CRIMINAL Flashcards
What classification of offence is murder?
Indictable-only
Summary only
Either-way
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?
Public morals
Public wrongs
Immoral behaviour
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?
To punish and deter
To sue the other party
Resolve disputes between the parties
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?
Marital rape
Extra marital sex
Inflicting grievous bodily harm
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.
Can the same action result in criminal and civil liability?
Yes
No
Yes
Correct- the example we gave was that the crime of battery can also be a tort of trespass to the person.
Which of the following best describes the usual burden and standard of proof in criminal law?
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond doubt
The burden of proof is on the defence and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is on the balance of probabilities
The burden of proof is on the defence and the standard is on the balance of probabilities
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
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.
Which one of the following best describes what criminal liability is concerned with?
Sentencing offenders
Allegation, trial and conviction
The criminal justice system
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 one of the following elements is not part of the criminal liability equation?
Motive
Mens rea
Absence of a valid defence
Actus reus
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?
Property, belonging to another
Appropriates, property, intention of permanently depriving
Dishonestly, appropriates, property
Appropriates, property, belonging to another
Dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
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?
Intending or being reckless
Intending or being reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another
Destroys, damages, property
Destroys, damages, property, without lawful excuse
Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
Which of the following is the definition of a result crime?
Require that the conduct of the defendant causes a particular consequence
Require certain acts to have been committed
Require a guilty action or omission
Require a legal obligation to act which if breached could result in criminal liability
Require the need for some particular surrounding circumstance
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.
Result crimes relate to what aspect of the criminal liability equation?
Strict liability
Mens rea
Actus reus
Absolute liability
Absence of a valid defence
Actus reus
This is the correct answer. Whether the defendant has caused a particular result is a question of actus reus.
Which of the following is the test of factual causation?
The defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence
The consequence must be caused by the defendant’s culpable act
The defendant’s act must be the ‘substantial’ cause of the prohibited harm
‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the defendant, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did
The defendant’s act must be a cause which is more than de minimis, more than minimal
‘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 test of factual causation?
R v Hughes
R v White
R v Cheshire
R v Cato
R v Benge
This is the correct answer. This case is the key authority for the ‘but for’ case.
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?
R v White
R v Dyson
R v Hughes
R v Marchant
R v Benge
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.
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?
Acts of a third party
Thin skull rule
Acts of the defendant
Poor medical treatment
Acts of the victim
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?
Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free, deliberate and informed
Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free and deliberate
Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation when free
Acts of a third party cannot break the chain of causation
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?
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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
Voluntarily assuming responsibility
Contract
Creating a dangerous situation
Public office
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?
Voluntary assumption of responsibility
Special relationship
Public office
Contract
Creating a dangerous situation
Special relationship
Correct. This reflects the position in common law and statute.
Which of the following best describes whether you can you be criminally liable for a failure to act?
You cannot generally be criminally liable for a failure to act unless you have a legal duty to act
You can be criminally liable for a failure to act
You cannot be criminally liable for a failure to act
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.
Which of the following describes the concept of mens rea?
Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty mind
Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty action
Mens rea relates to the defendant’s guilty failure to act
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?
Dishonestly, appropriates, property
Property, belonging to another
Appropriates, property, belonging to another
Dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
Appropriates, property, intention of permanently depriving
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?
Destroys, damages, property
Destroys, damages, property, belonging to another
Without lawful excuse, destroys, damages, property
Intending or being reckless
Intending or being reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another
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?
Mens rea is when the defendant desires the consequences of his acts.
Mens rea is the defendant’s guilty act or omission.
Mens rea is when the defendant acts with motive.
Mens rea is when the defendant is morally guilty.
Mens rea is the defendant’s guilty mind.
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 defendant intends a result when it is the purpose of his act.
A person has direct intent if they have a reason for their actions.
A defendant intends a result when it is his motive.
A defendant intends a result when he desires it.
A defendant intends a result when he is malicious.
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 direction to be given to a jury regarding oblique intention?
The jury are entitled to find oblique intent when the defendant foresees an event occurring.
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.
The jury are entitled to find oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act.
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.
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.
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?
Recklessness is a concept associated with specific intent
Recklessness is a concept associated with the actus reus
Recklessness is a concept associated with oblique intent
Recklessness is a concept associated with the mens rea
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?
R v Maloney
R v G
R v Woollin
R v Cunningham
R v G
Which of the following best describes the concept of recklessness?
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
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
A person acts recklessly when he is told not to do something but decides nevertheless to embark on that course of action
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?
Coincidence
One transaction
Continuing act
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?
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.
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.
The doctrine of transferred malice operates to allow the suspect to be charged with an offence that he did not intend to do.
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 defendant makes a mistake about civil law negating the mens rea of the offence
A defendant mistakenly believes an umbrella is theirs
A defendant does not know they are breaking the law
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?
Loss of control
Consent
Intoxication
Self-defence
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.
Which question will the court ask to establish whether an involuntarily intoxicated defendant can avoid criminal liability?
Did D form the mens rea even though intoxicated?
Was D intoxicated when committing the offence?
Would D have foreseen the risk of harm if sober?
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.
When can the defence of self-defence be used?
Protection of yourself and/ or another
Protection of yourself
Protection of yourself, another and/ or property
Protection of yourself, another and/ or property
Correct. If successful the defendant will be acquitted.
Which of the following best describes the definition of murder?
Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought
Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace
Unlawful killing
Intentionally killing another person
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?
Killing enemy soldiers in battle
Advancement of justice
Self-defence
Killing for revenge
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 person born alive and capable of independent life
A corpse
A child fully expelled from the mother’s body but still attached by the umbilical cord
A child fully expelled from the mother’s body and born alive
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.
Which one of the following statements correctly defines malice aforethought?
Malice aforethought means an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
Malice aforethought means intentionally or recklessly cause the death of another.
Malice aforethought means an intention to kill.
Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
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.
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 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
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 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 daft, unexpected and unreasonable, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm
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 so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it, then the drug dealer will not have caused the man serious harm
Correct. The 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.
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 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 act is a free, deliberate and informed act
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
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 not caused her brother’s death because the gang member’s act is a free, deliberate and informed act
Correct
Correct. To 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.
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 voluntarily assumed a duty of care towards him.
The niece is liable for the man’s death as she has created a dangerous situation in leaving him without medical assistance.
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 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.
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.
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 at the time of the pedestrian’s death the woman had the mens rea of murder
She is guilty because there is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea by virtue of the continuing act theory
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 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 not guilty because there is no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
Correct
Correct. The 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.
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 and would a reasonable person appreciate that?
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?
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 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
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.
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?
Voluntary manslaughter
Diminished responsibility
Murder
Involuntary manslaughter
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?
Sentencing discretion
Mandatory life sentence
Acquittal
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?
Provide an explanation for D’s conduct
Abnormality of mental functioning
Recognised medical condition
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
All four aspects
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?
It is a full defence
It is a general defence
It is not a defence at all
It is more of an exception to murder, rather than a defence
It is a partial defence
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?
The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of violence
The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of serious violence
The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of actual bodily harm
The defendant’s loss of control was attributable to a fear of assault
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?
The reaction of the reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant
The reaction of a normal person in the circumstances of the defendant
The reaction of a normal person
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?
D can rely on loss of control if charged with any offence
D can rely on loss of control if charged with attempted murder
D can rely on loss of control if charged with murder
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?
The defence cannot be used if it stems from a considered desire for revenge
The defence cannot be used if it stems from a desire for revenge
The defence cannot be used if D uses violence first
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?
When there are other factors that caused D to lose self-control for the purposes of a qualifying trigger along with sexual infidelity
When sexual infidelity is in the background
When the thing said/ done constituted sexual infidelity
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?
Causation
Mens rea
Unlawful
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?
The normal person test
Loss of self-control
The anger trigger and the normal person test
The anger trigger
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?
When D has an abnormality of mental functioning and is voluntarily intoxicated
When D is voluntarily intoxicated and has no abnormality of mental functioning
When D’s abnormality of mental functioning arises from alcohol dependency syndrome
When D is voluntarily intoxicated and has no abnormality of mental functioning
Correct. This represents the position in Dowds.
A man has an argument with his partner and punches her in the shoulder. She falls over and hits her head on the edge of a table, sustaining head injuries from which she dies. He is charged with murder. He tells you that he had no intention to seriously injure her.
How would you advise the man on his criminal liability for murder?
He is not criminally liable for murder on the basis that he was acting in self-defence.
He is criminally liable for murder on the basis that, by his own account, he does have the mens rea.
He is not criminally liable for murder on the basis that he has the defence of diminished responsibility.
He is not criminally liable for murder on the basis that, by his own account, he does not have the mens rea.
He is not criminally liable for murder on the basis that he has the defence of loss of control.
He is not criminally liable for murder on the basis that, by his own account, he does not have the mens rea.
Correct. The mens rea for murder is an intention to kill or cause serious harm, R v Vickers. The man says he did not have either of these states of mind so he should plead not guilty to murder.
The other options were incorrect because:
· Punching his partner in the shoulder will not equate to serious harm.
· There is nothing in the facts to suggest, for example, that the man:
- could rely on the fear or anger qualifying trigger for the purposes of loss of control.
- was acting to protect himself, honestly believing that force was necessary for the purposes of self-defence.
- was suffering from a recognised medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility.
A man spends the evening drinking a lot of alcohol with friends. At the end of the evening, while he is waiting for a taxi, a woman pushes in front of him in the queue. Furious, he deliberately pushes her in front of a passing car which crashes into her. She dies of her injuries.
Which of the following best describes why the defence of diminished responsibility is not available to the man?
It was necessary for the man to have been involuntarily intoxicated.
Voluntary intoxication is not, on its own, capable of being relied upon to found this defence.
Voluntary intoxication does not provide an explanation for the man’s actions.
It was necessary for the man to have been suffering from an inability to resist the urge to drink.
Voluntary intoxication doesn’t substantially impair the man’s ability to exercise self-control.
Voluntary intoxication is not, on its own, capable of being relied upon to found this defence.
Correct
Correct. We are told that the man has spent the evening drinking a lot of alcohol. The case of Dowds makes it clear that this, on its own cannot give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility.
The other options were incorrect because:
· Section 2(1B) Homicide Act 1957 states that an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct. The high amount of alcohol the man drank with friends is likely to have caused or been a significant contributory factor in causing him to push the woman in front of the passing car.
· It is likely that the man’s voluntary intoxication was the reason why he was not able to exercise self-control when the woman pushed in front of him in the queue. However, in order to rely on diminished responsibility, the man needs to satisfy all of the requirements in section 2(1) Homicide Act 1957, including an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition. There is no recognised medical condition on the facts.
· It is possible for the man to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility, even he was not suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome, R v Dietschmann.
· Being voluntarily intoxicated does not preclude the man from using the defence. A defendant might, at the time of the killing suffer from both an abnormality of mental functioning and from the effect of alcohol taken before the killing, R v Dietschmann.
A woman loses her temper very easily. She has been going to anger management classes in an attempt to overcome this failing, but they have not been working. One day she returns from work to find her boyfriend in a passionate embrace with her 15-year-old daughter. She picks up a heavy doorstop and hits him repeatedly on the head. He dies. She is pleading the defence of loss of control.
What effect would the woman’s short temper have on the requirement that she must have killed as a result of a loss of self-control?
She cannot use the defence of loss of control as she does not have a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
She can use the defence of loss of control as a loss of temper is a loss of self-control
She can use the defence of loss of control as a loss of temper is only considered at the third requirement, the normal person test
She cannot use the defence of loss of control as she will be unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not act out of a loss of temper
She can use the defence of loss of control if she killed as a result of more than a loss of temper but loss of self-control
She can use the defence of loss of control if she killed as a result of more than a loss of temper but loss of self-control
Correct. This answer reflects the position in R v Richens.
The other answers are incorrect because:
· A loss of temper is not the same as a loss of self-control.
· The third requirement of the loss of control defence is that a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or a similar way to D. This means that the woman’s short temper will not be a characteristic given to the normal person, but it does not preclude her from using the defence of loss of control.
· The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove the woman acted from a loss of temper rather than a loss of self-control, s 54(5) Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
· Factors such as a loss of temper which go to the defendant’s capacity for tolerance and self-restraint are considered in the third requirement of the defence, where they may be excluded if they have not formed part of the qualifying trigger. However, loss of temper will be considered in the first requirement of the defence, that she must have killed as a result of a loss of self-control.
A man lives in an area where there has been a spate of burglaries in which violence has been used against the occupiers. He is very afraid of being the next victim, so he acquires a shotgun which he keeps by his bed. Early one morning, he hears the sound of breaking glass coming from downstairs. He picks up the shotgun and makes his way quietly downstairs. He sees that the window in the front room has been broken and a shadowy figure is moving about. He points the shotgun at the figure who, seeing him, dashes to the window and begins to climb out. Unable to restrain himself, the man shoots and hits the figure in the back, killing him instantly. The man is charged with murder.
Why can’t the man rely on the defence of loss of control?
The man acted in a considered desire for revenge
The man has not lost control as a result of a qualifying trigger
The man didn’t lose self-control
The man acted in self-defence
The man fails the normal person test
The man fails the normal person test
Correct. A person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in his circumstances would not have reacted in the same or a similar way, s 54(1)(c). As the victim is clearly intent on running away, a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in his circumstances would not have shot him in the back.
The other answers were incorrect because:
· The facts state that the man was ‘unable to restrain himself’ which is a loss of self-control according to R v Richens.
· While acting in a considered desire for revenge is a reason why loss of control is not available (s 54(4)), there is no suggestion of this on the facts. Even if the man shot the person in the back to take revenge for breaking the window and entering his house, it was not ‘considered.’
· The man could potentially rely on both the ‘fear’ and the ‘anger’ triggers (sections 55(3) and 55(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The man fears serious violence given the spate of violent burglaries. The man also reacted to a thing done (the broken window and figure entering his house) which could be argued to constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character which caused him to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
· In order to rely on self-defence, one of the requirements is that the level of force the man uses must be reasonable and in the case of ‘householders’, reasonable means not grossly disproportionate, by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. A fatal force to the person leaving the man’s house is unlikely to be considered a reasonable level of force. See s 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
week 2
incorrect
The man has not lost control as a result of a qualifying trigger
Incorrect. The man could potentially rely on both the ‘fear’ and the ‘anger’ triggers (sections 55(3) and 55(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The man fears serious violence given the spate of violent burglaries. The man also reacted to a thing done (the broken window and figure entering his house) which could be argued to constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character which caused him to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Review your materials on loss of control, in particular s 54(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Incorrect. While acting in a considered desire for revenge is a reason why loss of control is not available (s 54(4)), there is no suggestion of this on the facts. Even if the man shot the person in the back to take revenge for breaking the window and entering his house, it was not ‘considered.’
Review your materials on loss of control, in particular s 54(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The defendant was a glue sniffer who was high on glue. The victim taunted the defendant. As well as other abuse, the victim told the defendant that he was a useless character who had wasted his life and his talents due to his addiction. This hurt, as the defendant knew it was true. As a result of this abuse and the other taunts, the defendant lost his self-control and killed the victim.
How will the defendant’s addiction to glue and the fact that he is high on glue affect a defence of loss of control?
The defendant’s addiction to glue will not be taken into account at all but he can still use the defence of loss of control.
The defendant’s addiction to glue and the fact he is high on glue will not be a characteristic given to the normal man, as this reduces his self-restraint.
The defendant’s addition to glue will be taken into account as a qualifying trigger but will not be a characteristic given to the normal man.
The defendant’s addiction to glue and the fact he is high on glue will preclude him from using the defence of loss of control.
The defendant’s addiction to glue will be taken into account as a qualifying trigger and will be a characteristic given to the normal man. However, the normal man will not be high on glue.
The defendant’s addiction to glue will be taken into account as a qualifying trigger and will be a characteristic given to the normal man. However, the normal man will not be high on glue.
Correct. This reflects the position in R v Asmelash. The defendant’s addition to glue and the effect it has had on his life will be taken into account as a qualifying trigger under s 54(1)(b) Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It will also be a characteristic given to the normal man when the jury considers s 54(1)(c). However, the normal man will have normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint and will not be high on glue.
The other answers may have sounded plausible but were incorrect.
Which of the following is not defined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
Belonging to another
Damage
Property
Damage
Correct. Damage is defined in case law but property and belonging to another are defined in sections 10(1) and 10(2) respectively.
Which of the following is property for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
Tamed animals
Information
Mushrooms growing wild
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.
If a person commits an offence of basic arson, how will the charge read?
Section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
Section 1(1) and s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
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).
To which offences do the lawful excuse defences within the Criminal Damage Act 1971 section 5(2) potentially apply?
All criminal offences
All criminal damage offences
Basic criminal damage and basic arson
Aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson
Basic criminal damage and basic arson
Correct. This is set out in section 5(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Which of the following requirements of the section 5(2)(b) lawful excuse defence is objective?
D must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable
The damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property
D must act to protect property
D must believe that the property was in immediate need of protection
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?
Section 5(2)(b)- Mike believes that he must act to protect property
Section 5(2)(a)- Mike believes that the owner would have consented
None of the lawful excuse defences are arguable
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 are not required for aggravated criminal damage?
Destroy/ damage
Belonging to another
Property
Belonging to another
Correct. Property can belong to another or the defendant for the purposes of aggravated criminal damage or aggravated arson.
Do the lawful excuse defences in section 5(2) apply to aggravated criminal damage or aggravated arson?
No
Yes
It depends on the circumstances of the case
No
Correct. The lawful excuse defences do not apply to aggravated criminal damage or aggravated arson, s 5(1) states this.
Which of the following is part of the mens rea of aggravated criminal damage?
Danger to life must arise from the damaged property
Life must actually be endangered
Danger to life must arise from the means of damaging the property
Danger to life must arise from the damaged property
Correct. This is the principle illustrated in R v Steer. In R v Steer the danger to life was three bullets fired (the means of damaging the property) but this did not constitute aggravated criminal damage.
How many rights of the owner must be assumed to appropriate property?
None
Two or more
One
One
Correct. Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation (s 3(1) Theft Act 1968) and it need be just one right (R v Morris).
Can you appropriate property with the owners consent?
No
Yes
Yes
Correct- this reflects the position in R v Gomez.
Can you appropriate a valid gift?
Yes
No
Yes
Correct- this reflects the position in R v Hinks.
Karen picks blackberries from the side of the road, makes them into jam and sells the jam in aid of charity. The blackberries capable of being stolen?
False
True
True
Correct. The blackberries are growing wild, but she has picked them for sale, so they are capable of being stolen, see s 4(3) Theft Act 1968. They would belong to the owner of the land, possibly the highways authority - all land is owned by somebody. She may not be liable for theft however as she may not be dishonest.
Gloria picks wild mushrooms on her walks through the woods and uses them to cook with in her restaurant. Gloria has stolen the mushrooms.
True
False
True
Correct. Yes (assuming Gloria does not own the woods and is dishonest). The mushrooms are growing wild and she picks them for a commercial purpose, s 4(3) Theft Act 1968.
Property can belong to more than one person for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.
False
True
True
Correct
For the purposes of the Theft Act property can belong to the owner, while at the same time belonging to someone having possession or control as per s 5(1). It can belong to the owner, while at the same time belonging to another by virtue of s 5(3) or s 5(4).
Helen shares a taxi with her friend Sally, who gets out first. Sally gives Helen money to pay for the taxi and extra money to tip the driver. Helen keeps the money she was given for the tip.
What section of the Theft Act 1968 is required for the property to belong to another?
Section 5(3)
Section 5(4)
Section 5(1)
Section 5(3)
Correct. Here the extra money is given by Sally to Helen for a particular purpose, to tip the driver.
Dan has left his shoes to be re-heeled at a shop. He takes them from the shop while the assistants back is turned without paying for them.
What section of the Theft Act 1968 is required for the property to belong to another?
Section 5(4)
Section 5(1)
Section 5(3)
Section 5(1)
Correct. The shop is in possession or control of the shoes by virtue of section 5(1). This scenario is similar to the Turner (No 2) case where D owed money to a garage for car repairs.
S5(4) creates a legal obligation to make restoration of the property got by another’s mistake.
True
False
False
This statement is false. Section 5(4) only applies when a legal obligation to make restoration exists. It then operates to make the property belong to another for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.
Dishonesty is defined in the Theft Act 1968.
True
False
The Theft Act 1968 does not define dishonesty. However, section 2(1) Theft Act 1968 provides three circumstances of when a defendant will not be dishonest.
The Theft Act 1968 section 2 provides three situations in which an appropriation of property is not to be regarded as dishonest: belief in a right in law, another’s consent and that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
What type of belief is required by the Theft Act 1968 for a defendant not to be regarded as dishonest?
Subjective- the defendant’s belief must be reasonably held
Objective- the reasonable person must be capable of believing the defendant
Subjective- the defendant’s belief must be genuinely held
Subjective- the defendant’s belief must be genuinely held
Correct. This was confirmed by the case of R v Robinson.
Which one of the following statements is the most accurate on the test for dishonesty?
Two questions need to be asked- (i) Would ordinary reasonable people consider the actions of the defendant to be dishonest? (ii) Does the defendant realise that ordinary decent people would consider their actions to be dishonest?
The only question to ask is- Does the defendant consider their actions to be dishonest?
Two questions need to be asked- (i) What was the defendant’s knowledge and belief as to the facts? (ii) Given that knowledge and those beliefs, was the defendant dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
The only question to ask is- Would ordinary reasonable people consider the defendant’s actions to be dishonest?
The only question to ask is- Does the judge consider the defendant’s actions to be dishonest?
Two questions need to be asked- (i) What was the defendant’s knowledge and belief as to the facts? (ii) Given that knowledge and those beliefs, was the defendant dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
Correct. This is the test as set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
Kitty takes a carton of milk belonging to Fiona. She intends to replace it later that day. Which of the following best describes her intention to permanently deprive?
Kitty takes Fiona’s carton of milk and treats it in a manner which she knows risks its loss
Kitty’s intention to return Fiona’s carton of milk with another is still intention to permanently deprive
Kitty’ has taken the carton of milk but may not be able to fulfil the condition of its return by replacing it
Kitty’s intention to return Fiona’s carton of milk with another is still intention to permanently deprive
Correct. This comes from the case of R v Velumyl on interchangeable property still amounting to an intention to permanently deprive. Kitty does not intend to return the same carton of milk, so she has an intention to permanently deprive under s 1 Theft Act 1968.
In which one of the following situations does section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 rather than section 6(1) need to be referred to in order to establish intention to permanently deprive?
D borrows V’s property
D takes V’s property and treats it in a manner that risks its loss
D takes V’s property with an intention to keep it
D takes V’s property and attempts to sell it back to V
D takes V’s property with an intention to keep it
Correct. This is a simple case where the ordinary meaning of intention to permanently deprive from section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 is appropriate as it is clear on the facts.
Which is the wider definition of the term ‘to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights’?
Intending to treat it in a manner which risks its loss
The dictionary definition of ‘to dispose of’- to deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell’
Intending to treat it in a manner which risks its loss
Correct. This definition was provided in the case of R v Fernandes. Auld LJ says intention to permanently deprive is not limited the definition from Potts J in R v Cahill. Potts J defines this phrase as ‘to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.’ Auld L.J. says the definition is wider than this and includes an intention to risk its loss.
Which of the following is the actus reus of fraud by false representation?
False representation
Intention to make a gain or cause a loss
Dishonesty
False representation
Correct- this representation can be express or implied, a representation as to fact, law or state of mind and the representation must be untrue or misleading.
Overcharging can be a form of fraud by false representation. What other offence could overcharging be if there is a relationship of mutual trust?
Fraud by abuse of position
Fraud by failure to disclose
Deception
Fraud by abuse of position
Correct. Although it is acknowledged that fraud by false representation is a more straightforward route to establish liability in this case.
How is dishonesty defined for the purposes of the Fraud Act 2006?
Ivey v Genting Casinos
Section 2(1) Theft Act 1968 negative definitions of dishonesty then Ivey v Genting Casinos
Section 2(1) Theft Act 1968 negative definitions of dishonesty
Ivey v Genting Casinos
Correct. The negative definitions of dishonesty contained in the Theft Act 1968, s 2(1) apply only to the offence of theft and therefore do not apply to offences under the Fraud Act 2006.
How many offences of fraud are there?
One
Three
Four
One
There is one offence of fraud but there are three ways of committing fraud. Review your fraud materials and consider section 1 Fraud Act 2006.
Can you be criminally liable for fraud by failure to disclose if there was no gain or loss?
No
Yes
Yes
Correct- the mens rea does not require an actual gain or loss just an intention to make a gain, cause a loss or expose someone to a risk of loss.
What type of legal duty to disclose is a contract of insurance?
A duty rising from a fiduciary relationship
A duty arising from statute
A duty within a transaction of the utmost good faith
A duty within a transaction of the utmost good faith
Correct. This was one of the examples provided by the Law Commission in its report that led to the Fraud Act 2006.
What section of the Fraud Act 2006 is fraud by abuse of position contained in?
Section 3
Section 2
Section 1
Section 4
Section 4
Correct- however, the offence of fraud is contained within the Fraud Act 2006, section 1.
Who decides whether the defendant occupies a position for the purposes of fraud by abuse of position?
The jury alone
The judge and the jury have a role in this
The judge alone
The judge and the jury have a role in this
Correct. The jury will decide on the facts whether the necessary relationship exists for D to have occupied a position in which they are expected to safeguard or not act against the financial interests of another person. However, before the jury decide this, the judge will consider whether the particular facts are capable of giving rise to D occupying a position and may give specific directions to the jury on this point.
A man starts visiting his elderly neighbour, helping with her shopping and collecting her pension from the Post Office. How is the man occupying a position for the purposes of fraud by abuse of position?
Voluntary work
Professional relationship
Family relationship
Fiduciary relationship
Correct. This relationship would fit into the example given by the Law Commission of ‘voluntary work.’
Can you have a robbery without a theft?
Depends on the circumstances
No
Yes
Correct. The wording of s 8(1) Theft Act 1968 and the case of R v Robinson makes that clear.
How do we decide whether there has been enough force for a robbery?
The judge decides on the meaning of the word ‘force’ and directs the jury
The statute provides a negative definition of ‘force’ as not requiring violence
The jury decide by using the ordinary meaning of the word ‘force’
The statute provides a definition of ‘force’ as more than a mere touch
The jury decide by using the ordinary meaning of the word ‘force’
Correct. Force is not defined in the Theft Act 1968 and it is a matter of fact for the jury whether the defendant’s actions amount to force, R v Dawson and James.
Can force be applied through property?
Yes, as long as the force against the property caused force against the person
No, as force to detach property cannot count as force on the person
Yes, as the acts of a pickpocket are enough force for a robbery where there is very minimal indirect contact and no resistance from the victim
No, as the wording of the statute refers to the use of force being on any person
Yes, as long as the force against the property caused force against the person
Correct. While force is not defined by the Theft Act 1968, this statement accurately reflects the legal principle from R v Clouden.
Which of the following offences can make up a s 9(1)(a) burglary but not a s 9(1)(b) burglary?
Criminal damage
Theft
Grievous bodily harm
Criminal damage
Correct. This reflects the wording of s 9(1)(b) and s 9(2) Theft Act 1968.
At what point in time does a s 9(1)(a) burglary take place?
Upon entry with intention to commit the ulterior offence
Before entry
Once D is inside the building or part of the building
Once D is inside and has committed or attempted either GBH or theft
Upon entry with intention to commit the ulterior offence
Correct. There is no need for the defendant actually to commit the ulterior offence.
When establishing a s 9(1)(b) burglary, which of the following elements requires no mens rea?
Theft
Grievous bodily harm
Knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser
Grievous bodily harm
Correct. This is the current law according to R v Jenkins. The inflicting of grievous bodily harm is all that is required, the defendant does not need to intend to inflict grievous bodily harm.
What is the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary?
10 years
14 years
Life imprisonment
Life imprisonment
Correct. The reason given by the Criminal Law Revision Committee at the time for this maximum sentence is that aggravated burglary could be very frightening to anyone in the building and could potentially lead to fatal consequences.
When must D have the article with them for the purposes of a section 9(1)(b) aggravated burglary?
On commission or attempted commission of theft or grievous bodily harm
At the point of entry
Any time before leaving the building or part of a building
On commission or attempted commission of theft or grievous bodily harm
Correct. This was confirmed in the case of R v O’Leary for example.
A man breaks into a house with the aim of stealing valuables and takes a laptop. He has pepper spray in his pocket. Which of the following offences is the man most likely to be criminally liable for?
Burglary
Theft
No criminal law offence
Aggravated burglary
Robbery
Aggravated burglary
This is the correct answer. The man commits a burglary and at the time he has with him a weapon of offence. Pepper spray is a weapon of offence as it is made for incapacitating a person. See s 10 Theft Act 1968.
Where is assault defined?
Assault is a statutory offence, defined in section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Assault is a common law offence
Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 codifies the common law definition of assault
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?
The defendant must have made physical contact with the victim
The victim must apprehend psychological harm
The victim must apprehend physical violence
The victim must apprehend physical and/ or psychological harm
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.
Which of the following statements about the mens rea of battery are correct?
The offence of battery requires that the defendant apply unlawful force to another intentionally or recklessly
The offence of battery can only be committed recklessly
The offence of battery is a specific intent offence
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.
What is the mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
The mens rea for the assault or battery and intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm
Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm
The mens rea for the assault or battery
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?
Intention or recklessness as to causing harm
Intention to cause serious harm
Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
Intention or recklessness as to wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
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?
Intention or recklessness as to causing serious harm
Intention to wound or inflict grievous bodily harm
Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
Intention to cause some harm
Intention to cause grievous bodily harm ??
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?
The girl is potentially criminally liable for a battery
The girl is potentially criminally liable for an assault
The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
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.
Involuntary intoxication may be raised successfully as a defence to which crimes?
Crimes of specific intent only
Crimes of both specific and basic intent involving dangerous or non-dangerous substances
Crimes involving alcohol only
Crimes of basic intent only
Crimes involving dangerous drugs only
Crimes of both specific and basic intent involving dangerous or non-dangerous substances
Correct. The key question is did the defendant still form the necessary mens rea? See **R v Pordage. **
The involuntary intoxication defence is available for both specific and basic intent crimes if it negates the defendant’s mens rea.
What is the question a court will ask regarding a defendant’s mens rea if they are voluntarily intoxicated by dangerous drugs/ alcohol and commit a basic intent offence?
Would the defendant have formed the mens rea if sober?
Was the defendant incapable of forming the mens rea?
Did the defendant still form the necessary mens rea even though intoxicated?
Would the defendant have formed the mens rea if sober?
Correct. The defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have foresaw the risk of harm if sober, **Coley, McGhee and Harris. **The court will ask did the defendant form the mens rea even though intoxicated, in cases of:
- Involuntary intoxication (such as being drugged without consent);
- Voluntary intoxication by non-dangerous drugs (e.g. Hardie, the D who took Valium to calm his nerves); or
- Voluntary intoxication and D has committed a specific intent crime (e.g. murder).
The case of Pordage confirmed that the question at issue is not whether the defendant wasincapable of forming the mens rea, but whether, even if still capable, they did form it.
When will intoxication prevent the defendant from using another defence?
When a drunken mistake caused the defendant to use self-defence
When pleading diminished responsibility
When the defendant honestly believed the owner would have consented to the damage due to voluntary intoxication
When pleading loss of control
When the defendant believed the victim consented to the accidental infliction of injury due to their intoxication
When a drunken mistake caused the defendant to use self-defence
Correct
Correct. If a defendant makes a drunken mistake as to the need to use self-defence, they cannot rely on that mistake.
The other answers were incorrect:
- Where a statutory defence allows for an honest belief, D will be able to use the defence even if their belief is due to voluntary intoxication, see **Jaggard v Dickinson **on the lawful excuse defence for criminal damage.
- If the jury are satisfied that V consented to the accidental infliction of injury or D (even wrongly) believed that V consented (due to their intoxication), D may have a defence, Richardson & Irwin.
- Intoxication is no bar to a plea of loss of control or diminished responsibility.
Which of the following correctly describes the mens rea of s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
Intention to cause some harm
Intention to cause serious harm
Intention or recklessness as to causing serious harm
Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
Intention to cause serious harm
Correct. Intention to cause serious harm is the mens rea of s 18 OAPA 1861.
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?
The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
The girl is potentially criminally liable for an assault
The girl is potentially criminally liable for a battery
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?
There is no mens rea requirement
An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another
An intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
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
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 best explains when consent is a defence to an offence against the person?
Consent is only available to assault and battery
Consent is available to all offences against the person
Consent is only available to assault and battery unless one of the exceptions apply
Consent is not available to any offences against the person
Consent is only available to assault and battery unless one of the exceptions apply
Correct. The general rule is that consent will operate as a defence to assault and battery only, AG’s Reference (No 6 of 1980). The case of R v Meachen extended the rule to provide that the defence could still operate even where ABH or worse was caused provided the defendant only intended to commit a battery with the consent of the victim and did not see the risk of causing ABH.
Which of the following best explains whether consent is available for assault and battery?
Consent is available if V consented
Consent is available if V consented and D honestly believed that V was consenting
Consent is available if D honestly believed that V was consenting
Consent is available if V consented or D honestly believed that V was consenting
Consent is available if V consented or D honestly believed that V was consenting
Correct. If the defendant wrongly believed the victim consented, the defence could be available, R v Richardson and Irwin. Equally if the victim consented, even if the defendant did not know this, the defence could be available.
Consent is only available to assault and battery unless one of the exceptions apply. Which of the following exceptions are not available if D intended or was reckless as to causing ABH or above?
Sexual gratification/ accidental infliction of harm
Lawful correction of a child
Horseplay
Sport
Personal adornment
Lawful correction of a child
Correct. The Children Act 2004, s 58 outlines that the reasonable punishment defence cannot be relied on if it results in ABH or above for example. Consent can be available in certain circumstances for sport, horseplay, personal adornment and sexual gratification/ accidental infliction of harm.
Self-defence cannot be relied on which of the following circumstances?
To protect yourself, another or property against imminent attack
To protect against psychological harm
To protect property against attack
To protect another against attack
To protect yourself against attack
To protect against psychological harm
Correct. Self-defence cannot be relied on in these circumstances, see R v Bullerton.
Which of the following cannot be used as a trigger for self-defence?
D’s mistaken belief they were under attack induced by voluntary intoxication
D’s mistaken but unreasonable belief they were under attack
D’s mistaken but reasonable belief they were under attack
D’s use of anticipatory self-defence in the belief they were under imminent attack
D’s mistaken belief they were under attack induced by voluntary intoxication
Correct. Self-defence cannot be relied on if a mistake is induced by voluntary intoxication, R v O’Connor ands 76(5).
Which of the following accurately describes the question to be asked when judging whether the response was reasonable for the purposes of self-defence?
Was the level of force used objectively reasonable in the circumstances as D subjectively believed them to be?
Did D believe the level of force used to be reasonable in the circumstances?
Was the level of force objectively reasonable?
Was the level of force used objectively reasonable in the circumstances as D subjectively believed them to be?
Correct. This reflects the common law position and the s 76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The trigger aspect of the test has objective and subjective elements to it.
Which of the following best describes when force will not be reasonable in householder cases?
If it was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be
If it was grossly disproportionate
If it was disproportionate
If it was disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be
If it was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be
Correct. If the force was grossly disproportionate, there can be no defence.
Does the use of force in householder cases need to be reasonable?
Yes
No
Depends on the circumstances
Yes
Correct. Confirmed by the High Court in the Denby Collins case and the Court of Appeal in **R v Ray (Steven). **If the force was not grossly disproportionate in the circumstances, the next question is whether the level of force was reasonable.__
To be potentially classed as a householder case, which of the following must the defendant rely on?
Preventing a crime
Protecting property
Protecting themselves or another
Assisting in the arrest of an offender
Protecting themselves or another
Correct. This reflects the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s 76(8A)(a).
Which of the following elements distinguishes murder from involuntary manslaughter?
Unlawful
Human being
Killing
Malice aforethought
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 criminal act
A lawful act which becomes unlawful due to negligence or recklessness
An omission
A civil act
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?
Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to serious harm
Reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm
Reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to serious harm
Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
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?
Gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter
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?
Was there an obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death?
Was there a serious risk of death which was obvious either presently or would have become apparent on further investigation?
Was there an obvious and serious risk of either injury, serious injury or death?
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 single devastating act can be grossly negligent
There cannot be gross negligence by the defendant if others are also responsible for the circumstances leading up to death
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
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?
Murder
Voluntary manslaughter by loss of control
Gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility
Murder
Correct
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?
Murder
Unlawful act manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter by loss of control
Gross negligence manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility
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.
