Crime MCQS Flashcards
Which of the following is not a key part of the criminal justice process as discussed in this element?
A) Arrest
B) Appeal
C) Trial
D) The prevention of crime
E) Plea
D) The prevention of crime
(Correct. The key elements of the criminal justice process discussed in this element were: arrest/ requisition, plea, trial, sentencing and appeals. The prevention of crime is more of a matter for criminology studies but does become a factor when sentencing someone found guilty of a crime)
All of the following bodies can bring prosecutions. However, which of the following is the main body which brings prosecutions in England and Wales?
A) Health and safety executive
B) Transport for London
C) Crown Prosecution Service
D) Private individuals
C) Crown Prosecution Service
(Correct. Other bodies such as Transport for London, railway operators and the Health and Safety Executive prosecute their own matters. Private individuals can bring prosecutions too but the CPS has the right to intervene and take over such cases)
What classification of offence is murder?
A) Indictable-only
B) Summary only
C) Either-way
A) Indictable-only
(This is the correct answer. Indictable-only offences like murder are the most serious offences)
Which one of the following best describes the definition of crime?
A) Immoral behaviour
B) Public wrongs
C) Public morals
B) Public wrongs
(This is the correct answer. Public wrongs are society’s interpretation of right and wrong behaviour)
Which one of the following best describes the objectives of criminal law?
A) Resolve disputes between the parties
B) To sue the other party
C) To punish and deter
C) To punish and deter
(This is the correct answer. These are two possible objectives of criminal law, others include rehabilitation and protection of the public)
Which of the following is not a crime?
A) Extra marital sex
B) Inflicting grievous bodily harm
C) Marital rape
A) Extra marital sex
(Correct- this is not a crime. We used this example to illustrate the difference between what some people might consider immoral and a crime)
Which one of the following best describes what criminal liability is concerned with?
A) Sentencing offenders
B) Criminal offences and legal analysis
C) The criminal justice system
D) Allegation, trial and conviction
B) Criminal offences and legal analysis
(This is the correct answer. Criminal liability is concerned with identifying criminal offences then applying knowledge of the elements of criminal offences to the specific facts)
Which of the following best describes the usual burden and standard of proof in criminal law?
A) The burden of proof is on the defence and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
B) The burden of proof is on the defence and the standard is on the balance of probabilities
C) The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
D) The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is on the balance of probabilities
E) The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond doubt
C) The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
(Correct. On rare occasions (e.g. the defence of diminished responsibility) the burden shifts to the defence and when this happens the standard is on the balance of probabilities)
Can the same action result in criminal and civil liability?
A) No
B) Yes
B) Yes
(Correct- the example we gave was that the crime of battery can also be a tort of trespass to the person)
Which one of the following elements is not part of the criminal liability equation?
A) Absence of a valid defence
B) Actus reus
C) Motive
D) Mens rea
C) Motive
(This is the correct answer. Motive is not required for criminal liability (Chandler v DPP))
The Theft Act 1968, s 1 provides:
‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’
What is the actus reus of the offence of theft?
A) Property, belonging to another
B) Dishonestly, appropriates, property
C) Appropriates, property, belonging to another
D) Dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
E) Appropriates, property, intention of permanently depriving
C) Appropriates, property, belonging to another
(This is the correct answer. These actus reus elements all have specific meanings defined in statute and case law)
The Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(1) states:
‘A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.’
What is the actus reus of the offence of basic criminal damage?
A) Intending or being reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another
B) Destroys, damages, property, without lawful excuse
C) Intending or being reckless
D) Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
E) Destroys, damages, property
D) Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
(This is the correct answer. These actus reus elements all have specific meanings defined in statute and case law)
Which of the following is the definition of a result crime?
A) Require a legal obligation to act which if breached could result in criminal liability
B) Require the need for some particular surrounding circumstance
C) Require certain acts to have been committed
D) Require a guilty action or omission
E) Require that the conduct of the defendant causes a particular consequence
E) Require that the conduct of the defendant causes a particular consequence
(This is the correct answer. Examples of result crimes include murder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm)
Which of the following is the test of factual causation?
A) The defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm
B) The defendant’s act must be a cause which is more than de minimis, more than minimal
C) The consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act
D) The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence
E) ‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did
E) ‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did
(This is the correct answer. Sometimes this is referred to as the ‘but for’ test of factual causation)
Which one of the following is a key authority for the principle of legal causation that the defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm?
A) R v Benge
B) R v Marchant
C) R v Hughes
D) R v Dyson
E) R v White
C) R v Hughes
(This is the correct answer. The case clarified that the defendant’s act need not be the only or the principal cause, just more than de minimis)
Which one of the following is a key authority for the test of factual causation?
A) R v Hughes
B) R v Cato
C) R v Cheshire
D) R v Benge
E) R v White
E) R v White
(This is the correct answer. This case is the key authority for the ‘but for’ case)
Result crimes relate to what aspect of the criminal liability equation?
A) Absolute liability
B) Actus reus
C) Strict liability
D) Mens rea
E) Absence of a valid defence
B) Actus reus
(This is the correct answer. Whether the defendant has caused a particular result is a question of actus reus)
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?
A) Acts of the victim
B) Acts of a third party
C) Thin skull rule
D) Poor medical treatment
E) Acts of the defendant
C) Thin skull rule
(This is the correct answer. The seriousness of an attack escalating due to the victim’s pre-existing medical condition is covered by the thin skull rule (R v Blaue))
Which of the following correctly describes whether acts of a third party will break the chain of causation?
A) Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free
B) Acts of a third party cannot break the chain of causation
C) Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free, deliberate and informed
D) Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free and deliberate
C) Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free, deliberate and informed
(This is the correct answer. This reflects the legal position following the case of R v Pagett)
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?
A) 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
B) 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
C) 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
D) 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
E) 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
A) 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
(This is the correct answer, as the man dies from the injuries the woman inflicted. The doctor giving the man the wrong medication does not render the woman’s actions insignificant, R v Cheshire)
Which of the following best describes whether you can you be criminally liable for a failure to act?
A) You cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act
B) You cannot generally be criminally liable for a failure to act unless you have a legal duty to act
C) You can be criminally liable for a failure to act
B) You cannot generally be criminally liable for a failure to act unless you have a legal duty to act
(Correct. This reflects the general rule in R v Smith and the legal duties to act defined by common law and statute)
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?
A) Voluntarily assuming responsibility
B) Creating a dangerous situation
C) Special relationship
D) Public office
E) Contract
A) Voluntarily assuming responsibility
(This is the correct answer. The legal duty of voluntarily assuming responsibility may arise in this case, see R v Instan and R v Stone & Dobinson cases)
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?
A) Creating a dangerous situation
B) Voluntary assumption of responsibility
C) Contract
D) Special relationship
E) Public office
D) Special relationship
(Correct. This reflects the position in common law and statute)
Which of the following describes the concept of mens rea?
A) Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty failure to act
B) Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty action
C) Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty mind
C) Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty mind
(Correct. The defendant’s guilty mind could be via intention or recklessness for example)
The Theft Act 1968, s 1 provides:
‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’
What is the mens rea of the offence of theft?
A) Property, belonging to another
B) Dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
C) Appropriates, property, belonging to another
D) Appropriates, property, intention of permanently depriving
E) Dishonestly, appropriates, property
B) Dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
(This is the correct answer. These mens rea elements all have specific meanings defined in statute and case law)
The Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(1) states:
‘A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.’
What is the mens rea of the offence of basic criminal damage?
A) Destroys, damages, property
B) Intending or being reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another
C) Without lawful excuse, destroys, damages, property
D) Intending or being reckless
E) Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another
B) Intending or being reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another
(This is the correct answer. The mens rea elements of basic criminal damage are further defined in case law)
Which one of the following statements is best definition of mens rea?
A) Mens rea is when the defendant acts with motive
B) Mens rea is when the defendant is morally guilty
C) Mens rea is the defendant’s guilty mind
D) Mens rea is the defendant’s guilty act or omission
E) Mens rea is when the defendant desires the consequences of his acts
C) Mens rea is the defendant’s guilty mind
(This is the correct answer, it can mean any of the mental elements required for a particular crime)
Which one of the following statements is the best definition of when a defendant intends a result?
A) A defendant intends a result when he desires it
B) A defendant intends a result when he is malicious
C) A person has direct intent if they have a reason for their actions
D) A defendant intends a result when it is his motive
E) A defendant intends a result when it is the purpose of his act
E) A defendant intends a result when it is the purpose of his act
(This is the correct answer according to the case of R v Moloney which suggests that the ordinary meaning of intention should be used)
What is the correct definition to be given to a jury regarding oblique intention?
A) The jury are not entitled to find oblique intention unless they are sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action and the defendant appreciated that
B) The jury are not entitled to infer oblique intention unless the event is a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act and the defendant foresees it as such
C) The jury are entitled to find oblique intent when the defendant foresees an event occurring
D) The jury are entitled to find oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act
E) The jury are not entitled to infer oblique intention unless they are sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action and the defendant appreciated that
A) The jury are not entitled to find oblique intention unless they are sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s action and the defendant appreciated that
(This is the correct answer, according to the case of R v Woollin)
Which part of the criminal liability equation does recklessness relate to?
A) Recklessness is a concept associated with specific intent
B) Recklessness is a concept associated with oblique intent
C) Recklessness is a concept associated with the actus reus
D) Recklessness is a concept associated with the mens rea
D) Recklessness is a concept associated with the mens rea
(This is the correct answer, it is one of the ways in which the prosecution can prove the mens rea of a crime of basic intent)
Which of the following cases contains the current test of recklessness?
A) R v Maloney
B) R v Woollin
C) R v Cunningham
D) R v G
D) R v G
Which of the following best describes the concept of recklessness?
A) A person acts recklessly when he is aware of a risk, goes ahead anyway and it is unreasonable by the standards an ordinary person to take that risk
B) A person acts recklessly when he is told not to do something but decides nevertheless to embark on that course of action
C) A person acts recklessly when he is aware of a risk, goes ahead anyway and in the circumstances known to him, it was an unreasonable risk to take
C) A person acts recklessly when he is aware of a risk, goes ahead anyway and in the circumstances known to him, it was an unreasonable risk to take
(Correct. This reflects the test of recklessness in R v G)
What is the name of the principle that the defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when D commits the actus reus?
A) Continuing act
B) Coincidence
C) One transaction
B) Coincidence
(Correct. The courts have interpreted this principle widely using the continuing act theory and the one transaction principle)
Which of the following statements correctly describes the operation of the doctrine of transferred malice?
A) The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X to be transferred and joined with the actus reus that causes the harm to Y
B):The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the suspect to be charged with an offence that he did not intend to do
C) The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the actus reus against X to be transferred and joined with the mens rea of the offence that relates to harm suffered by Y
A) The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the mens rea against X to be transferred and joined with the actus reus that causes the harm to Y
(Correct. This reflects the operation of the doctrine as described in key cases such as R v Latimer)
In which one of these scenarios would the defendant be held criminally liable?
A) A defendant does not know they are breaking the law
B) A defendant mistakenly believes an umbrella is theirs
C) A defendant makes a mistake about civil law negating the mens rea of the offence
A) A defendant does not know they are breaking the law
(Correct. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, see the case of Bailey for further details)
Which of the following is a special and partial defence?
A) Intoxication
B) Consent
C) Loss of control
D) Self-defence
C) Loss of control
(Correct. Loss of control is a special defence because it is available for the charge of murder only. Loss of control is a partial defence because if successful, D will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder)
When can the defence of self-defence be used?
A) Protection of yourself
B) Protection of yourself, another and/ or property
C) Protection of yourself and/ or another
B) Protection of yourself, another and/ or property
(Correct. If successful the defendant will be acquitted)
Which question will the court ask to establish whether an involuntarily intoxicated defendant can avoid criminal liability?
A) Would D have foreseen the risk of harm if sober?
B) Did D form the mens rea even though intoxicated?
C) Was D intoxicated when committing the offence?
B) Did D form the mens rea even though intoxicated?
(Correct. This is the question the court will ask in situations where D was drugged without consent. See the case of Kingston for example)
A solider lawfully kills an enemy in battle.
What criminal liability is the solider likely to have, if any?
A) No criminal liability
B) Voluntary manslaughter
C) Murder
A) No criminal liability
(Correct. The solider has not fulfilled one of the actus reus elements of murder- to ‘unlawfully’ kill another human being)
A disgruntled ex-employee feels he is owed money from his former employer and wants to make her pay. The ex-employee goes to his former place of employment and stabs the manager with his knife, killing her.
What criminal liability is the ex-employee likely to have, if any?
A) No criminal liability
B) Murder
C) Voluntary manslaughter
B) Murder
(Correct. On the face of it, it looks like the ex-employee has fulfilled the actus reus and mens rea of murder)
A homeowner who had been previously burgled, suffers from paranoia and post traumatic stress disorder (which will be recognised medical conditions for the purposes of diminished responsibility). The homeowner, who now believes that everyone that comes onto his land is an intruder, shoots a delivery person in the back of the head as they are walking back to their van having dropped off a package. The delivery person dies.
Self-defence is only available if the homeowner uses force that is not grossly disproportionate.
What criminal liability is the homeowner likely to have, if any?
A) Murder
B) Voluntary manslaughter
C) No criminal liability
B) Voluntary manslaughter
(Correct. On the face of it, the homeowner has the actus reus and mens rea of murder. As the homeowner suffers from paranoia and post traumatic stress disorder, this suggests he may be able to rely on the partial defence of diminished responsibility. Self-defence is unlikely to be available in this scenario as the homeowner has acted with grossly disproportionate force)
Which one of the following statements correctly defines malice aforethought?
A) Malice aforethought means an intention to cause grievous bodily harm
B) Malice aforethought means intentionally or recklessly cause the death of another
C) Malice aforethought means an intention to kill
D) Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm
D) Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm
(This is the correct answer. The case of R v Vickers clarified that the mens rea for murder, malice aforethought, can mean express or implied malice)
Which of the following best describes the definition of murder?
A) Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought
B) Intentionally killing another person
C) Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace
D) Unlawful killing
A) Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought
(This is the correct answer. This is the definition of murder that Lord Coke provided)
In which of the following situations is it most likely to be unlawful to kill another human being?
A) Advancement of justice
B) Killing for revenge
C) Killing enemy soldiers in battle
D) Self-defence
B) Killing for revenge
(This is the correct answer. This is not one of the situations in which it can be lawful to kill another human being)
To be criminally liable for murder you must kill a human being.
Which of the following are not considered a human being?
A) A person born alive and capable of independent life
B) A child fully expelled from the mother’s body but still attached by the umbilical cord
C) A corpse
D) A child fully expelled from the mother’s body and born alive
C) A corpse
(This is the correct answer. It is not possible to murder a corpse. See also the case of AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 for another case in which there was held to be no murder)
If someone is acting under diminished responsibility when they unlawfully kill another human being under the Queen’s peace with intention to kill, what will the defendant be convicted of?
A) Voluntary manslaughter
B) Involuntary manslaughter
C) Diminished responsibility
D) Murder
A) Voluntary manslaughter
(Correct, this reflects the position in section 2(3) Homicide Act 1957 (as amended))
Which of the following best describes the sentencing powers available to a judge in respect of a defendant who is found to have killed under diminished responsibility?
A) Acquittal
B) Sentencing discretion
C) Mandatory life sentence
Correct
B) Sentencing discretion
(Correct. The judge will have discretion in sentencing which will mean that mitigating factors can be taken into consideration when sentencing the defendant)
Medical evidence is helpful to which aspect of the diminished responsibility defence?
A) Substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the following: understand the nature of D’s conduct, form a rational judgment and/ or exercise self-control
B) Abnormality of mental functioning
C) All four aspects
D) Provide an explanation for D’s conduct
E) Recognised medical condition
C) All four aspects
(Correct. This reflects the position in R v Brennan that all four of the elements of the defence are concerned with psychiatric matters)
What type of defence is loss of control?
A) It is a partial defence
B) It is not a defence at all
C) It is more of an exception to murder, rather than a defence
D) It is a full defence
E) It is a general defence
A) It is a partial defence
(Correct, this reflects the position in s 54(7) Criminal Justice Act 2009. If the defence of loss of control is successful, the defendant will not be acquitted but convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder)
Which one of the following is a qualifying trigger for loss of control?
A) The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of violence
B) The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of serious violence
C) The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of assault
D) The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of actual bodily harm
B) The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of serious violence
(Correct. This reflects the position in s 54 and s 55 Criminal Justice Act 2009)
For the third element of the loss of control defence, who is the defendant’s conduct compared to?
A) The reaction of the reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant
B) The reaction of a normal person
C) The reaction of a normal person in the circumstances of the defendant
C) The reaction of a normal person in the circumstances of the defendant
(Correct, this broadly reflects the position in s 54(1)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2009)
Which of the following is correct?
A) D can rely on loss of control if charged with attempted murder
B) D can rely on loss of control if charged with any offence
C) D can rely on loss of control if charged with murder
C) D can rely on loss of control if charged with murder
(Correct. D cannot rely on loss of control if D is charged with attempted murder or any other offence)
Which of the following is a limitation of the loss of control defence?
A) The defence cannot be used if it stems from a desire for revenge
B) The defence cannot be used if D uses violence first
C) The defence cannot be used if it stems from a considered desire for revenge
C) The defence cannot be used if it stems from a considered desire for revenge
(Correct. This reflects the position in section 54(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
When will sexual infidelity prevent a defendant from being able to rely on the anger trigger?
A) When there are other factors that caused D to lose self-control for the purposes of a qualifying trigger along with sexual infidelity
B) When the thing said/ done constituted sexual infidelity
C) When sexual infidelity is in the background
B) When the thing said/ done constituted sexual infidelity
(Correct. This reflects the position in section 55(6)(c) CJA 2009 and Clinton)
A defendant is charged with murder but is intoxicated at the time. When considering the defendant’s criminal liability at what point in your analysis will you take into account the intoxication?
A) Mens rea
B) Unlawful
C) Causation
A) Mens rea
(Correct. The question you will ask is even though intoxicated, did D form the mens rea of intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm?)
A defendant is a drug addict who kills under a loss of control having been taunted about his addiction by the victim. The defendant was intoxicated at the time. When considering the defendant’s criminal liability at what point in your loss of control analysis will you take into account the addiction?
A) Loss of self-control
B) The normal person test
C) The anger trigger and the normal person test
D) The anger trigger
C) The anger trigger and the normal person test
(Correct. D’s drug or alcohol addiction can be taken into account in assessing the magnitude of the qualifying anger trigger if D was taunted about the addiction. If D is addicted to drugs or alcohol this will be a characteristic given to the normal person but the normal person will still have normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint and be sober, Asmelash)
In which of the following situations will D not be able to rely on diminished responsibility?
A) When D has an abnormality of mental functioning and is voluntarily intoxicated
B) When D’s abnormality of mental functioning arises from alcohol dependency syndrome
C) When D is voluntarily intoxicated and has no abnormality of mental functioning
C) When D is voluntarily intoxicated and has no abnormality of mental functioning
(Correct. This represents the position in Dowds)
Which of the following elements distinguishes murder from involuntary manslaughter?
A) Killing
B) Malice aforethought
C) Human being
D) Unlawful
B) Malice aforethought
(Correct. With murder and involuntary manslaughter the defendant unlawfully kills another human being under the Queen’s Peace. However, with murder D unlawfully kills another human being with intention to kill or intention to cause GBH. Malice aforethought is absent from involuntary manslaughter)
Which of the following will amount to an unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter?
A) A civil act
B) A criminal act
C) A lawful act which becomes unlawful due to negligence or recklessness
D) An omission
B) A criminal act
(Correct. The unlawful act cannot be a civil act, R v Franklin. The unlawful act must not be an omission (such would be charged as gross negligence manslaughter), R v Lowe. The unlawful act must be intrinsically unlawful, Andrews v DPP)
What is the test for whether the unlawful act was dangerous for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter?
A) Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
B) Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to serious harm
C) Reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm
D) Reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to serious harm
A) Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
(Correct. This reflects the test given in R v Church, the others were incorrect)
Which one of the following best describes the type(s) of involuntary manslaughter that can be committed by a positive act?
A) Unlawful act manslaughter
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
C) Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
C) Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
(Correct. Unlawful act manslaughter cannot be committed by an omission, R v Lowe. However, gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by a positive act or an omission)
What is the test for whether there is a risk of death for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter?
A) Was there a serious risk of death which was obvious either presently or would have become apparent on further investigation?
B) Was there an obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death?
C) Was there an obvious and serious risk of either injury, serious injury or death?
B) Was there an obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death?
(Correct. This reflects the wording given in Singh and approved in Misra and **Srivastava. **In Rose the court stated that an obvious risk was a present risk which was clear and unambiguous not one which might become apparent on further investigation)
Which of the following is correct regarding whether the breach was sufficiently serious to constitute gross negligence for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter?
A) A single devastating act can be grossly negligent
B) The defendant must have a particular state of mind- D must either have seen a clear risk of death or not cared about the risk of death
C) There cannot be gross negligence by the defendant if others are also responsible for the circumstances leading up to death
A) A single devastating act can be grossly negligent
(Correct. This is reflected in the case of Adomako.
Although the defendant’s state of mind is not irrelevant (Litchfield), there is no requirement for any particular mental state, **Adomako. **There can be gross negligence by the defendant if others are also responsible for the circumstances leading up to death, Prentice and Sullman)
A man believes the waiter is looking at his girlfriend. The man confronts the waiter saying, ‘when I finish with you, you will not be able to look at another girl again’. The man punched the waiter hard in the face. The waiter slipped and hit his head on a nearby table. The waiter died from his injuries.
Which of the following offences is the man most likely to be criminally liable for?
A) Unlawful act manslaughter
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
C) Voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility
D) Murder
E) Voluntary manslaughter by loss of control
D) Murder
(This is the correct answer. The man causes the waiter’s death by the punch. It is the man’s aim to cause grievous bodily harm by the hard punch to the face)
A man was queuing to buy the latest smartphone. As he neared the front of the queue, a woman walked past him. As he thought the woman was going to jump the queue, he pushed her and shouted, ‘Hey we have a queue here!’ The woman fell off the kerb and she bumped her head on the road. She subsequently died from her injuries.
Which of the following offences is the man most likely to be criminally liable for?
A) Voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility
B) Voluntary manslaughter by loss of control
C) Murder
D) Gross negligence manslaughter
E) Unlawful act manslaughter
E) Unlawful act manslaughter
(This is the correct answer. The man did not aim to kill her or cause her serious harm. The push is a battery which is the unlawful act)
A zookeeper is showing some poisonous snakes to a group of school children. During the presentation the zookeeper’s phone rings. Distracted, the zookeeper fails to close the lid to the tank properly. The zookeeper notices that a dangerous snake is no longer in the tank but not wishing to alarm the children he says nothing. A girl starts screaming. The zookeeper sees that the missing snake has crawled onto the girl’s lap and bitten her on the arm, drawing blood. The girl dies later from her wound.
Which of the following offences is the zookeeper most likely to be criminally liable for?
A) Voluntary manslaughter by loss of control
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
C) Unlawful act manslaughter
D) Voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility
E) Murder
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
(This is the correct answer. The zookeeper caused the girl’s death by an omission when under a legal duty to act under contract and following the creation of a dangerous situation)
Which of the following statements about the mens rea of battery are correct?
A) The offence of battery is a specific intent offence
B) The offence of battery can only be committed recklessly
C) The offence of battery requires that the defendant apply unlawful force to another intentionally or recklessly
C) The offence of battery requires that the defendant apply unlawful force to another intentionally or recklessly
(Correct. This is the mens rea of battery, R v Venna. As the mens rea of battery states it can be committed recklessly, battery is a basic intent offence)
Where is assault defined?
A) Assault is a common law offence
B) Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 codifies the common law definition of assault
C) Assault is a statutory offence, defined in section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
A) Assault is a common law offence
(Correct. It is defined in the Fagan v MPC case. The penalties and procedure are set out in section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
For the purpose of an assault, what is meant by personal violence?
A) The victim must apprehend psychological harm
B) The victim must apprehend physical violence
C) The victim must apprehend physical and/ or psychological harm
D) The defendant must have made physical contact with the victim
B) The victim must apprehend physical violence
(Correct. For an assault, the victim must apprehend physical violence. The view that personal violence could include psychological harm was expressly rejected by Lord Hope in the House of Lords in the Ireland case. If the defendant has made contact with the victim, battery is the more appropriate offence)
What is the mens rea of section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A) Intention or recklessness as to wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
B) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
C) Intention to cause serious harm
D) Intention or recklessness as to causing harm
B) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
(Correct. This was confirmed in R v Savage, Parmenter)
What is the mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A) The mens rea for the assault or battery and intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm
B) The mens rea for the assault or battery
C) Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm
B) The mens rea for the assault or battery
(Correct. No mens rea is required for the actual bodily harm, R v Savage, R v Parmenter)
What is the mens rea of section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A) Intention or recklessness as to causing harm
B) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
C) Intention or recklessness as to wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
D) Intention to cause serious harm
B) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
(Correct. This was confirmed in R v Savage, Parmenter)
What is the mens rea of section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent?
A) Intention to wound or inflict grievous bodily harm
B) Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
C) Intention to cause some harm
D) Intention or recklessness as to causing serious harm
B) Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
(Correct. Grievous bodily harm means serious harm, Saunders)
A girl picks up a gun and points it at a boy’s head. The girl and the boy know that the gun is not loaded.
Which one of the following statements best describes the legal position?
A) The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
B) The girl is potentially criminally liable for an assault
C) The girl is potentially criminally liable for a battery
A) The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
(Correct. The girl has not threatened unlawful violence on the boy nor touched him without consent, so does not fulfil the definitions of assault or battery)
Which one of the following best describes the mens rea of s 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another
B) There is no mens rea requirement
C) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another or an intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
D) An intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
C) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another or an intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
(Correct. No mens rea is required for the actual bodily harm element)
Which of the following correctly describes the mens rea of s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A) Intention to cause serious harm
B) Intention or recklessness as to causing serious harm
C) Intention to cause some harm
D) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
D) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
(Correct. Intention to cause serious harm is the mens rea of s 18 OAPA 1861)
If a person commits an offence of basic arson, how will the charge read?
A) Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
B) Section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
C) Section 1(1) and s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
C) Section 1(1) and s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
(Correct. Basic criminal damage is charged under s 1(1) and any criminal damage by fire is charged as arson under s 1(3))
Which of the following is property for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
A) Mushrooms growing wild
B) Tamed animals
C) Information
B) Tamed animals
(Correct. This reflects the wording of s 10(1)(a) which states that property includes wild creatures that have been tamed. Mushrooms growing wild are excluded by s 10(1)(b) and information was held not to be property for the purposes of the CDA 1971 in the case of R v Whitely)
Which of the following is not defined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
A) Damage
B) Belonging to another
C) Property
A) Damage
(Correct. Damage is defined in case law but property and belonging to another are defined in sections 10(1) and 10(2) respectively)
Mike is very proud of his car. He believes that its paintwork is being damaged by pollutants caused by a nearby factory. Mike feels that the only way to stop any further damage to his car he must get rid of the factory, so he burns it down.
Which defence, if any, could you argue on behalf of Mike?
A) Section 5(2)(a)- Mike believes that the owner would have consented
B) None of the lawful excuse defences are arguable
C) Section 5(2)(b)- Mike believes that he must act to protect property
C) Section 5(2)(b)- Mike believes that he must act to protect property
(Correct. Arguably, Mike honestly believed that his car was in immediate need of protection from the factory and that the means of protection adopted were reasonable to ensure no further damage. Burning down the factory was objectively capable of protecting the property)
Which of the following requirements of the section 5(2)(b) lawful excuse defence is objective?
A) D must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable
B) D must believe that the property was in immediate need of protection
C) The damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property
D) D must act to protect property
C) The damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property
(Correct. This was outlined in the case of R v Hunt and confirmed in later cases)
Mike is very proud of his car. He believes that its paintwork is being damaged by pollutants caused by a nearby factory. Mike feels that the only way to stop any further damage to his car he must get rid of the factory, so he burns it down.
Which defence, if any, could you argue on behalf of Mike?
A) None of the lawful excuse defences are arguable
B) Section 5(2)(a)- Mike believes that the owner would have consented
C) Section 5(2)(b)- Mike believes that he must act to protect property
C) Section 5(2)(b)- Mike believes that he must act to protect property
(Correct. Arguably, Mike honestly believed that his car was in immediate need of protection from the factory and that the means of protection adopted were reasonable to ensure no further damage. Burning down the factory was objectively capable of protecting the property)
To which offences do the lawful excuse defences within the Criminal Damage Act 1971 section 5(2) potentially apply?
A) Basic criminal damage and basic arson
B) All criminal damage offences
C) All criminal offences
D) Aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson
A) Basic criminal damage and basic arson
(Correct. This is set out in section 5(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971)