1. Section A - previous exam questions

Question 1

Define the term ‘actus reus’.

Answer 1

“• The guilty act
• It is the conduct element of a crime
• Usually a positive act (mark can be given if S mentions omissions)”

Question 2

9. Define the actus reus and mens rea of criminal attempt.

Answer 2

actus reus
more than merely preparatory.
positive act, attempt cannot be committed by way of an omission.
Jones (1990), Campbell (1991).

mens rea
intent/intention to commit the full/complete offence.
Whybrow (1951) or Shivpuri (1986).

S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (CAA) 1981.

Question 3

9. Define the actus reus of criminal attempt.

S

Answer 3

S1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (CAA) 1981
‘an act more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence’.
a positive act, not an omission.
Jones (1990), Campbell (1991).

Question 4

3. Define the actus reus of basic criminal damage.

Answer 4

“Destroying or damaging
• Property
• Belonging to another
• Mention of any relevant case e.g. Hardman(1986) - soluble paint , Samuels v Stubbs(1972) police hat

Question 5

1. Identify the three elements that can make up the actus reus of a criminal offence.

Answer 5

“The three elements that make up the actus reus (AR) of a criminal offence are:
• conduct;
• circumstances; and
• consequences.”

Question 6

Define the actus reus of murder.

Answer 6

The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being during the Queen’s peace.

Question 7

6. State the actus reus of theft.

Answer 7

• Appropriation
• Property
• Belonging to another”

Question 8

5. Explain the requirement for the actus reus and mens rea to coincide.

Answer 8

Both AR & MR must be present at the same time for a crime to be committed, this is the continuing act theory.
mens rea does not have to be present throughout and can be at the beginning Thabo Meli (1954) or at the end Fagan v MPC (1969) of the commission of the offence.

Question 9

4. Identify the elements required to prove arson.

Answer 9

section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
property belonging to another is destroyed by fire, 
criminal damage, simple or aggravated,  R v G (2003).

Question 10

Explain the offence of arson

Answer 10

“S1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
• The offence is destroying/damaging criminal damage by
fire
• The offence can be committed as basic criminal damage
• Or by aggravated criminal damage
• It is not a separate offence in its own right “

Question 11

9. Define ‘factual causation’.

Answer 11

To establish causation for result crimes, it is necessary to establish factual and legal causation.
© determined by the ‘but for’ test; but for the actions of the defendant, would the outcome have been the same.
©White (1910).

Question 12

5. Define what is meant by legal causation.

Answer 12

Legal causation is essential in finding liability for result crimes.
defined as ‘operating’ and ‘substantial cause’. The defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause.
includes the thin-skull rule.
Pagett (1983) Blaue (1975).

Question 13

9. State which statutory authority and section defines the offence of attempt.

Answer 13

The offence of attempt is defined by s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Question 14

7. Define the offence of ‘attempt’ under s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Answer 14

“The offence requires:
• an act, not omission
• More than merely preparatory
• Jones(1990)
• To the commission of an indictable offence
• With intent to commit that offence Shivpuri

Question 15

4. Identify the requirements for the defence of lawful excuse as set out in s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Answer 15

The requirements of the defence of lawful excuse are that
D had a genuine belief that the owner would have consented to the damage,
D genuinely believed that the property was in need of immediate protection and the means of protection adopted were reasonable in the circumstances.
It is irrelevant whether the belief is justified but it must be genuine/honest.

Question 16

10. Identify any four elements required to establish the defence of duress by threats.

Answer 16

1. threat of death or serious injury.
2. threat must be to the defendant or someone the defendant regards themselves as being responsible for.
3. no safe avenue of escape.
4. threat must be made with the purpose of compelling the defendant to commit a specific crime.
5. The defendant’s will must have been overborne.
6. The threat must be effective at the time the crime is committed.
7. There must be evidence that a sober person of reasonable firmness with the defendant’s characteristics would have acted in the same way.

Question 17

8. Explain the difference between duress by threats and duress of circumstances.

Answer 17

The defence may be relied upon if compelled to commit an offence by force of circumstances.
It is distinct from duress by threats as the ‘threat’ does not come from a person, as in duress of threats, but from the circumstances in which the defendant finds himself.

Question 18

8. Identify three circumstances in which the defence of duress will fail.

Answer 18

“Duress is not available for offences of
• Murder
• Attempted murder
Or in circumstances where….
• The defendant has been at fault in associating himself with a person/group whom he knew might put pressure on him to commit an offence (exact wording not needed)
• Any other reasoned point can be credited
Howe 1987”

Question 19

7. Describe the circumstances in which voluntary and involuntary intoxication can occur.

Answer 19

Voluntary intoxication occurs when the defendant knows or should have known that he was consuming an intoxicant or he made a mistake about the strength of the intoxicant or he ignored medical advice regarding prescription drugs. Involuntary intoxication occurs when the defendant does not know he is consuming an intoxicant or he is forced to consume an intoxicant.

Question 20

10. Explain whether involuntary intoxication can provide a defence to a criminal offence.

Answer 20

not a defence per se. However,
the effect of it must be that D did not form the required mens rea
*Kingston (1994) - unwilling pedo

Question 21

8. Explain the circumstances in which voluntary intoxication will be a defence.

Answer 21

• specific intent only, not basic intent offences
***Majewski (1976)
• Voluntary intoxication can only be a defence where the offence is one of specific intent
• The defendant was incapable of forming the necessary intent
• Gallagher (1963) - spade wife
• A mistaken belief can sometimes suffice [Jaggard and Dickinson (1981) broke into friends flat]

Question 22

Explain the circumstances in which involuntary intoxication can be a defence.

Answer 22

“Involuntary intoxication -
consumed an intoxicant without knowing it was an
intoxicant
E.g. where a drink is spiked
• Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to offences of specific and basic intent
• Providing the defendant was so intoxicated as to be
unable to form the mens rea of the offence

Question 23

3. Explain the requirements to establish the defence of ‘lawful excuse’ to the offence of criminal damage.

Answer 23

“A defendant has a lawful excuse if:
• S5(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971
• would have the consent
• Denton (1982) or Blake v DPP (1993)
• property was in immediate need of protection
• the means adopted were reasonable in the circumstances
• Case, e.g. Hill;Hall (1988), or Hunt (1977)

Question 24

4. Identify any three requirements to establish the defence of mistake.

Answer 24

mistake as to fact and not the law. 
must be genuine and honest but need not be reasonable. 
Beckford (1987) - police
...
Denial of MR

Question 25

9. Identify the three situations in which the law allows a person to use force in self-defence.

Answer 25

“To protect themselves (or others)
• To protect property
• To prevent crime”

Question 26

9. Explain the defence of self-defence, as set out in s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Answer 26

• Use of some force must be necessary
• Force must be proportionate
• Excessive force will negate the defence
• No duty to seek to avoid the confrontation
• Will be judged on the facts as the defendant honestly sees them
• Martin (2000)

Question 27

6. Define the two statutory defences to basic criminal damage.

Answer 27

S5 CDA 1971 sets out the statutory defences. In both the basic and aggravated offence, the defendant will not be guilty if

1. had a lawful excuse. This can be where he genuinely or honestly believes the victim consented or would have consented to the destruction or damage,
2. or where the property was in immediate need of protection.

Question 28

2. Identify any three categories where a duty to act arises.

Answer 28

“There are certain categories where duty arises. The categories are:
• special relationship, such as parent and child; Gibbs and proctor
• contractual duty; Pittwood
• assumption of responsibility; Stone and Dobson
• creating a dangerous situation; Miller
• public office such as police. Dytham

Question 29

5. Identify two homicide offences (created by statute) to cover specific situations.

Answer 29

“• Corporate Manslaughter (Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
• Familial Homicide (s5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004)
• Vehicular Homicide (under any of the statutes – e.g. s1 Road Traffic Act 1988/s20 Road Safety Act 2006…)”

Question 30

5. Define what is meant by ‘direct intention’ and ‘oblique intention’ in relation to mens rea.

Answer 30

Direct intention occurs where the result is the defendant’s (D’s) aim or purpose. Indirect/oblique intention occurs when the result is not D’s aim or purpose but it is virtually certain to occur and D foresees or knows this to be true.

Question 31

3. Explain transferred malice.

Answer 31

TM is a mens rea principle that applies to intention and recklessness.
mens rea can be transferred from the intended target to another;
Latimer (1886). - belt
If the mens rea is for a different crime, then malice cannot be transferred.

Question 32

8. Identify the elements that the prosecution will need to prove for the offence of constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter.

Answer 32

illegal/unlawful act that is dangerous and causes a death.

Question 33

2. Identify the five / 6 elements required to prove gross negligence manslaughter.

Answer 33

1. a duty of care was owed & breach;
2. there was conduct (either an act or an omission)
3. Act doesn’t have to be unlawful
4. breach created a risk of death;
5. conduct caused the death of the victim.
6. the conduct amounted to gross negligence;

Question 34

5. Explain the difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Answer 34

“Voluntary manslaughter

• has committed the AR of murder
• also has the mens rea (MR) of murder
• liability is reduced due to a special defence (either loss of control, diminished responsibility or suicide pact).

Involuntary manslaughter

• commits the AR of murder
• does not have the MR for murder (either unlawful act manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter).

Question 35

2. Identify two types of mens rea.

Answer 35

“• Intention
• Recklessness
• Gross negligence
• Dishonesty”

Question 36

Define mens rea

Answer 36

“The ‘guilty mind’
• Intention
• Can be direct or indirect (oblique)
• Recklessness “

Question 37

Explain the mens rea of the offence of attempt.

Answer 37

“The conduct/consequence must be intended
• The intent can be direct
• Or indirect/oblique
• Mention of case e.g. Jones [1990] GARY Woollin[1998] CHILD ACROSS ROOM
• Recklessness will not suffice “

Question 38

7. Define the mens rea of criminal attempt.

Answer 38

“intent to commit the full/complete offence (can mention indictable/either-way)
• It must be intention (can mention specific intent)
• Normally recklessness is not sufficient
• This can be direct or oblique/indirect”

Question 39

Explain the mens rea of aggravated criminal damage

Answer 39

“Intention or recklessness
• As to the destruction/damage of any property
• Intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life
• By means of the damage/destruction “

Question 40

1. Define the mens rea for murder.

Answer 40

The mens rea for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 41

3. Define recklessness in relation to the mens rea of an offence.

Answer 41

conscious taking of an unjustified risk

one type – subjective recklessness,
R v G (2003).

Question 42

Define the mens rea of aggravated criminal damage.

Answer 42

The mens rea for aggravated criminal damage is intention or recklessness to damage or destroy property and intention or recklessness as to whether life is endangered.

Question 43

. Identify the two circumstances when an omission will result in criminal liability.

Answer 43

“• The crime is defined in a way that it makes sense to say
an omission will suffice (statutory offences)
• A duty to act/duty situations
• Credit for any case e.g. Pittwood [1902] or facts of a
relevant case”

Question 44

2. Identify the four elements required to establish the partial defence of diminished responsibility under s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Answer 44

1. abnormality of mental functioning that
2. arises from a recognised medical condition.
3. abnormality needs to substantially impair the defendant’s ability to understand his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control.
4. provide an explanation for the killing in the sense of cause or contributory factor.

Question 45

Describe the elements of the partial defence of diminished responsibility.

Answer 45

“Abnormality of mental functioning
• Arising from a recognised medical condition
• Substantially impairs D’s ability to understand his
conduct, form a rational judgement, exercise self-control
• Provides an explanation for the killing”

Question 46

5. What is the effect of a successful partial defence of ‘loss of control’ on a charge of murder?

Answer 46

“• This partial defence reduces liability from murder to (voluntary) manslaughter (can include reduces liability pursuant to s54-55 CoRJA)
• The sentence is at the discretion of the judge”

Question 47

6. Define what is meant by a qualifying trigger in relation to s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. LoC

Answer 47

two possible qualifying triggers
s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009.

1. fear trigger (s.55(3)
2. anger trigger (s.55(4)),
   or a combination .
   The fear trigger - attributable to his fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
   The anger trigger - attributable to things said and/or done which amounted to circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of having been seriously wronged.

Question 48

3. Explain the test for recklessness.

Answer 48

subjective.
conscious taking of an unjustified risk.
R v Cunningham (1957) and G and another (2003).

Question 49

4. Identify the main reasons why strict liability offences might be considered justifiable.

Answer 49

“Strict liability offences may be justified for a number of reasons, the main ones being that:
• people comply with regulatory requirements;
• the minor nature of the majority of strict liability offences means that little stigma is attached to the offence;
• proving fault would sometimes be almost impossible, which is why prosecutions do not require proof of D’s state of mind (MR);
• they save court time and public money;
• many strict liability offences include statutory due diligence defences which make them less harsh.”

Question 50

(a) two arguments in favour of strict liability;

Answer 50

“Arguments in favour of strict liability (any two of the following):-
• there is less stigma is attached to the offence;
• it is easier to prove - no need to prove MR;
• it saves time and money;
• Public Protection;
• they are often regulatory in nature forcing compliance with rules and regulations”

Question 51

(b) two arguments against the imposition of strict liability.

Answer 51

“Arguments against the imposition of strict liability (any two of the following):-
• strict liability offences can be difficult to identify;
• the fines imposed do not always act as a deterrent;
• strict liability is contrary to the basic principles that D has to be morally blameworthy. The ‘no fault’ basis of strict liability is controversial.”

Question 52

10. Identify four areas of activity regulated by strict liability.

Answer 52

“• Causing pollution/general damage to the environment
• Adulterating food and drink
• Selling food unfit for human consumption
• Road traffic offences
• Health and Safety regs.
• Misdescription of quality/price of goods and services”

Question 53

10. Explain two of the factors used to determine whether an offence is one of strict liability.

Answer 53

“• The severity of the punishment/whether the offence is truly criminal in nature
• Whether the offence applies to specific groups/specific activities (e.g. the selling of food)
• Whether the offence deals with issues of social concern/public safety (e.g. pollution)
• Whether it will promote greater vigilance”

Question 54

7. Define what is meant by strict liability and give one example.

Answer 54

Strict liability is the exception to the general rule requiring mens rea in relation to all aspects of the actus reus. Examples might include: preparation and sale of alcohol; food and pharmaceutical products; road traffic; pollution; health and safety at work; construction; and trade descriptions.

Question 55

8. Define the three statutory beliefs within s.2 Theft Act 1968.

Answer 55

S2 Theft Act 1968 - show he is not dishonest.

1. believed in law he had the right to deprive the victim of the property. The
2. would have had the victim’s consent if they knew of the appropriation and the circumstances.
3. that the person to whom the property belongs, cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Question 56

6. Define what is meant by ‘intention to permanently deprive’, as set out in s.6 of the Theft Act 1968.

Answer 56

mens rea element of theft.
Section 6 of Theft Act 1968 defines intention to permanently deprive as
1. intention to treat the thing as his own,
2. to dispose of regardless of others rights. 3. Borrowing can also amount to theft.
Lloyd (1985) FILM REEL, Velumyl (1989) CASH FROM SAFE.

Question 57

2. Define what is meant by a ‘thing in action’ as set out in s.4 of the Theft Act 1968 and provide one example of a ‘thing in action’.

Answer 57

A ‘thing in action’ is a form of intangible property, e.g., a share in a company, a debt, a copyright, a trademark, a credit in a bank account, and an agreed overdraft. It is a personal property right which can be legally enforced.

Question 58

Define the term ‘dishonesty’ under the Theft Act 1968.

Answer 58

s2 Theft Act 1968
• Case e.g. Ghosh(1982) as amended by Ivey(2017),
• It is now also an objective test as below
• Based on what the defendant knew about the facts
• Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary
decent people

Barton and Booth(2020)(1)