relationship

Answer 12

Special relationship

Question 13

What is recklessness for MR?

Answer 13

the defendant saw a risk of harm, went ahead anyway and the risk was an unjustified one to take

Question 14

What are the two types of intention?

Answer 14

(a) direct intent; and
(b) oblique intent (also known as indirect intent).

Question 15

What is oblique intention?

Answer 15

Oblique intent is where the consequence is not the defendant’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention. The consequence here does not have to be ‘desired’. Indeed, the defendant may even regret that this incidental consequence will occur.

Question 16

When can juries find oblique intention?

Answer 16

• Juries are not entitled to find oblique intent unless they feel sure:
• death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action (objective element); and
• the defendant appreciated that (subjective element), R v Woollin.

Question 17

What is the test for recklessness?

Answer 17

D foresaw a risk of harm and went ahead anyway; and
* in the circumstances known to the defendant, it was unreasonable to take the risk.

Question 18

What is the continuing act theory?

Answer 18

as long as the mens rea takes place at some point during the actus reus continuing to take place this will be enough,

Question 19

What is the one transaction principle?

Answer 19

it will be sufficient that the defendant has the mens rea for the offence at some point during a series of acts

Question 20

What is transferred malice?

Answer 20

the mens rea for the intended harm can be transferred to the actual harm that occurs (Latimer), as long as the mens rea for the offences is the same (Pembliton).

Question 21

What happens if there is a mistake?

Answer 21

while ignorance of the law will not prevent criminal liability (Bailey), the defendant may make a mistake which can mean that the mens rea of the offence is not fulfilled and will escape criminal liability as a result (R v Smith).

Question 22

A man spots a drugs dealer from whom he has stolen a large supply of drugs, in the High Street. Hoping the drugs dealer has not seen him, the man slips into an shop and runs up the stairs to the first floor. The drugs dealer has seen the man, so follows him into the shop and up the stairs. The drugs dealer approaches the man with a large knife, shouting ‘you will learn not to mess with me.’ Cornered, the man jumps out of the window. The man breaks both legs on the pavement below. The actus reus for the offence with which the drugs dealer is charged requires him to have caused serious harm.

Which of the following best explains how the jury will decide whether the drugs dealer has the actus reus for the offence?

If the jury decide that the drug dealer intended to cause the man serious harm with his knife, then the drug dealer will have caused the man serious harm, even though it occurred in a different way than the drug dealer intended

If the jury decide that what the man did was free, deliberate and informed, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm

If the jury decide that what the man did was so independent of the drug dealer’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing serious harm, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm

If the jury decide that what the man did was daft, unexpected and unreasonable, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm

If the jury decide that what the man did was so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm

Answer 22

If the jury decide that what the man did was so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm

he man’s two broken legs constitute serious harm. In order to say that the drug dealer caused the man’s serious harm, he must be the factual and legal cause of that harm. The key issue here is one of legal causation- whether the drug dealer’s act is the operating cause of the man’s broken legs or whether the chain of causation has been broken by the man jumping out of the window (a ‘fright and flight’ case). The question to consider is from R v Roberts which was approved by the Court of Appeal in R v Williams and Davies. Was the victim’s act reasonably foreseeable or was it so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it?
The other answers were incorrect because whether:
- ‘daft, unexpected and unreasonable’- this is not the precise test approved by the Court of Appeal.
- the drug dealer intended to cause serious harm is a mens rea rather than an actus reus issue.
- what the man did was so independent of the drug dealer’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing serious harm- this is the test applied when considering whether medical negligence has broken the chain of causation.
- what the man did was free, deliberate and informed- this is the test applied when considering whether the acts of a third party have broken the chain of causation.

Question 23

A woman crosses a red light on her bicycle and accidentally hits a pedestrian. The pedestrian’s neck is broken and it is doubtful whether he will live. The pedestrian claims damages from the woman. The woman’s solicitor tells her she was negligent and will be liable for several million pounds in damages if the pedestrian survives. If he dies she will have to pay a few thousand pounds as the pedestrian has no dependents. The woman is not covered by insurance so will lose her house and all her savings if the pedestrian survives. She is at an age where she will not be able to buy another house or save much for her retirement. She begins to formulate a plan to smother the pedestrian. Before she can take any action, the pedestrian dies as a result of the injuries sustained in the collision and the woman is pleased he has died.

Which of the following best describes the woman’s liability for murder?

She is guilty because there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea by virtue of this being a series of acts that form one transaction

She is not guilty because there is no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

She is guilty because at the time of the pedestrian’s death the woman had the mens rea of murder

She is not guilty because she does not have the mens rea of murder given she did not put her plan into action

She is guilty because there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea by virtue of the continuing act theory

Answer 23

She is not guilty because there is no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

he actus reus took place at the time of the act (hitting the pedestrian with the bicycle) which ultimately caused death. The mens rea for murder is intention or kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. At the time of hitting the pedestrian, the woman did not have the mens rea of murder.
The other answers were incorrect. The continuing act theory cannot be used as the woman’s act of hitting the pedestrian had finished long before the woman intended the pedestrian’s death. The series of acts theory cannot be used as this is not a case where the woman initially acts with the mens rea and a later act designed to cover up the first act causes death, as in R v Thabo Meli. The woman had only done one act and she did not have the mens rea at that time. Formulating a plan to smother the pedestrian constituted the mens rea of murder, intention to kill, regardless of whether she took any steps to put her plan into action. The actus reus did not take place at the time of the pedestrian’s death.

Question 24

A woman owns a coffee shop in her local town. A new coffee shop has been opened at the other end of the high street which is affecting the woman’s business. Late one night the woman goes to the new coffee shop with a can of petrol. A light shows from a first floor window above the coffee shop and she can see the shadow of a person in that light. However, she is determined to destroy the new coffee shop. She breaks a window, pours petrol through the broken window and then throws in a lighted rag. The man living in the flat above the coffee shop dies in the ensuing fire.

Which of the following question(s) will best assist the jury in determining whether the woman is liable for murder?

Was it virtually certain that someone would die or suffer grievous bodily harm as a result of the defendant’s act?

Was it virtually certain that someone would die or suffer serious harm as a result of the woman’s act and did the woman appreciate that?

Was the woman aware of the risk that someone would die or suffer serious harm as a result of her actions and in the circumstances known to her, was it an unreasonable risk to take?

Was it the woman’s aim or purpose to kill or cause grievous bodily harm?

Was it virtually certain that someone would die or suffer grievous bodily harm as a result of the defendant’s act and would a reasonable person appreciate that?

Answer 24

Was it virtually certain that someone would die or suffer serious harm as a result of the woman’s act and did the woman appreciate that?

Correct. The woman’s direct intention, her aim and purpose, is to destroy the new coffee shop. The jury will be asked to consider oblique intent and this is the test for oblique intent from R v Woollin.
The other answers were incorrect as:
· Misstated the R v Woollin questions regarding oblique intention.
· Applied direct intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when this would not be the best question to help determine the woman’s liability for murder in this case.
· Applied the test of recklessness and you cannot commit murder recklessly.

Question 25

A man lives alone and is reliant upon the care provided to him by his niece following an injury at work he suffered a year ago. The niece has cared for the man throughout this year. This includes bringing the man food and collecting his medications from the pharmacy. The niece accepts money from her uncle for these items but does not accept his offer of payment for her time in doing this. The niece becomes very busy at work and does not call on her uncle as often as she used to, which means that the man only receives food irregularly and has been without medication for a week. One night the niece notices that her uncle has become unwell and assists him into bed to rest. The man dies in the night. Which of the following best describes the niece’s liability for the man’s death? The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had a special relationship to him. The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards him. The niece is not liable for the man’s death because there can be no liability for an omission. The niece is liable for the man’s death as she has a contractual duty to her uncle. The niece is liable for the man’s death as she has created a dangerous situation in leaving him without medical assistance.

Answer 25

The niece may be liable for the man’s death as she had voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards him. Correct. There is generally no duty to act to prevent harm, R v Smith (William). However, the niece has voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards the man by caring for him for the last year and therefore may be liable for his death, R v Stone and Dobinson. While the other options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect. A defendant can be liable for an omission if they have a legal duty to act. The relationship between an uncle and a niece is likely to not be sufficiently proximate for a duty of care to arise by virtue of the special relationship duty. Although the niece accepts money to reimburse her for the items she collects, she has refused her uncle’s payment for her time and so there is no indication of a contract of employment. Finally, this scenario is more analogous to the voluntary assumption of a duty of care cases, than creating a dangerous situation as illustrated by the case of Miller for example.

Question 26

A brother and sister have a fight, during which the brother is knocked unconscious. The sister runs off. Soon after, a gang member appears and stabs the brother in the chest. He dies from the stab wound. Has the sister caused her brother’s death, as required for the actus reus of murder? She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s act is a free, deliberate and informed act She has caused her brother’s death as she must take her brother as she finds him, with a gang member that wants to kill him She has caused her brother’s death because there can be more than one cause She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s action was not reasonably foreseeable She has caused her brother’s death because but for the sister rendering her brother unconscious, the gang member would not have been able to stab him

Answer 26

She has not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s act is a free, deliberate and informed act be the cause of her brother’s death she must be the factual and legal cause. This question is about legal causation and whether the sister is the operating cause of her brother’s death. The chain of causation is broken by the act of the gang member. It was held in R v Pagett that the chain of causation will be broken by a free, deliberate and informed act of a third party. The other answers were incorrect. The ‘reasonably foreseeable’ test is the one applied when considering whether acts of the victim will break the chain of causation. The answers that stated the sister caused her brother’s death overlooked whether the gang member’s act broke the chain of causation: · While the sister is the factual cause of her brother’s death, she must also be the legal cause. · It is true that the sister’s act need not be the only cause of her brother’s death, it is enough that it is a substantial cause. However, the sister’s act must also be an operating cause. · While the sister must take her brother as she finds him, the thin skull rule tends to be applied to issues such as a pre-existing infirmity or peculiarity.

Question 27

Exceptions to the general rule that there is no liability for omissions?

Answer 27

∘a statutory duty to act; ∘a contractual duty to act; ∘a special relationship between the victim and the defendant; ∘a duty based on a voluntary assumption of care; and ∘a duty that arises because the defendant, having created and become aware of a dangerous situation, fails to take reasonable steps to avert it.

Question 28

Legal causation test?

Answer 28

*the defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the consequence.

Question 29

Does the culpable act need to be the sole cause?

Answer 29

There may be multiple causes of the particular result and it does not matter that the defendant’s act was just one of these. e.g. In R v Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504, the defendant was a foreman of a track- laying crew and, as a result of misreading the train timetable, the track was up at a time when a train was due. The resulting accident caused death. Although the signalman and train driver were also at fault, the defendant could not rely on this to avoid liability.

Question 30

3 ways in which the chain of causation can be broken?

Answer 30

There are three possible ways in which the so- called chain of causation may be broken: *where the victim acts in a particular way; *where an act by some other person intervenes between the defendant’s conduct and the result; or *where some event occurs between the defendant’s conduct and the end result.

Question 31

Exceptions to the general rule that if the victim does something after the initial act or omission of the accused but before the consequence occurs, and that intervention is ‘free, deliberate and informed’ (voluntary), then legal causation will not be established?

Answer 31

where the victim tries to escape and where they commit suicide.

Question 32

How do courts assess when V's escape breaks the chain of causation?

Answer 32

the court will take into account: * whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be expected of a victim in that situation; * whether the victim’s response is proportionate to the threat; or * whether it is so ‘daft’ as to be a voluntary act; and * the fact that the victim is acting in ‘the agony of the moment’ without time for thought or deliberation. e.g. In R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95, the victim jumped out of a moving car as a result of the defendant’s unwanted sexual advances. The defendant was held liable for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm despite the injuries having been caused in part by the victim’s own conduct.

Question 33

How do the courts assess whether suicide broke the chain of causation?

Answer 33

he question was whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would commit suicide as a result of their injuries

Question 34

How is third party intervention breaking the chain of causation assessed?

Answer 34

A defendant will not be liable if a third party’s intervening act is either free, deliberate and informed, or is not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 35

How is medical negligence assessed for breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 35

The court held that even if negligent medical treatment is the immediate cause of the victim’s death, it should not break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s actions and so potent in causing death that it makes the contribution made by the accused’s acts insignificant.

Question 36

How are natural events assessed for breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 36

A natural event (an ‘Act of God’) may break the chain of causation with the foreseeability of the subsequent event being the determining factor for liability.

Question 37

Question 1 A defendant is charged with murder after stabbing the victim, her partner, during an argument about money. The defendant was arrested at the scene with the bloodied knife in her hand. The defendant intends to rely upon the partial defence of loss of control. Which of the following best describes how the legal and evidential burdens would operate in this case, and what standard of proof applies? A The legal and evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant murdered the victim and this is likely to be satisfied by the defendant’s arrest at the scene with the knife. There is no burden on the defendant. B The legal and evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. The jury must be satisfied of this on the balance of probabilities and this is likely due to the defendant’s arrest at the scene with the knife. C The legal burden of proof and the evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. There is also an evidential burden on the defendant in relation to the partial defence of loss of control that may be satisfied by the defendant giving evidence. D The legal and evidential burden is on the defence to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim when suffering from a loss of control and the defendant will need to give evidence at the trial to establish this. E Once the prosecution have provided evidence of the arrest and the bloodied knife, the legal burden of proof moves to the defence to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of murder.

Answer 37

C The legal burden of proof and the evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. There is also an evidential burden on the defendant in relation to the partial defence of loss of control that may be satisfied by the defendant giving evidence. The correct option is C which accurately describes how the legal burden and standard of proof operate on the prosecution and how the evidential burden applies to the prosecution. The answer also correctly states that there is an evidential burden on the defendant in relation to her defence of loss of control. The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant murdered the victim, so both options D and E are wrong. Option A is wrong as the defendant wishes to rely upon the partial defence of loss of control and so she has an evidential burden in this regard, which could be satisfied by her giving evidence in court. Thus, it is not correct to say there is no burden on the defence. Option B is wrong because the jury must be satisfied of the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probabilities.

Question 38

Question 2 A man works as a paramedic for the local health authority. He and a woman are living in the same rented accommodation with shared communal areas. One evening, they are in the kitchen together when they have an argument, during which the man shoves the woman. She stumbles backwards, falls and hits her head on the corner of the kitchen table. The man sees her unconscious on the floor, panics and runs out of the flat. Shortly afterwards, a total stranger who is delivering leaflets, glances through the window and sees the woman still unconscious on the floor. The stranger does not want to get involved, so he walks away. Two hours later, the woman regains consciousness and just manages to telephone the emergency services. She is rushed to hospital but dies of her injuries because she did not receive treatment more quickly. Which of the following best describes the man’s liability for the woman’s death? A The man is not liable for the woman’s death because, although his act of shoving her is a substantial cause of the death, it is not the only cause. B The man is liable for his failure to get help for the woman because he has a special relationship with her. C The man is liable for his failure to summon help because, having created a dangerous situation of which he is aware, he is under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the results of his own actions. D The man is liable for his omission to act because he has a contractual duty as a paramedic to assist anyone who has been injured. E The man is not liable for his omission because the woman would have lived had she received medical treatment more quickly. The stranger is responsible for her death because he does nothing when he sees the woman on the floor and this breaks the chain of causation.

Answer 38

Option C is the best answer as it correctly describes the man’s liability. Option A is wrong because the man’s act of shoving the woman does not need to be the only cause provided it is a substantial and operating cause of her death; it is here as the woman dies of her injuries. The delay in receiving treatment does not break the chain of causation. Option B is unlikely to be correct and it certainly does not ‘best describe’ the man’s liability because living in a shared arrangement would not count as a special relationship for the purposes of the criminal law. Option D is wrong as, although the man is employed as a paramedic, he is not working at the time of the incident so his contractual duties do not apply. Option E is wrong because the general rule is that there is no liability for omissions unless the defendant falls into one of the exceptions. The stranger is not under a duty to act and is not criminally liable at all.

Question 39

Question 3 The defendant is angry with the victim as he has just discovered that the victim has been messaging the defendant’s girlfriend over social media. They have an argument at college during which the defendant produces a knife and stabs the victim in the stomach. The victim is rushed to hospital by ambulance but subsequently dies and the defendant is charged with his murder. The defendant argues that he is not liable because of an intervening event. Which of the following events is most likely to break the chain of causation? A On the way to the hospital, the car in front of the ambulance stops unexpectedly when it breaks down, causing the ambulance to collide with it. The victim dies while waiting for a second ambulance to attend. B The victim is kept waiting for several hours at the Accident and Emergency Department of his local hospital and dies from complications arising from the stab wound. C The victim receives prompt medical treatment, but dies a month later after falling into a coma as a result of a carelessly administered anaesthetic during surgery. D The victim refuses to accept medical treatment because of his religious beliefs and dies from the stab wound, when he would not have done otherwise. E The victim is in hospital recovering from successful surgery for his injuries when a tree falls onto the hospital ward during a violent winter storm and kills him in his bed.

Answer 39

Option E is the correct answer as the victim dies as a result of an unforeseen and extraordinary natural event. The chain of causation is not broken in option A because the action of the motorist’s car breaking down was not free, deliberate and informed (voluntary). Although it may be argued that the event was not reasonably foreseeable, this is unlikely to succeed as road traffic accidents are a common occurrence. The defendant remains liable for the victim’s death in option B as the stab wound is the substantial and operating cause of his demise (he dies from complications arising from the original injury). The negligent medical treatment which the victim receives in option C may not be enough to break the chain of causation as it has to be so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing death that the contribution made by the defendant is rendered insignificant. In this instance, the defendant’s act of stabbing the victim is not ‘insignificant’ as without this, he would not have needed an operation at all. The victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment in option D is not an intervening event because the defendant must take his victim as he finds him and this includes the ‘whole man’ and not just the ‘physical man’.

Question 40

The legal test for indirect intention?

Answer 40

(1) Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from the defendant’s act (or omission)? (2) Did the defendant appreciate the consequences were virtually certain to occur?

Question 41

Test for recklessness?

Answer 41

* The risk that the defendant takes must be an unjustified one (objective). * The test is whether this defendant foresees that risk (of whatever is required by the specific offence) and goes on to take it (subjective). * The subjective test for recklessness applies to any criminal offence in which recklessness forms part of the necessary mens rea.

Question 42

Exceptions to the general rule that actus reus and mens rea of an offence must coincide in time in order for the defendant to be guilty of an offence?

Answer 42

The continuing act principle applies where the defendant’s act satisfies the actus reus of an offence and, at some point, they also have the necessary mens rea for that offence. * The single transaction principle is relevant where there is a series of events and, from the outset, the defendant is involved in criminal activity. Provided the eventual act that causes death is part of the same sequence of events as the initial act, it does not matter that there is a time lapse between the two

Question 43

Basic intent crimes?

Answer 43

hose which can be committed either intentionally or recklessly.

Question 44

Specific intent crimes?

Answer 44

one that can only be committed intentionally

Question 45

Offences of ulterior intent?

Answer 45

there are offences where the mens rea required goes beyond the actus reus of that offence so the prosecution have to establish an ‘extra’ element of mens rea against the defendant before they can secure a conviction e.g. Burglary: TA 1968, s 9(1)(a) and aggravated crime damage

Question 46

Question 1 A woman sets fire to her offices in order to claim the insurance money. Unfortunately, one of her employees has stayed late to finish his work and he dies in the fire. The woman is horrified to find that she has killed the employee but accepts that she did not check the building before setting light to it. She also admits she is aware that staff do occasionally stay beyond the official working hours and that she was aware at the time there was a slight risk this may be the case, but she cannot recall anyone having been in the offices as late as 11pm before. Which of the following best describes the woman’s mens rea for her employee’s death? A The woman has direct intent to kill her employee. B The woman indirectly intends to kill her employee. C The woman is reckless as to causing the death of her employee as she foresaw the risk of death as a consequence of her actions. D The woman is reckless as to causing the death of her employee as a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of death due to her actions. E The woman has no liability for the death of her employee.

Answer 46

Option C is correct. For recklessness, the risk must be unjustified and it is here, as there is no social utility in setting fire to premises. An awareness of even the smallest risk of causing death would be sufficient to satisfy the mens rea. Although employees rarely stay late, they do on occasion and the defendant did not check the offices were empty. Option A is wrong as the woman’s direct intent – her aim or purpose – was financial and she had no desire to kill her employee. Option B is also wrong. For indirect intent, the consequence (the death) must be virtually certain and this objective test may be satisfied. However, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the woman appreciated this. Her evidence is that she cannot recall anyone having been in the offices at 11pm previously. Option D is wrong as the test for recklessness is subjective and so what the reasonable person would have foreseen is irrelevant. Option E is wrong as the woman is criminally liable for the employee’s death.

Question 47

Question 2 A man is driving his car when it collides with the vehicle in front which has braked suddenly for no reason. The police are called and carry out a breath test to check whether the man has been drinking. He is shocked to discover that he is over the legal drink driving limit for alcohol and cannot understand why, given that he only drank orange juice at lunchtime. That evening, the man’s friend confesses that she added vodka to his drink as she did not realise he had driven to the pub. The man is charged with careless driving and driving with excess alcohol. Which statement best describes the man’s likely criminal liability? A Not guilty of careless driving, but guilty of driving with excess alcohol. B Not guilty of either careless driving or driving with excess alcohol. C Guilty of both careless driving and driving with excess alcohol. D Guilty of careless driving, but not guilty of driving with excess alcohol. E Not guilty of careless driving and no charges may be brought for driving with excess alcohol where a drink has been spiked.

Answer 47

The correct answer is option A. The prosecution are unlikely to prove that the man was guilty of careless driving. To do so, they would need to prove that he was negligent, namely, that his driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. This is unlikely because the collision was caused when the vehicle in front braked suddenly without warning. For this reason, options C and D are wrong. However, the man is likely to be convicted of driving with excess alcohol despite the fact he believed he was drinking orange juice and even if his drink was spiked because this is an offence of strict liability. Thus, options B and D are wrong. Option E is wrong as there is no rule that states a person may not be charged in circumstances where their drink was spiked.

Question 48

Question 3 A defendant throws a punch towards a man after they argue outside a pub, but he hits the woman beside the man instead. The impact is such that she is knocked unconscious and slumps back against the garden wall. The defendant picks the woman up but, as he tries to move her back into the pub, she slips from his grasp. She bangs her head on the pavement and dies from a fractured skull. Which of the following statements correctly describes the defendant’s liability for the woman’s death? A The doctrine of transferred malice does not apply because the defendant’s intention to punch the man cannot be transferred to the woman. B There is no need to consider transferred malice because the defendant punched the woman and the mens rea of assault includes recklessness. C The doctrine of transferred malice would apply if the man had intended to punch the wall rather than hit a person. D The man is not liable for the woman’s death because the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide in time. E The man is not liable for the woman’s death because the application of unlawful force and the act causing the woman’s death are separate in time.

Answer 48

B is the correct option. Where the offence may be committed recklessly, there is no need to consider transferred malice as the defendant is only required to foresee the risk of any harm to anyone. Option A is wrong as the doctrine of transferred malice will apply. The defendant’s intention to punch the man may be transferred to the woman as he commits the actus reus of assault against her and this is the same offence which he intends for the man. Option C is also wrong. Malice may be transferred from person to person, or from object to object, but not where the actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences. In this example, the man commits assault but intends criminal damage. Option D does not correctly describe the man’s liability. Where a combination of events has led to the unlawful outcome, the courts have interpreted these consecutive events as a ‘single transaction’. This is a way of circumventing the requirement for the actus reus and the mens rea to coincide in time. Option E is wrong as the unlawful application of force (hitting the woman) and the eventual act causing death (dropping her) are part of the same sequence of events, so the fact there was a lapse in time between the two does not enable the man to escape liability.

Question 49

A man attacks a victim at a nightclub, violently banging the victim's head backwards against a wall and intending to cause the victim really serious bodily harm. The victim is badly injured and goes to the doorman who works at the nightclub to ask for help. The doorman thinks the victim is drunk and throws her out of the building. Soon afterwards the victim is found lying on the pavement and is taken to hospital. Her condition is very serious due to massive brain damage, sustained as a result of the man’s actions together with some deterioration in her condition while she is lying on the pavement. She is placed on a life support machine which is switched off when it becomes clear she has suffered brain stem death. The man is charged with murder. Which statement best explains the man’s potential liability for murder? A. He cannot be found guilty of murder because the doorman’s actions contributed to the victim’s death. B. He cannot be found guilty of murder because death was not an inevitable consequence of his actions. C. He cannot be found guilty of murder because the victim only died as a result of the life support machine being switched off. D. He can be found guilty of murder because he is an accomplice to the doorman’s actions which resulted in the victim’s death. E. He can be found guilty of murder because his conduct was a substantial and operative cause of the victim’s death.

Answer 49

E - He can be found guilty of murder because his conduct was a substantial and operative cause of the victim’s death