Core Principles Review Flashcards
Alex is involved in a bar fight. He punches Jake, who stumbles backward and knocks over Mia. Mia falls, hits her head, and dies from the injury. What principle determines Alex’s liability for Mia’s death?
A) Thin skull rule
B) Novus actus interveniens
C) Transferred malice
D) Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
C) Transferred malice
📝 Explanation: Alex had mens rea to harm Jake, but his actions led to Mia’s death instead. Under transferred malice, his intention to harm Jake transfers to Mia, making him liable. This principle applies when the intended harm and actual harm involve the same offence (Latimer).
Jamie, a paramedic, sees a person unconscious on the pavement but chooses not to help, thinking someone else will. The person later dies. Can Jamie be criminally liable for an omission?
A) Yes, because he had a public duty as a paramedic
B) No, because omissions do not usually create liability
C) Yes, because moral duty creates legal responsibility
D) No, because he was off duty at the time
D) No, because he was off duty at the time
📝 Explanation: There is no general duty to act in criminal law (R v Smith), and Jamie did not fall under any of the exceptions creating a duty (e.g., statutory duty, special relationship, voluntary assumption). His status as a paramedic does not automatically impose liability unless he was on duty.
Daniel steals an expensive watch and then gives it to his friend Sam, who knows it was stolen. Later, Sam decides to return it to the owner. Is Sam criminally liable?
A) Yes, because he knowingly handled stolen goods
B) No, because he returned the stolen property
C) Yes, but only if Daniel had told him directly it was stolen
D) No, because he was not the original thief
A) Yes, because he knowingly handled stolen goods
📝 Explanation: Under s 22 Theft Act 1968, handling stolen goods is an offence, even if the handler later returns the items. The crime is committed at the moment the goods are received, knowing or believing them to be stolen (R v Bloxham).
Rachel, a professional swimmer, is driving and accidentally hits a pedestrian. The pedestrian falls into a deep lake, but Rachel does not attempt to rescue them. The victim drowns. Can Rachel be criminally liable for failing to act?
A) No, because she did not cause the victim’s fall into the lake
B) Yes, because she created the dangerous situation
C) No, because there is no legal duty to rescue
D) Yes, because she is a professional swimmer and could have helped
B) Yes, because she created the dangerous situation
📝 Explanation: Under R v Miller, when a person creates a dangerous situation, they have a legal duty to act and prevent further harm. Rachel’s failure to rescue the victim makes her liable because her actions caused the victim’s predicament.
Daniel punches Joe, breaking his nose. What offence has Daniel most likely committed?
A) Assault
B) Battery
C) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
D) Wounding with intent
C) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
📝 Explanation: ABH (s 47 OAPA 1861) occurs when the defendant assaults or batters the victim, causing more than trivial harm (Miller). A broken nose goes beyond minor harm.
Sarah and Tom argue. Tom pushes Sarah lightly, and she stumbles but is unharmed. What is the most likely offence?
A) Assault
B) Battery
C) ABH
D) GBH
B) Battery
📝 Explanation: Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force (Collins v Wilcock). No injury is required, just physical contact.
Leo throws a rock at Tim, intending to hit him, but it hits Amy instead. What principle applies?
A) Direct intention
B) Oblique intention
C) Transferred malice
D) Recklessness
C) Transferred malice
📝 Explanation: The mens rea transfers from Tim to Amy because the crime and harm are the same type (Latimer). If the harm were different (e.g., breaking a window instead), transferred malice would not apply (Pembliton).
Mark, a doctor, fails to notice a patient’s worsening condition, leading to the patient’s death. Will Mark be criminally liable?
A) No, because doctors are immune from liability
B) No, unless his negligence was gross and criminal
C) Yes, because doctors always have a duty of care
D) Yes, because omissions are always criminal
B) No, unless his negligence was gross and criminal
📝 Explanation: A duty to act exists for doctors, but criminal liability for gross negligence manslaughter only arises if the negligence is grossly below the standard of care (Adomako).
David sets fire to his own house for insurance money. The fire spreads to his neighbour’s house. What offence is David guilty of?
A) Simple arson
B) Aggravated arson
C) Criminal damage
D) Fraud
B) Aggravated arson
📝 Explanation: Arson (criminal damage by fire) becomes aggravated arson when it endangers life (s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971). Since the fire spreads, it puts others at risk.
Jake is speeding when he hits another car, killing the driver. He did not intend harm. What is the most appropriate charge?
A) Murder
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
C) Reckless driving
D) Causing death by dangerous driving
D) Causing death by dangerous driving
📝 Explanation: Dangerous driving causing death is a strict liability offence – mens rea is not required. Jake’s intention is irrelevant; only his dangerous driving matters.
Anna, a security guard, sees a robbery happening but does nothing. Can she be criminally liable?
A) No, because she did not participate
B) No, unless she had a contractual duty
C) Yes, because everyone must prevent crime
D) Yes, because omissions are always criminal
B) No, unless she had a contractual duty
📝 Explanation: Omissions are not usually criminal unless there is a legal duty to act. If Anna’s contract requires her to intervene, she may be liable (Pittwood).
Dan and Sam commit a robbery together. Dan assaults the shopkeeper, which was not part of the plan. Is Sam liable for the assault?
A) No, because he did not physically assault the shopkeeper
B) No, unless he foresaw the possibility of violence
C) Yes, because they were jointly committing a crime
D) Yes, because any co-defendant is equally responsible
B) No, unless he foresaw the possibility of violence
📝 Explanation: Under joint enterprise liability, an accomplice is liable for an offence committed by another participant only if they foresaw it as a possibility (Jogee). If Sam had no knowledge or foresight that Dan would use violence, he would not be liable.
Mike sells fake medicine, claiming it cures cancer. He believes it works, but no evidence supports this. What is the most appropriate charge?
A) Fraud by false representation
B) Attempted murder
C) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
D) Reckless manslaughter
A) Fraud by false representation
📝 Explanation: Under s 2 Fraud Act 2006, fraud occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation with intent to gain or cause loss. Even if Mike believes the medicine works, it is false representation because it lacks scientific validity.
Tom gets into a fight and hits Steve, who falls unconscious. Thinking Steve is dead, Tom pushes him into a river to destroy evidence. Steve drowns. What is Tom guilty of?
A) Voluntary manslaughter
B) Gross negligence manslaughter
C) Murder
D) No offence, as he thought Steve was already dead
C) Murder
📝 Explanation: This follows the one transaction principle (Thabo Meli). Even though Tom thought Steve was dead before pushing him, the entire sequence of events is treated as one act. Since he intended serious harm initially, he is guilty of murder.
Emily punches a stranger on the street for no reason. The victim has a weak skull and dies from a minor head injury. What is the correct legal principle?
A) Causation was broken by the victim’s condition
B) Emily can only be charged with battery
C) The victim’s condition is irrelevant; Emily is fully liable
D) Emily is guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not murder
C) The victim’s condition is irrelevant; Emily is fully liable
📝 Explanation: Under the thin skull rule, a defendant must take their victim as they find them (Hayward). The fact that the victim had a pre-existing condition does not break causation. Emily is fully liable for the resulting harm.
