Criminal SBAQ's

Question 1

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.

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

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.

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

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.

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

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.

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

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.

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

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.

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

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.

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

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.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

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.

Answer 9

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).

Question 10

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.

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

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?

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

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.

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

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.

Answer 13

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.

Question 13

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.

Answer 13

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.

Question 13

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.

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

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.

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

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

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Is it true or false that the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is recklessness as to causing death?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Which one of the following statements concerning gross negligence manslaughter is wrong?

A. The correct test to apply to the defendant is negligence not recklessness.

B. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care.

C. A defendant may be convicted where the victim’s death results from their omission to act.

D. It is for the judge to determine whether the negligence was gross and to direct the jury accordingly.

Answer 17

The statement in option D is wrong and therefore, the correct answer.

This is because whether the negligence was gross is a question of fact to be determined by the jury and not by the judge. Options A and B accurately describe the law of gross negligence manslaughter, as does option C.

Question 18

Is the following statement true or false? A defendant can always rely on their involuntary intoxication to provide a defence to a crime whether the offence is one of basic or specific intent.

Answer 18

The statement is false.

Although involuntary intoxication can be a defence to crimes of basic and specific intent, it is not always a defence. This is because the defendant must also lack mens rea for the defence to succeed.

Question 19

A defendant is angry at the proposal by the local authority to close her daughter’s school. She climbs up onto the roof of the Town Hall and hangs a banner of protest onto the railings. As she is attaching it, one of the tiles comes loose and falls towards the ground. A pedestrian who is passing is hit by the tile and killed by the impact. The defendant is horrified by what has happened as she thought the tile was secure.

Which of the following statements correctly describes the court’s approach when determining the defendant’s liability for unlawful act manslaughter?

A. The defendant is liable for causing the pedestrian’s death even though she was horrified by what happened.

B. The court will apply a subjective test in deciding whether the act was dangerous and the defendant thought the tile was secure.

C. For the act to be dangerous, it must carry a risk of death and this would be satisfied by the tile falling to the ground.

D. The defendant must have intended a physical assault which she did not on these facts.

E. Criminal damage is not an unlawful act for unlawful act manslaughter so the defendant cannot be liable.

Answer 19

Option A is correct because the usual rules of factual and legal causation apply. But for the tile falling the pedestrian would not have died as and when they did, and the defendant’s action was an operating and substantial cause of the death. The mens rea of the unlawful act is satisfied as she was reckless as to causing criminal damage.

Option B is wrong as the test for dangerousness is objective; whilst option C is wrong because to satisfy this test, the act must carry the risk of some harm – not death. Option D is wrong because, for unlawful act manslaughter, the mens rea must match the actus reus of the unlawful act, namely criminal damage on these facts. There is no requirement that the mens rea is of an assault, although it usually is. Option E is wrong as criminal damage can be the unlawful act.

Question 20

The defendant is out with a group of friends at a pub. She sees a neighbour with whom she has fallen out, sitting on a stool at the bar and decides to confront her about the situation. An argument ensues, during which the defendant raises her hand to slap the neighbour across the face. The neighbour jerks backwards, overbalances and causes the stool to topple over. She falls onto the ground awkwardly and suffers a fractured skull from which she dies. The defendant is charged with unlawful act manslaughter.

Which statement correctly describes whether the defendant may be guilty of this offence?

A. Yes, because she was reckless as to causing death.

B. Yes, because the act of raising her hand was dangerous as the neighbour was sitting on a stool.

C. No, because the defendant did not touch the neighbour.

D. No, because the defendant did not intend to cause the neighbour’s death.

E. No, because the defendant’s act did not cause death as the neighbour died as a result of falling off the stool.

Answer 20

Option B is correct- This is because raising a hand to slap someone who is sitting on a stool at a bar is objectively dangerous given the likelihood of injury if they fall off.

Options A and D are wrong as the prosecution do not need to establish that the defendant either intended or was reckless as to causing the death. The mens rea required is that of the unlawful act – in this instance, intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend unlawful personal force. Option C is wrong as any unlawful act will satisfy the actus reus, including simple assault as here. Option E is wrong because the rules of factual and legal causation apply. But for the defendant’s act, the neighbour would not have fallen off the stool and hit her head, and the defendant’s conduct was also an operating and substantial cause of her death.

Question 21

Is the following statement true or false? Before a conviction for robbery can be established, it must first be proved that a defendant appropriated property belonging to another dishonestly and with an intention to permanently deprive.

Answer 21

The statement is TRUE!

An essential element of the offence of robbery is theft - without a theft, there can be no robbery.

Question 22

In which of the following situations can Bert be said to have entered a building for the purposes of a burglary offence?

A. Bert puts his arm through the window of the downstairs bathroom, but then gets his arm stuck.

B. Bert reaches into a house through the open kitchen window.

C. Bert walks into Donna’s offices without permission.

D. All of the above.

Answer 22

Option D is correct as Bert has entered a building for the purposes of burglary in each of the scenarios set out in options A, B and C. You may have considered that option A was wrong on the basis that the defendant could not at that point commit an ulterior offence as required for burglary; however, in R v Ryan [1996] the Court of Appeal held there was evidence of an effective entry into the building in this situation. Although it was a question of fact for the jury to decide, the inability of the defendant to commit an ulterior offence at that stage was not relevant.

The facts in option B are similar to those of R v Brown [1985]. Again the Court of Appeal confirmed that there must be an ‘effective entry’ (which there is here) and this was for the jury to decide.

In option C there is clear evidence on the facts that Bert has entered the property.

Question 23

Which one or more of the following elements are common to burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) and burglary under s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all correct statements.

A. Entry as a trespasser into a building or part of a building.

B. The actus reus of theft (appropriation of property belonging to another).

C. Knowledge or recklessness as to entry as a trespasser.

D. Intent to steal from the building or part of the building.

Answer 23

The common elements of both s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 burglary are those set out in options A and C above.

Option B is relevant only to burglary under s.9(1)(b) and option D only applies to burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a).

Question 24

Abebe has an argument with Masayo, a shop owner. He walks into Masayo’s shop and hides in a storeroom, intending to come out of the storeroom after closing time to attack Masayo in her shop. Is it true or false that Abebe has committed burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 when he entered the storeroom?

Answer 24

The statement is False

For Abebe to have committed burglary with intent when he entered the storeroom, he must have intended to cause grievous bodily harm in the storeroom itself (entry into part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit GBH therein).

Here, Abebe intended to come out of the storeroom and into the shop before attacking Masayo.

Question 25

A man decides to steal an expensive car which is parked on the drive of a large house. He walks down the drive to steal it. However, as he approaches the vehicle, he is horrified to discover that the woman and her daughter are about to get into the car to go shopping.

The man points a knife at the woman and says he will stab her unless she gives him the keys. When she refuses, he tells the woman he will stab her daughter, who is standing nearby, if she does not hand over the keys. The woman is in shock and does not comply so he punches the daughter to persuade the woman to release the keys. When she still refuses, he grabs the woman and snatches the keys from her hands.

An hour later, the man returns to the house and threatens to kill the woman if she gives evidence against him.

In which of the following scenarios will the man escape liability for robbery?

A. When he threatens to stab the woman.

B. When he threatens to stab the woman’s daughter.

C. When he punches the woman’s daughter.

D. When he snatches the keys from the woman’s hands.

E. When he threatens to kill the woman.

Answer 25

The correct answer is option E.

For the offence of robbery, the defendant must commit the actus reus and mens rea of theft and use or threaten force against the victim or another immediately before or at the time of the theft in order to steal. This applies in options A, B, C and D.

Question 26

A woman smashes a kitchen window at her neighbour’s house. She climbs in through the window onto the kitchen worktop. Before she can get down to the floor, the neighbour appears in the kitchen and runs towards her. The woman kicks out, hitting the neighbour who falls, fracturing his skull. The woman is shocked to see that the neighbour is badly injured and she later tells the police that she knew she should not have gone into the house. She says she was desperate for money and knew the neighbour had a valuable collection of jewellery that the woman had planned to take and sell.

Is the woman liable for an offence of burglary?

A. Yes, because she knows she is trespassing, she has effectively entered the neighbour’s house as a trespasser and she intended to cause criminal damage by smashing the window to gain entry.

B. Yes, because the judge will find, on the facts, that there has been an effective entry into a building as a trespasser and she intended to steal.

C. Yes, because she has entered the house as a trespasser, she knows she is a trespasser and she intended to steal.

D. No, because although she has entered the house as a trespasser and caused serious harm to the neighbour she did not intend to cause such serious harm.

E. No, because although she has made an effective entry into the building as a trespasser, knowing she should not be there, she has not stolen anything.

Answer 26

Option C is the best answer because it identifies the actus reus and mens rea elements of burglary (under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968: entry into a building as a trespasser, knowing (or being reckless) that she was trespassing and intending to steal.

Option A is not the best answer as, although she has entered the building as a trespasser, knowing she is trespassing, she does not have the ulterior mens rea for burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 as she enters with an intention to cause criminal damage once in the property. Intending to damage to gain entry is not within the definition of burglary.

Option B is not the best answer as the issue of an effective entry is a question of fact for the jury (not the judge). In addition, the prosecution would have to prove the mens rea of trespass as well as the ulterior mens rea of intent to steal (s.9(1)(a)).

Option D is not the best answer because, although it identifies the actus reus of entry into a building as a trespasser, it does not deal with the mens rea element of knowing or being reckless as to trespass. In addition, under s.9(1)(b), where grievous bodily harm has been caused, there is no need to prove an intention to do so – intention or recklessness as to some harm will suffice.

Option E is not the best answer because, if she entered a building as a trespasser, knowing (or being reckless) as to trespass, the fact that she did not steal anything would not avoid liability (under s.9(1)(a)) as her statement to the police shows she intended to steal and that suffices (for s.9(1)(a)).

Question 27

The defendant runs a hair salon. A woman sets up in competition with him only a few doors away and the defendant begins to lose customers. Worried that he will go out of business, the defendant decides that he will spray paint the words ‘Thief’ across the inside walls to damage the woman’s reputation in the local area.

That evening the defendant breaks into the woman’s salon when it is closed. He takes a knife with him in case the woman returns and disturbs him. Because the spray paint can does not work, he slashes the chairs with the knife instead. He then notices an expensive hair dryer which he decides to keep. As he is about to leave, the defendant hears a key in the lock and is horrified to see the woman returning to her salon. To ensure that he keeps the hair dryer, the defendant launches at her with the knife intending to stab her but fortunately the woman manages to escape. The defendant flees the salon.

The defendant is charged with a number of offences. What is the only offence he should be acquitted of?

A. Burglary with intent in relation to the intention to spray paint the word ‘Thief’.

B. Burglary in relation to the damaged chairs.

C. Burglary when he takes the hair dryer.

D. Burglary when he launches at the woman with a knife.

E. Aggravated burglary.

Answer 27

Option B is the only offence for which the defendant is not liable and, thus, should be acquitted. He is not guilty of burglary contrary to s.9(1)(b) as although he enters the salon (the building) as a trespasser, the definition does not cover the commission of criminal damage (although he would be liable for the substantive offence).

The defendant is liable for the offence of burglary with intent in option A. The actus reus of s.9(1)(a) burglary is satisfied as the defendant enters the building as a trespasser. He satisfies the relevant mens rea as he intends to enter as a trespasser because he does so when it is closed; and he has the ulterior mens rea of intent to commit criminal damage on entry which is sufficient for the s.9(1)(a) offence.

The defendant is liable for the burglary offence under s.9(1)(b) in option C because, having entered as a trespasser, he steals (appropriates property belonging to another dishonestly and with the intention to permanently deprive) the hair dryer. He is also guilty of this offence in option D as he attempts grievous bodily harm by launching at the woman with a knife.

The defendant is criminally liable for aggravated burglary in option E because the defendant has a weapon of offence (a knife) with him at the time he commits the burglary.

Question 28

Is the following statement true or false? Mushrooms are an example of ‘property’ as defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Answer 28

The statement is false as in option B – see section 10 of the Act. Property does not include mushrooms (or indeed flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant) growing wild on any land.

Question 29

Is the following statement true or false? A defendant can only commit the actus reus of aggravated criminal damage if the damage or destruction is to property belonging to another.

Answer 29

The statement is false.

A defendant can be liable for the aggravated offence even if they have damaged their own property.

Question 30

Which one of the following statements concerning the comparison between simple and aggravated criminal damage is correct?

A. Both offences have exactly the same actus reus.

B. For the offence of aggravated criminal damage it is necessary to show that the property damaged was more valuable.

C. For the aggravated offence there is an additional requirement of mens rea that the defendant by the destruction or damage endangered the life of another.

D. For the aggravated offence there is an additional requirement of mens rea that the defendant by the destruction or damage intended to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered.

Answer 30

only option D is correct as this is referring to the required ulterior mens rea for the s.1(2) offence of aggravated criminal damage. Although the actus reus for both the offences are similar, the property damaged or destroyed for the more serious s.1(2) offence need not necessarily belong to another, so option A is wrong.

The value of the property damaged or destroyed is immaterial so option B is also wrong.

There is no requirement that life is actually endangered and in any event this does not refer to a mens rea concept so option C is wrong.

Question 31

The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(a) and (b) only applies to simple criminal damage or arson. Is this statement true or false?

Answer 31

This statement is true! The defence of lawful excuse does not apply to aggravated criminal damage or arson.

Question 32

Jasmine is employed as a health care assistant in a care home for elderly people. She is concerned that the fire alarm does not work properly and so she sets fire to some bedding to draw attention to the issue. At her trial, Jasmine pleads not guilty on the basis that she was acting in order to protect property.

Is it true or false that Jasmine is judged solely on whether she personally believes she was acting to protect property.

Answer 32

The statement is false!

An objective test is applied to the phrase ‘in order to protect property’ under s.5(2)(b).

Here, the defendant’s act was not carried out in order to protect property; it was done to draw attention to the defective state of the fire alarm. Thus, Jasmine will fail in her defence of lawful excuse.

Question 33

Arriving home from work, Farah is confronted by Malaika with whom she has had an argument. Malaika picks up some rocks from the garden and throws them at Farah and her house, breaking one of the windows. Farah immediately grabs a plant pot from her neighbour’s front garden and hurls it towards Malaika. The pot smashes on the ground and Malaika runs off.

Which ONE or MORE of the following may provide a defence for Farah to a charge of criminal damage to the plant pot?

A. The defence of reasonable use of force under s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

B. The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 – honest belief that the owner would consent.

C. The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 – honest belief that property was in immediate need of protection and the means she used were reasonable.

Answer 33

A, B and C are correct

Section 76 of the CJIA 2008, as referred to in option A, allows a person to use reasonable force in self-defence and to prevent the commission of a crime. Here, Farah is responding to Malaika throwing rocks at her and breaking her window. In these circumstances, hurling a plant pot back is a reasonable use of force.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides two specific defences of ‘lawful excuse’ as in options B and C. Both of these are potentially relevant here as Farah may well have honestly believed that her neighbour would consent to the damage to their plant pot in the circumstances and/or that her house was in immediate need of protection and that the means she used were reasonable.

Question 34

A woman lives with her mother at her mother’s house. She has left her key at work. On returning home she looks through the front window and is horrified to see her mother lying on the floor, with a piece of coal from the fire smouldering on the carpet by her side. The woman grabs a large stone that she finds in the garden, smashes the window and climbs into the house. She picks up the coal and throws it back into the fire, before telephoning for an ambulance. Her mother is admitted to hospital and makes a full recovery.

Has the woman committed an offence of simple criminal damage in these circumstances?

A. No, provided the court is satisfied that a reasonable person in the woman’s position would have acted in the same way to save her mother.

B. No, because the woman honestly believed that the property was in immediate danger and the damage was reasonable in the circumstances.

C. No, because the woman may rely upon the defence of lawful excuse as a reasonable person would have consented to the damage had they known of the circumstances.

D. Yes, because the woman intentionally damaged property belonging to her mother.

E. Yes, because the woman has recklessly damaged property belonging to another and is aware that the property belongs to her mother.

Answer 34

The correct answer is option B as the woman honestly believed – a subjective test – that the property (the house) was in immediate danger from the piece of coal and smashing the window was reasonable in these circumstances.

Option A is wrong as the court will decide – objectively – what the defendant’s purpose was under s 5(2)(b) of the CDA 1971 and this must be to protect property (and not to save her mother). To establish the defence of lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971, the woman’s belief need only be an honest one (subjective) so option C is wrong.

Option D is wrong because although the woman did intentionally cause criminal damage, she will be able to rely on the defence of lawful excuse. Option E is wrong as the defendant intentionally, rather than recklessly, damaged her mother’s property as she smashed the window deliberately.

Question 35

A man demolishes a wall which his neighbour has built on her own land. The man honestly believes that it is necessary for him to do this in order to protect a right of vehicular access which his property enjoys across his neighbour’s land; and that if he does not do this immediately, his ability to enforce this right will be prejudiced.

Is the man likely to be liable for simple criminal damage?

A. No, because the man has not committed the necessary actus reus.

B. Yes, because the man has the necessary mens rea.

C. No, because the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse.

D. Yes, because the man has committed the necessary actus reus.

E. No, because the man does not have the necessary mens rea.

Answer 35

C is correct as whilst the man has intentionally damaged property belonging to another, he is likely to have a lawful excuse for his actions under section 5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This is because the man honestly believes he is protecting his access right.

Option A is partly correct as the man is not likely to be held liable for criminal damage, but he has committed the actus reus of the offence. This is not the best answer as the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse.

Options B and D are wrong as the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse. Furthermore, option E is wrong, because even though the man is not likely to be held liable for criminal damage (because he is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse) he does have the mens rea for this offence.

Question 36

A man and a woman are arguing one evening in the pub. Finally, in response to the man’s comment that the woman is ‘an ugly cow’, she loses her temper and throws her glass of red wine at the man. The wine lands on the front of his shirt. The man does not do his laundry for a few days and then has difficulty in getting the stain out because he has left it so long. The stain would have come out easily if he had dealt with it immediately. The man pays for professional cleaners to clean his shirt which they do successfully.

Which one of the following best describes the woman’s liability for criminal damage in these circumstances?

A. As the stain can be washed off, the woman has not committed the actus reus of criminal damage.

B. The man’s failure to clean the shirt immediately absolves the woman of liability for criminal damage.

C. The woman has not satisfied the mens rea of criminal damage because she reacted to an insult from the man.

D. The woman is guilty of criminal damage because expense was involved in restoring the property to its previous condition.

E. The woman satisfies the actus reus and the mens rea of criminal damage but she is not guilty as the defence of lawful excuse applies.

Answer 36

The correct option is D. Usually if expense is involved in restoring the property to its previous condition, the court is likely to find that damage is established sufficient for the offence of criminal damage.

Option A is wrong as it does not matter that the damage is temporary, nor that the man failed to clean the shirt immediately (option B). Option C is wrong because it is irrelevant that the man goaded the woman and that her motive was anger – this is a separate issue from the mens rea.

Option E is wrong because the defence of lawful excuse is not satisfied on the facts. The woman does not believe the man would consent – s.5(2)(a) – nor was her purpose the protection of property, so s.5(2)(b) does not apply either.

Question 37

Which one or more of the following would amount to an appropriation of Alex’s laptop by Bernie? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all the correct options.

A. Switching it on.

B. Offering the laptop for sale.

C. Agreeing to lend the laptop to Carmen.

D. Accepting the laptop as a gift.

E. Throwing the laptop in a skip.

Answer 37

Options A, B, C, D and E are correct as switching the laptop on, offering it for sale, agreeing to lend the laptop, accepting the laptop as a gift, and throwing it in a skip are all appropriations. This is because an appropriation under s.3 Theft Act 1968 includes any assumption of the rights of an owner.

Question 38

In which of the following scenarios does Joanna satisfy the mens rea for theft?

A. She borrowed Mary’s coat to go to the local shop as she could not find hers and put it back as soon as she returned.

B. She picked up Kieran’s keys honestly and unreasonably thinking they were hers.

C. She picked up a pen from work and took it home.

D. She picked up Hannah’s laptop leaving £50 to pay for the laptop.

Answer 38

The correct option is D. This is because s.2(2) states that a willingness to pay is not conclusive proof of lack of dishonesty and the jury will assess the issue of dishonesty in the normal way.

The mens rea is not satisfied in option A because Joanna has no intention to permanently deprive Mary of her coat. Also, she may not be dishonest under s.2(1)(b) if she honestly believes that Mary would consent to her borrowing her coat.

Joanna is not dishonest in option B because of the provisions contained in s.2(1) Theft Act 1968. Because she thought the keys were hers, Joanna believed she had the right in law to take them – s.2(1)(a). Provided the defendant’s belief is honestly held, it does not need to be reasonable and the jury would have to acquit Joanna of theft in these circumstances.

In option C, picking up a pen from work is unlikely to be regarded as dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary, decent people as required by the Ivey test.

Question 39

In which of the following situations is there an intention permanently to deprive for the purpose of theft?

A. Deanna borrows her neighbour’s lawnmower but plans to return it an hour later.

B. Deanna takes £5 from her partner’s wallet to pay for her lunch. She plans to repay him when she is paid next week.

C. In October, Deanna takes Joe’s membership card for the local gym. She plans to return the card to Joe in November. Joe’s membership is due for renewal next May.

Answer 39

The correct option is option B. Although Deanna intends to repay the money, this is relevant to the separate issue of dishonesty. There is a clear intention to permanently deprive of the actual cash taken as she plans to spend it on her lunch and even if Deanna repays the money, it will be different coins or notes.

Options A and C are wrong because taking an item is not, in itself, sufficient to establish the relevant intention. An intention to permanently deprive has to be proved and an intention to borrow will not suffice unless, under s.6(1) Theft Act 1968, the borrowing equates to an outright taking. In options A and C, this is not the case as there is still a value to the property when Deanna plans to return it.

Question 40

Which one or more of the following are elements of the actus reus and/or mens rea of fraud under s.2 Fraud Act 2006? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all the correct statements?

A. Appropriation of property

B. Dishonestly

C. Making a false representation

D. With intention to permanently deprive

E. Without having paid as required or expected

F. Knowing the representation is or might be untrue or misleading

G. With intent to make a gain or cause a loss to another

H. With intention to avoid payment permanently

Answer 40

The correct options are B, C, F and G as these are all elements of fraud under s.2 Fraud Act 2006; the rest are elements of the actus reus or mens rea of theft or the unrelated offence of making off without payment (which is beyond the scope of this course).

Question 41

Which of the following statements is wrong?

A. To be guilty of fraud by false representation, the defendant must make a false representation and it is irrelevant whether anyone is misled by the representation.

B. To be guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information, there must be a legal duty to disclose that information.

C. To be guilty of fraud by abuse of position, the defendant must be in a position of financial trust.

D. The mens rea is the same for all three ways of committing fraud.

Answer 41

The correct option is D as this statement is wrong. Although the mens rea for all types of fraud is that the defendant intended to make a gain for self or another or to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss, and did so dishonestly, fraud by false representation has another requirement. The accused must know the representation is or might be false.

Question 42

Alice applies for a job as a solicitor and, as part of the application process, she is asked whether she has any criminal convictions. Alice ticks the box to indicate that she does not, despite having been found guilty of a theft offence when she was at school. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Alice is guilty of fraud by false representation.

B. Alice is guilty of fraud by false representation and fraud by failing to disclose information.

C. Alice is guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information.

D. Alice is guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of a position of trust.

Answer 42

The correct option is B-

Alice makes a false representation of fact under s.2 Fraud Act 2006 by wrongly stating that she does not have any criminal convictions. She is also guilty of failing to disclose information under s.3 as she is subject to a legal duty to disclose the theft conviction due to the express term of the employment contract.

Question 43

A man and woman are friends and are out clubbing. They consume several alcoholic drinks and obtain some LSD. They leave the club at 02:00 hours and head back to the man’s flat. Once there, they decide to play a fantasy computer game that involves killing trolls and dragons to win their powers. They decide to take the LSD to enhance the gaming experience. A little while later, the woman falls asleep. She hears a sudden crash in the room and awakes to find a ‘troll’ looming over her. She grabs a
poker from the fireside and attacks the ‘troll’ until it stops shrieking and falls down motionless. The woman then falls back to sleep on the sofa.

In the morning, the woman awakes to find the man on the floor. Believing him to be dead, she runs from the house. Later, the man’s flatmate returns from her night shift to find the man unconscious with serious head injuries. The flatmate immediately calls an ambulance. The man is pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, despite
the paramedics’ best efforts. Which of the following statements best describes the woman’s potential
criminal liability?

A. The woman is guilty of murder.

B. The woman is not guilty of any crime as intoxication is a complete defence.

C. The woman is guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

D. The woman is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

E. The paramedics’ failure to save the man means that the woman will not be guilty of any offence.

Answer 43

Option D is the best answer. The requirements for unlawful act manslaughter are an unlawful act, with the actus reus and mens rea for that act (in this case intentional /
reckless battery; malicious wounding / inflicting GBH) that is inherently dangerous on an objective test (repeated blows with a poker are clearly dangerous) and causes the victim’s death. Both factual and legal causation are satisfied; but for the woman’s actions, the man would not have died and her actions remain the operating and substantial cause of the man’s death. There is no requirement that the death is foreseen. There is no suggestion that the paramedics’ treatment broke the chain of causation here. There is also an argument to suggest that the woman created a dangerous situation that she was under a duty to do something about – she should have at least checked for signs of life and/or called an ambulance when she discovered the man’s body meaning that gross negligence manslaughter could be considered, but Option D remains the best answer.

Option A is wrong because the woman was too intoxicated to form the specific intent for murder (to kill / cause serious harm – “malice aforethought”). She neither intended to kill nor cause serious harm to a human being – she believed she was attacking a
troll (See Lipman [1970]).

Option B is wrong. Voluntary intoxication can only provide a defence to crimes that
require specific intent where the defendant is too intoxicated to form that intent. Such intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (and in any event it is not actually a defence but a claim that the defendant lacked mens rea.)

Option C is wrong. The victim has died so this is a homicide, rather than a non-fatal
offence against the person.

Option E is wrong. There is no suggestion that the paramedics’ treatment was
inappropriate. It is only where the medical treatment itself is ‘palpably bad’ and
causes the death that the chain of causation may be said to be broken.

Question 44

When a middle-aged man saw a group of boys harassing a girl, he shouted at them to stop. They walked towards him, and he decided to leave the park, not wanting any trouble. He picked up the can of beer he was drinking but left the remaining cans on the park bench. The boys picked up the cans and followed him out of the park and down the street. They threw the cans at him and accused him of touching one of them inappropriately. The man walked as fast as he could but one of the boys caught up with him and
grabbed his shoulder whilst shouting insults in his face. The man swung round and
punched the boy hard several times. The boy fell and hit his head on the pavement, dying instantly. The man told police he lashed out because he was afraid. He also told them that he has anxiety phobia and hates being touched. Which of the following is the most accurate description of a partial defence that
the man could rely on?

A. The man could rely on loss of control because he was genuinely afraid of some
violence.

B. The man could rely on the loss of control because he was objectively afraid of
serious violence.

C. The man could rely on self-defence as he was afraid that he was going to suffer
harm.

D. The man could rely on diminished responsibility as he was not able to exercise
self-control.

E. The man could rely on diminished responsibility due to his phobia anxiety, even if he was intoxicated.

Answer 44

Option E is correct. Where medical evidence confirms that an abnormality of mental
functioning caused the man to kill the boy, he may be successful in pleading this
defence. The law does not require the abnormality of mind to be the sole cause of
the man’s acts.

Option A is wrong. Although the man must be genuinely afraid, it must be of serious
violence, not some violence.

Option B is wrong because the man must be subjectively, not objectively, afraid of serious violence.

Option C is wrong as self-defence is not one of the partial defences. In any event to be successful in this defence the man must use reasonable force. Hitting someone several times is arguably excessive.

Option D is wrong as it is incomplete. Not being able to exercise self-control is part of
the test for loss of control. For diminished responsibility, the defendant must demonstrate that their abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired their
ability to do one of three things including exercising self-control.

Question 45

A woman is travelling on the bus when she finds a wallet. She opens it and finds a
debit card inside with a chip and pin facility. She decides to keep the wallet and use
the card to buy her friend a bottle of wine for her birthday. She goes into a wine shop and chooses a bottle of wine. She hands the card to the shop assistant with the wine bottle to make a purchase, but then panics. The woman tells the assistant she has
changed her mind and runs out leaving the card and the wine with the shop
assistant.

Which of the following statements best describes the woman’s potential
liability for fraud and theft?

A. She has committed no offences of theft or fraud as she left the card and wine in
the shop.

B. She has not stolen the wallet but has committed a fraud when she uses the card.

C. She has stolen the wallet but has not committed a fraud when she uses the card.

D. She will only have committed these offences if she realised that honest and
reasonable people might regard what she did as dishonest.

E. She has stolen the wallet and committed a fraud when she uses the card.

Answer 45

Option E is correct. The woman has appropriated the wallet belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it (she intends to keep it) and is
clearly dishonest – s.3(1) Theft Act 1968. It is unlikely that the wallet has been abandoned as there is still a credit card inside and the woman could have taken steps to identify its owner.The woman has made a representation (that she is entitled to use the card) which is false (as she does not have the owner’s consent). The representation was intended to make a gain for herself and a loss to the shop (the bottle of wine). She knows her representation is false as she knows it is not her card and she is clearly dishonest.

Option A is wrong as she did appropriate the wallet with the mens rea of theft. With
regards to the offence of fraud, she does not have to take the bottle of wine away for the actus reus to be satisfied. On the facts, she made the (false) representation that
the card was hers with the relevant mens rea.

Option B is wrong because she did appropriate the wallet with the mens rea of theft.

Option C is wrong because the actus reus and mens rea of fraud are satisfied by her
presenting the card and wine to the shop assistant.

Option D is wrong because this is not the correct test for dishonesty.

Question 46

A woman has been notified by her social worker that her children are going to be taken into care because of concerns about their welfare. She becomes angry and aggressive and the social worker’s manager hears the commotion. The manager approaches the woman from behind and puts his hand on the woman’s arm, to try and calm her down. The woman lives with an abusive partner who frequently assaults her. Believing that she is about to be attacked, she turns around and hits the manager in the face, causing a minor cut which bleeds slightly.

The woman accepts in her police interview that she realised there was a risk she may cause the manager some harm when hitting him, but states that she was acting in self-defence.

Which statement best describes the woman’s liability for maliciously wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to the manager?

A. The woman is not liable because the injury caused to the manager is not sufficiently serious to satisfy the actus reus for this offence.

B. The woman is liable because she cannot rely upon self-defence as she was mistaken in her belief that the manager was about to attack her.

C. The woman is not liable because she believed that she was about to be attacked and hitting the manager was reasonable force in these circumstances.

D. The woman is liable because her reaction in shoving the manager was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances.

E. The woman is liable because she caused a wound to the manager and admitted that she was aware there was a risk of causing some harm.

Answer 46

Option C is correct as the defendant is not liable for an assault under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The woman does satisfy both the actus reus (by causing a wound to the manager as the cut involves the breaking of both layers of the skin – Moriarty v Brookes (1834)); and also, the mens rea (she realised there was a risk she may cause the manager some harm). However, the woman has a complete defence: she believed that force was necessary (subjective) and the degree of force – shoving someone to prevent an attack – is reasonable in the circumstances (objective).

Option A is wrong because it is irrelevant whether the scratch is serious enough to constitute grievous bodily harm – the actus reus of this offence is satisfied by either a wound or grievous bodily harm. In this instance, the ‘minor cut…bleeds slightly’ and this is sufficient.

Option B is wrong because the need to use force is based on the facts as the woman honestly and genuinely believed them to be, even if she is mistaken. Here, the woman thought that she was about to be attacked due to being subjected to assaults from her abusive partner. Thus, she can rely upon the complete defence of self-defence in these circumstances.

Option D is wrong because the woman’s reaction (shoving someone she believes is about to attack her) is not disproportionate and, in any event, this is the test for the ‘householder’ defence.

Option E does not ‘best describe’ the woman’s liability as it takes no account of the availability of the defence of self-defence; hence, the conclusion is wrong.

Question 47

A man who is standing on a train objects when another passenger sits down on the last remaining seat. He begins shouting and swearing at the passenger, who becomes nervous and anxious. A police officer who is also on the train goes to the passenger’s assistance. When the man shows no signs of calming down, the officer tries to arrest him. During the scuffle, the officer is bitten on her finger, an injury which draws blood and requires four stitches. In interview, the man states that the officer put her hand over his mouth, so he could not breathe, and he bit the officer to make her let go. He denies intending to cause her really serious harm, but accepts that he knew she would suffer some harm by biting her in this way.

The prosecution have advised that they intend to charge the man with the most serious offence of assault in relation to the passenger and the police officer which can be justified on the evidence.

Which of the following best describes the man’s potential liability in relation to the passenger and the police officer?

A. The man is liable for battery in relation to the passenger and intentionally causing a wound to the officer.

B. The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger and wounding the officer intending to resist arrest and intending to cause her some harm.

C. The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger and inflicting grievous bodily harm on the officer.

D. The man is not liable for an assault in relation to the passenger and liable for inflicting grievous bodily harm on the officer.

E. The man is liable for battery to the passenger and causing actual bodily harm to the officer.

Answer 47

The best answer is option B. With regard to the incident with the passenger, the man did not apply any unlawful force and so cannot be charged with battery. For this reason, options A and E are both wrong. The relevant assault would be a simple assault as the man caused the passenger to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal physical force and intended or was reckless as to doing so. This is apparent from the evidence that the passenger was ‘nervous and anxious’.

The most serious offence with which the man could be charged for the assault on the police officer is a s 18 assault. The actus reus is to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The man has caused a wound to the officer as he bites her finger drawing blood; this is apparent as the injury required four stitches. Although the man’s intention was not to cause grievous bodily harm, just to stop the officer from suffocating him, he is liable under the alternate mens rea. He has an intention to resist arrest and an intention (or recklessness) as to causing actual bodily harm.

Options C, D and E are wrong because the question required the most serious assault to be identified. Thus, although the man could be charged with either a s 20 or a s 47 assault, this does not meet that criteria. Furthermore, option D states (wrongly) that the man is not liable for an assault in relation to the passenger, whilst E suggests that he would be liable for battery.

Question 48

A prosecutor has received a file from the police asking for advice as to whether the actus reus is satisfied for an offence of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred between two youths who were arguing over payment for a drugs deal. The dispute escalated into a fight and the defendant punched the victim causing several injuries and then stabbed him.

The prosecutor considers the medical report which confirms that the victim was stabbed in the abdomen and this injury required one stitch to stop the bleeding. He also suffered internal bleeding to his kidney due to being kicked, a minor scratch to his face which drew blood and a fractured cheekbone. In addition, the victim now has an anxiety disorder which means he is afraid to leave his house, as a result of the trauma of the assault.

Which of the following statements best describes whether the injuries would satisfy the actus reus of an offence of assault inflicting grievous bodily harm?

A. The injury to the abdomen satisfies the actus reus as it required one stitch to stop the bleeding.

B. The internal bleeding to the victim’s kidney can only be charged as a lesser assault as there is no breaking of both layers of the skin.

C. The minor scratch to the face is not sufficiently serious to satisfy the actus reus of this offence.
selected

D. The fractured cheek bone satisfies the actus reus of this offence but only if it leads to permanent disfigurement.

E. An anxiety disorder does not satisfy the actus reus as psychiatric conditions are not included within the definition.

Answer 48

The correct answer is option A. The actus reus of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under ss.18/20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires a breaking of both layers of the skin resulting in bleeding (Moriarty v Brookes (1834)) or really serious harm as in DPP v Smith [1961]. The stab wound would satisfy the definition as a stitch was needed to stop the bleeding.

Option B is wrong as the injury to the kidney does not have to be charged as a lesser offence. Although internal bleeding is not a wound, it may count as grievous bodily harm and either will satisfy the actus reus.

Option C is wrong as any breaking of both layers of the skin will satisfy the definition of a wound. Thus, a minor scratch which draws blood will do.

Option D is wrong as a fractured cheekbone would count as grievous bodily harm and there is no need for the victim to suffer permanent disfigurement.

Option E is wrong as grievous bodily harm can include psychiatric injury if it is serious enough – R v Ireland/Burstow [1997].

Question 49

A woman pushes a man over the cliff after he tells her he wants a divorce. He falls 20 metres and lands on the beach below which is covered in sharp rocks. The man fractures multiple bones in his body, including his back, and spends six months in hospital recovering.

In her police interview, the woman states that she was angry and upset and wanted to hurt the man but not seriously. When questioned by the interviewing officer, the woman confirms that she was aware of the significant drop down to the beach and pushed the man deliberately knowing that he would fall onto the rocks. She also admits that she was aware serious injury was a virtual certainty.

The police request advice from the Crown Prosecution Service as to how to proceed.

What is the most appropriate offence to charge the woman with on the evidence provided?

A. Attempted murder.

B. Causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

C. Inflicting grievous bodily harm.
selected

D. Causing actual bodily harm.

E. Battery.

Answer 49

Option B is the correct answer. The man suffered grievous bodily harm (multiple fractures). Although the woman says she did not intend to seriously hurt the man, she acknowledges that she was aware of the drop to the beach and knew he would fall onto the rocks. It is virtually certain that grievous bodily harm would occur in this situation and the woman is aware of this. This would provide evidence of indirect intent sufficient to establish an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Option A is wrong because there is no evidence that the woman intended to kill the man as is required for attempted murder; she said that she wanted to hurt him but not seriously.

Options C, D and E are correct but they do not represent the most appropriate charge given the serious nature of the injuries.

Question 50

A man and his neighbour are in dispute about their boundary. One morning, they begin to argue about the issue and the man loses his temper. He slaps the neighbour across the face causing a red mark, which quickly fades. When the neighbour says that he is going to report the man to the police, the man launches himself at the neighbour and punches him in the face. The neighbour sustains a black eye (bruising) but is otherwise unharmed. When interviewed by the police, the man accepts that he acted deliberately, but was shocked when he realised that he had caused bruising to the man’s eye.

Which statement best describes the man’s criminal liability for assault?

A. The man is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for the slap to the neighbour’s face as he caused a red mark.

B. The man is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for both the slap and the punch as the injuries caused were more than transient or trifling.

C. The man is liable for battery for both the slap and the punch as he recklessly applied unlawful force to the neighbour.

D. The man is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he punches the neighbour but for battery when he slaps him.

E. The man is liable for battery for the slap but not liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for the punch as he did not intend to cause harm to the neighbour.

Question 51

A father finds out his teenage daughter is taking drugs and he confronts her at home. When she confirms his suspicions, the father says that if she continues to take drugs, he will kill her drug dealer (Incident 1).

A few days later, the father sees the dealer selling drugs to his daughter outside their house. The father shouts to the dealer that he has seven days to leave the area and, if he does not, the father threatens to seek out the dealer and stab him (Incident 2).

When the father sees the drug dealer hanging around his house ten days later, he runs out and punches him in the face (Incident 3).

What statement best describes the father’s criminal liability for the three incidents?

A. He is liable for simple assault only when he threatens to kill the dealer

B. He is liable for simple assault only when he threatens to stab the dealer (Incident 2).

C. He is liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer (Incident 1); and battery when he punches him (Incident 3).

D. He is liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer and to stab him (Incidents 1 and 2); and battery when he punches the dealer (Incident 3).

E. He is liable for battery only when he punches the dealer (Incident 3).

Answer 51

The correct option is E. The father is not liable for simple assault when he tells his daughter that he will kill her drug dealer. This is because his daughter does not apprehend any violence against her as the threat was directed against the drug dealer; and neither does the dealer as he was not present when the words were spoken. Furthermore, the father is not liable for simple assault when he threatens to stab the dealer because this is a conditional threat, which is not immediate as the dealer has seven days to leave the area. Hence, the father is only liable for physical assault (battery) when he punches the dealer. He intentionally inflicts unlawful personal force on the dealer when he does so.

Options A and B are wrong for the reasons stated above, namely, that the father does not commit simple assault for the first two threats. Option C is wrong because he is not liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer. Option D is also wrong because the father does not commit simple assault when he threatens to stab the dealer.

Question 52

A woman stabs her sister after an argument causing a serious injury. The sister is rushed to hospital for treatment and is told she needs a blood transfusion. She refuses to have a blood transfusion because of her strong religious beliefs and dies from her injuries.

Is there a break in the chain of causation?

A. Yes, because she refused the blood transfusion.

B. Yes, because her religious beliefs break the causal link between the act and the death.

C. Yes, because you must take the victim as you find them

D. No, because refusing the blood transfusion caused the death.

E. No, because the stab wound caused the death and the religious beliefs do not break the causal link between the act and the death.

Answer 52

Option E is the correct answer the woman has to take the victim as she finds them the stab wound caused the death the fact she refused to stop this because of her religious beliefs does not break the causal link between the act and the death. She cannot argue that this intervening act breaks the chain od causation. R v Blaue (1975) 1WLR 1411

Option A to C are wrong the chain of causation is not broken.

Option D is wrong as the stab wound not refusing the transfusion caused the death.

Question 53

A woman has been appointed as a trustee for a charity. Her role is to set up and promote a series of sponsored events to raise money for the charity. She enters into a contract with a company to assist her in this task but does not mention to the other trustees that one of the directors is her husband. The charity is also unaware that the woman has an arrangement with the company whereby she receives a payment for each event that they organise.

A. Fraud by false representation.

B. Fraud by failure to disclose information.

C. Fraud by abuse of position.

D. Fraud by false representation and by abuse of position.

E. Fraud by failure to disclose information and by abuse of position.

Answer 53

The correct answer is option E. The woman is guilty of an offence under s 3 as she fails to disclose to the other trustees that her husband is benefiting from the contract to set up and promote the sponsored events. This is material information that she is under a legal duty to disclose. In addition, the woman is also guilty of an offence of abuse of position under s 4 of the FA 2006. She is in a fiduciary position (as a trustee) in which she is expected to safeguard or not act against the financial interests of another, in this instance, the charity. This duty would require her to ensure that all profits from the events were given to the charity and not to her personally. As to the mens rea, the woman intends to make a gain for herself and another (her husband) and a corresponding loss to the charity, and the court is likely to be satisfied as to her dishonesty.

Option A is wrong because the woman does not make a false representation under s 2, as is option D for the same reason. Options B and C are wrong as they only identify one of the offences for which she may be liable rather than both.

Question 54

A lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service is asked to provide charging advice in relation to a defendant who has allegedly committed a number of offences of fraud. Having considered the evidence, the lawyer sends a report to the police informing them of the outcome of the review.

In which of the following scenarios is there insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant has made a false representation?

A. The defendant states he is 14 years of age in order to purchase a child’s ticket for the bus when he is aged 16 years.

B. The defendant dresses as a security guard so that he is allowed into a concert without paying.

C. The defendant uses his friend’s identity card to purchase alcohol from the local supermarket.

D. The defendant persuades his aunt to give him a painting by telling her it is worthless despite (wrongly) believing it to be valuable.

E. The defendant uses a stolen debit card to purchase goods over the internet.

Answer 54

Option D is correct. When stating the value, the defendant represents that the painting is worthless. Although he believes the painting to be valuable, because it is actually of no value, there is no false representation. In all the other answers, the defendant makes a false representation in fact, either expressly in words (as in option A) or by his conduct (options B, C and E). It is irrelevant that the representation is made to a machine.

Question 55

A woman is employed by the local council to allocate contracts for the supply of goods and services to the various departments. As part of this role, she grants the contract for the supply of educational materials to a company but fails to mention to the councillors that one of the directors is her husband. The council is also unaware that the woman has received a fee for ensuring the company was awarded the contract.

Which of the following best describes how the woman has committed an offence of fraud?

A. Fraud by false representation.

B. Fraud by failure to disclose information.

C. Fraud by abuse of position.

D. Fraud by failure to disclose information and by abuse of position.

E. Fraud by false representation and by abuse of position.

Answer 55

The correct answer is option D. The woman is guilty of an offence under s 3 as she fails to disclose to the councillors that her husband is benefiting from the contract to supply the educational materials. This is material information that she is under a legal duty to disclose. In addition, the woman is also guilty of an offence of abuse of position under s 4 of the FA 2006. She is in a fiduciary position (as an employee) in which she is expected to safeguard or not act against the financial interests of another, in this instance, the council. This duty would require her to ensure that the contract was awarded on merit and not because she receives a payment. As to the mens rea, the woman intends to make a gain for herself and another (her husband) and the court is likely to be satisfied as to her dishonesty.