Criminal SBAQ's Flashcards
What is meant by the term actus reus?
A. All elements of the offence except those that relate to the mens rea.
B. The mental part of the offence.
C. The result of the offence.
D. The penalty for the offence.
The correct answer is A- the actus reus is all the elements of the offence except those that relate to the mens rea.
Option B is wrong as this describes the mens rea.
Option C is partly correct, but the actus reus does not just cover the result of the relevant act or omission (it may also include the relevant conduct or state of affairs); whilst option D is clearly wrong.
For result crimes, factual causation must be established. Which one of the following statements is wrong?
A. Factual causation is an aspect of the actus reus.
B. Factual causation means that the accused completed the crime.
C. A defendant factually causes the result if it would not have occurred as and when it did but for their conduct.
The statement in option B is wrong, so this is the correct answer.
Factual causation does not simply mean that the accused completed the crime. It refers to the logical connection between what the accused did and the criminal result; and the prosecution must demonstrate that the result would not have occurred when and how it did without their conduct.
All the other statements are accurate.
Which one of the following is NOT an exception to the rule on omissions?
A. Involuntary assumption of care for another.
B. Duty under a contract.
C. Creating a dangerous situation and failing to avert it.
D. Special relationship.
The correct answer is A. The general rule is that a defendant will not be liable for omissions to act but options B, C and D are all established exceptions.
Option A is not because the defendant must voluntarily assume care for another – involuntary assumptions are not covered.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the meaning of recklessness?
A. The reasonable person would foresee a risk of the consequence and the risk is unjustified.
B. The defendant foresees a risk that their action will have the consequence and the risk is unjustified.
C. The reasonable person would foresee a risk of the consequence but the risk is a reasonable one to take.
D. The defendant foresees a risk of the consequence but the risk is a reasonable one to take.
The correct answer is option B. This is because the defendant is reckless where they foresee a risk that their action will have the consequence and the risk is unjustified (but they go ahead and act in this way regardless).
The test for recklessness is subjective, so it is irrelevant what the reasonable person would have foreseen – hence, options A and C are wrong.
Option D is wrong because the risk must be unjustified, so unreasonable.
A man is driving his car when it collides with the vehicle in front which has braked suddenly for no reason. The police are called and carry out a breath test to check whether the man has been drinking. He is shocked to discover that he is over the legal drink driving limit for alcohol and cannot understand why, given that he only drank orange juice at lunchtime. That evening, the man’s friend confesses that she added vodka to his drink as she did not realise he had driven to the pub. The man is charged with careless driving and driving with excess alcohol.
Which statement best describes the man’s likely criminal liability?
A. Not guilty of careless driving, but guilty of driving with excess alcohol.
B. Not guilty of either careless driving or driving with excess alcohol.
C. Guilty of both careless driving and driving with excess alcohol.
D. Guilty of careless driving, but not guilty of driving with excess alcohol.
E. Not guilty of careless driving and no charges may be brought for driving with excess alcohol where a drink has been spiked.
The correct answer is option A.
The prosecution are unlikely to prove that the man was guilty of careless driving. To do so, they would need to prove that he was negligent, namely, that his driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
This is unlikely because the collision was caused when the vehicle in front braked suddenly without warning. For this reason, options C and D are wrong.
However, the man is likely to be convicted of driving with excess alcohol despite the fact he believed he was drinking orange juice and even if his drink was spiked because this is an offence of strict liability. Thus, options B and D are wrong. Option E is wrong as there is no rule that states a person may not be charged in circumstances where their drink was spiked.
A defendant throws a punch towards a man after they argue outside a pub, but he hits the woman beside the man instead. The impact is such that she is knocked unconscious and slumps back against the garden wall. The defendant picks up the woman but, as he tries to move her back into the pub, she slips from his grasp. She bangs her head on the pavement and dies from a fractured skull.
Which of the following statements best describes the defendant’s liability for the woman’s death?
A. The doctrine of transferred malice does not apply because the defendant’s intention to punch the man cannot be transferred to the woman.
B. The doctrine of transferred malice does apply but the prosecution could also try and rely on the mens rea of recklessness.
C. The doctrine of transferred malice would apply if the man had intended to punch the wall rather than hit a person.
D. The man is not liable for the woman’s death because the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide in time.
E. The man is not liable for the woman’s death because the application of unlawful force and the act causing the woman’s death are separate in time.
B is the correct option. Where the offence may be committed recklessly, the prosecution may not need to consider transferred malice as the defendant is only required to foresee the risk of any harm to anyone.
Option A is wrong as the doctrine of transferred malice will apply. The defendant’s intention to punch the man may be transferred to the woman as he commits the actus reus of assault against her and this is the same offence which he intends for the man. Option C is also wrong. Malice may be transferred from person to person, or from object to object, but not where the actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences. In this example, the man commits assault but intends criminal damage.
Option D does not correctly describe the man’s liability. Where a combination of events has led to the unlawful outcome, the courts have interpreted these consecutive events as a ‘single transaction’. This is a way of circumventing the requirement for the actus reus and the mens rea to coincide in time. Option E is wrong as the unlawful application of force (hitting the woman) and the eventual act causing death (dropping her) are part of the same sequence of events, so the fact there was a lapse in time between the two does not enable the man to escape liability.
Which one of the following will satisfy the actus reus of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A. A cutting of both layers of the skin.
B. A small bruise.
C. Internal bleeding.
D. Reasonably serious harm.
Option A is correct. A wound is a cutting of both layers of the skin and the presence of blood will indicate this.
Option B is wrong as an internal rupture of the blood vessels, which includes bruising, is not sufficient as the skin has not been broken; nor is internal bleeding (option C).
The actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861 is satisfied by either a wound or grievous bodily harm. The latter has been interpreted to mean ‘really serious’ harm – not ‘reasonably serious’ harm so option D is wrong.
The requirement for the harm to be serious explains why the ‘small’ bruise in option B would not be sufficient.
Which one of the following correctly describes the mens rea for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
B. Recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm.
C. Intention or recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm.
D. Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option D is correct- Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm. As with most of the assaults, the level of mens rea required does not match the injury caused.
A man goes out for an evening to enjoy a game of bowling with a friend. During the game, there is a disagreement about the score and an argument ensues. The man picks up a bowling ball and hurls it towards his friend who tries to jump out of the way. In doing so, he trips up and falls over on the floor, causing him to sustain a fractured skull. In addition, he is so traumatised by the events that he goes on to develop anxiety and depression, which is clinically diagnosed as being really serious. When interviewed, the man accepts that he lost his temper and intended to really hurt his friend by throwing the bowling ball at him. He is now overcome with remorse.
Which of the following best describes the man’s liability for causing his friend grievous bodily harm?
A. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to his friend’s fractured skull as he intended to really hurt him, but he is not liable for any offence in relation to the depression and anxiety caused.
B. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to his friend’s fractured skull. He would only be liable for a lesser assault offence in relation to the depression and anxiety caused, because psychiatric injury can never amount to grievous bodily harm.
C. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to both his friend’s fractured skull and the clinically diagnosed anxiety and depression, as they are both considered to be really serious harm which he intended to cause when he threw the bowling ball.
D. He is not liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to either injury as there is no ‘break in the continuity of the skin’ caused by his throwing the bowling ball or his friend falling over and fracturing his skull.
E. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to both his friend’s fractured skull and the clinically diagnosed anxiety and depression, as he intended or was reckless as to causing some form of bodily or mental harm.
option C is the best answer. For s.18 OAPA 1861, the AR is wounding or causing GBH and the MR is intent to cause GBH (or intent to resist/ prevent arrest and intent/ recklessness as to some bodily harm). In R v Burstow [1997] it was held that psychiatric injury could amount to grievous bodily harm if severe enough, although there must be a clinical diagnosis (which there is here). We are told both the fractured skull, and the anxiety and depression, are really serious. Furthermore, the man intended to cause some harm when he threw the bowling ball.
Options A and B are both wrong because psychiatric injury can be GBH (R v Burstow) if it is serious enough, as here. Option D is wrong because s.18 is not restricted to ‘wounding’ which is defined as a ‘break in the continuity of the skin’. A defendant can be charged with s.18 for causing GBH, namely, really serious harm whether that is physical and / or psychiatric (see above).
Option E is wrong because the mens rea is incorrectly stated. For a s.18 assault, the defendant must intend to cause really serious harm. It is not sufficient that he only intends or is reckless as to some form of bodily or mental harm (unless he is resisting/preventing arrest which does not apply here).
A woman steals a bottle of perfume from a shop. She is seen by a police officer who takes hold of her by the arm and informs her that she is under arrest. The woman struggles with the police officer and in a bid to escape, hits him over the head with the perfume bottle. The woman did not want to cause really serious harm to the police officer but did expect at least some harm. As a result of being hit, the police officer falls over, hits the pavement and fractures his skull.
Is the woman guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent?
A. Yes, because she was reckless as to resisting arrest and to causing actual bodily harm.
B. Yes, because she intended to resist arrest and was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
C. No, because a fractured skull is not grievous bodily harm.
D. No, because she did not foresee any risk of causing really serious harm.
E. No, because she did not intend to cause really serious harm.
Option B is correct as the mens rea for causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is satisfied if an individual intends to resist arrest and either intended, or was reckless, as to causing actual bodily harm/some harm. Here, the woman both intends to resist arrest (‘in a bid to escape’) and is reckless as to actual bodily harm, in that she foresaw a risk of some harm, went on to take it anyway and that risk was unjustified (R v Cunningham [1957]) (‘did expect at least some harm’.)
Option A is wrong as the mens rea is not satisfied if someone is merely reckless as to resisting arrest, they must intend it. Option C is wrong as a fractured skull is an example of grievous bodily harm, meaning really serious harm - DPP v Smith [1961].
Option D is wrong as foreseeing a risk of causing really serious harm is not part of the mens rea for s.18. On these facts, the woman foresaw a risk of some harm and coupled with her intent to resist arrest that is sufficient for the mens rea to be satisfied.
Option E is wrong because whilst it is true that the woman did not intend to cause really serious harm, on these facts, the woman foresaw a risk of some harm and coupled with her intent to resist arrest that is sufficient for the mens rea to be satisfied.
When considering the defence of diminished responsibility, there is no need for the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning to have caused them to kill the victim.
Is this statement true or false?
Option B is correct as the statement is false.
There must be a causal link between the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning and their conduct in killing the victim. Under s.2(1)(c) Homicide Act 1957 [as amended by s.52(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009], the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for their involvement in the killing, which means that it must cause, or be a significant contributory factor in causing, the defendant to kill or be a party to the killing.
The defendant has been married to her husband for 10 years and during this time he has regularly abused her both physically and mentally. In particular, he taunts her about her hair loss, which was caused by a childhood medical condition. As a result, the defendant has developed depression and anxiety. One night she returns from work to find her husband in a particularly bad mood. He starts pushing her and taunting her, calling her “an ugly, bald waste of space”. She pleads with him to stop saying: “I can’t take it anymore” but he continues to taunt her. In desperation, the defendant snatches a heavy brass doorstop and hits her husband over the head repeatedly with it, until he falls down. He dies from the head injury that he sustains. The defendant is charged with murder. She pleads loss of control as a defence.
Which of the following statements best describes the operation of the evidential and legal burden of proof and the standard of proof in relation to this defence?
A. The evidential and legal burden are on the defendant on the balance of probabilities.
B. The evidential burden is on the defence. The legal burden is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
C. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
D. The evidential and legal burden are on the prosecution on the balance of probabilities.
E. The evidential burden is on the defence to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities.
B is the best answer.
The defendant will have an evidential burden in relation to this defence. This means that the defence must raise some evidence of a fact in issue (usually by the defendant and/or someone else giving evidence in the witness box) to make the defence a live issue. Once the defence have discharged this evidential burden, the legal burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove this defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Options A, D and E are therefore wrong and option C is incomplete. Thus, it is not the best answer as the burden is only on the prosecution to disprove the defence once the defendant has discharged her evidential burden.
A man is 28 years of age and has been living with a woman for 5 years. During this time, the woman has subjected her partner to frequent and serious violent attacks and daily verbal abuse. He also suspects the woman of having an affair with a work colleague and he is angry about this. One evening, the woman returns home and immediately begins to complain that the man is lazy. As the woman is sitting eating her dinner with her back to him, the man hits her over the head with a frying pan. The woman subsequently dies from her injuries.
Which of the following best describes the man’s liability for the woman’s death?
A. The man is liable for murder because of the manner in which he kills the woman, particularly as she was no threat to him at the time he attacks her.
B. The man may rely on the qualifying trigger of fear because he is afraid of serious violence from the woman as her abuse occurs on a frequent basis.
C. The man cannot rely on the anger trigger because sexual infidelity must be disregarded as a thing said or done and this is a factor in his response.
D. The man cannot argue the partial defence of loss of control because it is unreasonable to lose control just because the woman complains that he is lazy.
E. The man may rely on loss of control as a partial defence because a 28-year-old man with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in his circumstances would have reacted in the same or similar way.
The correct answer B- One of the qualifying triggers for loss of control is that a defendant feared serious violence from the victim against either themselves or another identified person. This would apply here as the man suffered abuse from the woman on a frequent basis.
Option A is wrong because it is irrelevant that the woman was no threat to him at the time he attacks her, provided that he is genuinely in fear of serious violence (the fear trigger). The method the man uses would be relevant to the third element when the jury consider how a person of his age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in those circumstances.
Option C is wrong because, although sexual infidelity on its own may not be relied upon for the anger trigger, it can be as part of the overall context. Here, there are other factors, primarily the woman’s physical and verbal abuse. Option D is wrong because the final incident need not be significant in itself; for loss of control, the defendant may rely upon an accumulation of events to explain their reaction to the final one. Option E is wrong due to the inclusion of the word ‘would’. The jury must be satisfied that a 28-year-old man ‘might’ have reacted in the same or similar way.
The defendant is told to shoot at a rival gang member (a man) to prove his worth before being allowed to join his local gang. He goes to the man’s house with a shotgun and waits until he sees the man in the living room. The defendant fires the gun towards him. The shell from the shotgun breaks through the glass and kills the man instantly. The defendant is shocked by the man’s death. He believed the glass would deflect the shot because the gun is not very powerful and is only used for sport. The defendant is adamant that he only intended to frighten the man.
Which statement provides the best assessment of the defendant’s potential liability for murder?
A. The defendant had direct intent to kill the man.
B. The defendant had direct intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the man.
C. The defendant had indirect intent to kill the man.
D. The defendant had indirect intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the man.
E. The defendant had neither direct nor indirect intent to kill the man or cause him grievous bodily harm.
The best answer is option E. The defendant does not have the direct intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm as he states that he only intended to frighten the man, so options A and B are wrong.
He does not have indirect intent either because the evidence suggests that he does not foresee death or serious injury as a virtually certain consequence of his action.
The defendant thought that the glass would deflect the shot and his knowledge that the gun is not powerful, and only used for sport, supports this view. Hence, options C and D do not provide the best assessment of the evidence.
The police have charged a man with murder. It is alleged that the man attacked his victim with a knife, stabbing him in the leg. The victim was taken to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. After the surgery, the victim appeared to be making a good recovery but he contracted a serious post-operative infection and died two weeks later. Further investigation shows that the infection was caused by poor standards of cleaning on the hospital ward, due to the hospital trust’s decision to reduce the number of cleaners to save money.
Which of the following statements best describes whether the man caused the victim’s death to establish the actus reus of murder?
A. The man caused the victim’s death because, but for the man’s action in stabbing the victim, he would not have had surgery or contracted the infection.
B. The man did not cause the victim’s death unless the stab wound was an operating and substantial cause of death. This will be a matter for the prosecution to prove.
C. But for the stabbing, the victim would not have died as he did. Whether the man legally caused death will depend on whether the man foresaw that the victim might get a post-operative infection.
D. The prosecution must prove that, but for the stabbing, the victim would not have died as he did. They must also prove that the stab wound was an operating and substantial cause of death or that it was foreseeable that the victim might get a post-operative infection.
E. The man can raise a defence to the charge of murder by proving that he was not the legal cause of death because the infection was an intervening event which broke the chain of causation, so the actus reus cannot be established.
The correct option is D. his correctly identifies the law on causation, namely that both factual and legal causation must be established. It also sets out the test of factual causation and the alternatives to prove legal causation. The burden is accurately described as that of the prosecution.
Option A is not the best option as it only identifies the test of factual causation. Option B is not the best option as it does not refer to factual causation and only deals with one of the ways of establishing legal causation.
Option C is not the best option because, although it accurately refers to factual causation, it only covers one of the ways of establishing legal causation and that test is wrong – the issue is foreseeability not whether it was foreseen by the man.
Option E is not the best option because it incorrectly describes the causation argument as a defence, whereas it is an element of the actus reus of murder which the prosecution have to prove.
Two men got into an argument over a drug deal that went wrong. The defendant stabbed the victim in the chest with a large knife which he was carrying with him. Although the defendant admits to intending to kill the victim, he explains in interview that he believed he had no choice because there were voices in his head telling him to do so.
The defendant’s solicitor obtains copies of his medical records which show a long history of schizophrenia and associated violence.
Which one of the following statements is correct in relation to the partial defence of diminished responsibility?
A. This partial defence cannot be raised if the defendant is charged with an offence of manslaughter.
B. The defendant may rely on this partial defence if he is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a medical condition which provides an explanation for his actions in carrying out the killing.
C. As the defendant suffers from schizophrenia, this by itself is likely to be sufficient to establish the partial defence.
D. The defendant must prove this partial defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
E. The defendant is unable to rely on this partial defence as he has admitted to intending to kill the victim.
Option A is correct: diminished responsibility is a partial defence to murder only (not manslaughter).
Option B is wrong as this does not set out the test in full. Under s.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957. There is also a requirement for the abnormality of mental functioning to substantially impair the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, and/or form a rational judgment, and/or exercise self-control. Option B is wrong as this does not set out the test in full.
Option C is wrong as the fact that the defendant has schizophrenia is not sufficient on its own. He must prove that:
he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning;
which arose from the schizophrenia;
which impaired his ability to understand the nature of his conduct, and/or form a rational judgment, and/or exercise self-control; and
provides an explanation for the stabbing.
Option D is wrong as the partial defence of diminished responsibility must be proven by the defendant only on a balance of probabilities. Option E is also wrong as the defendant may raise and rely upon the partial defence of diminished responsibility despite the fact that he has admitted to intending to kill the victim.
For the offence of unlawful act manslaughter, which one of the following statements is wrong?
A. There must be an unlawful act or omission.
B. Dangerous means there is some risk of some harm to a person.
C. The defendant must cause the victim’s death.
D. The defendant must take their victim as they find them
A is the wrong statement and so you have picked the correct option. There must be an unlawful act - R v Lowe [1973] - not an omission. If a defendant fails to act and this results in a victim’s death, consider murder or gross negligence manslaughter. The other three statements are all correct.
Is it true or false that the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is recklessness as to causing death?
It is false as the mens rea changes to match that of the unlawful act. Usually, the unlawful act will be one of the assaults so the mens rea will be, for example, intention or recklessness as to causing some bodily harm.
However, it could equally be an intention or recklessness as to criminal damage if this is the relevant unlawful act.
