Criminal Unit 1 SBAQs 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.
A is correct that 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.
To convict for murder the prosecution must show that the defendant brought about the victim’s death. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Murder is a state of affairs crime.
B. Murder is a conduct crime.
C. Murder is a result crime.
C is correct; murder is a result crime because killing is bringing about a result – the death – rather than taking an actual step. Option A is wrong as state of affairs offences are those such as being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road while unfit to drive through drink. Option B is wrong because, for these crimes, it is the defendant’s conduct rather than the result itself which is criminalised. Examples would be perjury, fraud and blackmail which are all offences regardless of the consequences.
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
B is Correct:
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.
The prosecution must also establish legal causation. In which of the following scenarios is it most likely that the chain of causation would be broken so that the accused is NOT liable for the victim’s death?
A. The defendant stabs the victim and leaves them in a building which subsequently collapses in an earthquake, killing them.
B. The victim is assaulted by the defendant but dies when the ambulance taking them to hospital crashes.
C. The victim commits suicide after a serious assault.
D. The defendant makes sexual advances towards a woman while driving her home. The victim jumps out of the moving car and is hit and killed by another vehicle.
The correct option is A. An earthquake would break the chain of causation as such a natural event is unforeseeable and extraordinary. In contrast, the chain of causation would remain intact where a victim who is left on the beach dies of drowning from the incoming tide, for example.
Option B is wrong. The intervention of a third party must be ‘free, deliberate and informed’ and the driver’s action in crashing the ambulance would not be; hence the chain of causation is not broken here. With regard to option C, the victim’s suicide and even voluntary euthanasia may not break the chain of causation if it falls within the range of reasonable responses that might have been expected from a victim in their situation. Option D is wrong as the victim’s death is caused by an escape which is a reasonable response to the threat and thus, it would not break the chain of causation.
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.
A is correct. 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.
What does mens rea mean?
A. The motive for the offence.
B. The reason why an offence is committed.
C. The mental state when committing the offence.
D. The physical aspect of the offence.
Option C is the right answer. The motive or reason why the defendant committed the offence are irrelevant so options A and B are wrong. The physical aspect of the offence is referred to as the actus reus – hence, option D is wrong
Which of the following correctly describes the definition of indirect intent?
A. The consequence is highly likely to occur and the defendant is aware of this.
B. The result is a virtually certain consequence of the act.
C. The result is a highly probable consequence of the act.
D. The result is a virtually certain consequence of the act and the defendant is aware of this
Option D is the right answer. Indirect or oblique intent applies where the defendant argues that the outcome was not their main aim or purpose, but the court finds that the result was a virtually certain consequence of the act and, furthermore, that the defendant was aware of this. In other words, the outcome is an unfortunate by-product of what was done. None of the other statements are correct although they would satisfy the mens rea for recklessness
If a jury is satisfied that the test for indirect intent has been established, they must find that the result was intended even though it was not the defendant’s purpose.
Is this statement true or false?
The statement is false. This is because where the result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s act, the jury ‘may’ find that the result was intended even though it was not the defendant’s purpose - not ‘must’ find
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 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.
Is it true or false that the test for negligence is a subjective one?
The statement is false because negligence is judged objectively so the defendant is punished for failing to measure up to the standards of the reasonable person.
The defendant has a fight with the victim over a drugs dispute, during which the defendant produces a knife and stabs the victim in the stomach. The victim is rushed to hospital by ambulance but subsequently dies and the defendant is charged with his murder. The defendant argues that he is not liable because of an intervening event.
Which of the following events is most likely to break the chain of causation?
A. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance breaks down and the victim dies while waiting for a second ambulance to attend.
B. The victim is kept waiting for several hours at the Accident and Emergency Department of his local hospital and dies from complications arising from the stab wound.
C. The victim receives prompt medical treatment but dies a month later as a result of a post-operative infection because the wound was not property treated.
D. The victim refuses to accept medical treatment because of his religious beliefs and dies from the stab wound, when he would not have done otherwise.
E. The victim is in hospital recovering from successful surgery for his injuries when he dies from food poisoning from a chicken sandwich which his mother gave him.
Option E is the correct answer as the victim dies as a result of an unforeseen event.
The chain of causation is not broken in option A because the breaking down of the ambulance was not free, deliberate and informed (voluntary).
The defendant remains liable for the victim’s death in option B as the stab wound is the substantial and operating cause of his demise (he dies from complications arising from the original injury). The negligent medical treatment which the victim receives in option C may not be enough to break the chain of causation as it has to be so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing death that the contribution made by the defendant is rendered insignificant. In this instance, the defendant’s act of stabbing the victim is not ‘insignificant’ as, without this, he would not have had an infection at all.
The victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment in option D is not an intervening event because the defendant must take his victim as he finds him and this includes the ‘whole man’ and not just the ‘physical man’.
A man wants to knock down a small brick wall on his property, and he plans to do so using a large hammer. The brick wall is within 5 meters of his neighbour’s car. The man decides to face away from his neighbour’s car as he knocks the wall down, as he hopes that doing so will somewhat reduce the risk of the bricks hitting his neighbour’s car and causing damage to it, which he knows his neighbour would be upset about. Unfortunately, as he is smashing the wall down, one of the bricks does hit the neighbour’s car, causing a dent on a door panel.
Which of the following best represents whether the man has the mens rea for the offence of criminal damage?
A. The man has the mens rea of direct intent, as it was his aim, purpose or desire to damage the car.
B. The man has the mens rea of indirect intent because the reasonable person would have seen that damage to the car was a virtual certainty.
C. The man has the mens rea of recklessness because he foresaw that there was a risk that his actions would damage the car and he went on to take the risk anyway.
D. The man does not have the mens rea for the offence because he hoped not to cause damage to the car.
E. The man does have the mens rea for the offence because the malice can be transferred from the damage he intended to the wall, to the damage caused to the car.
Option C is correct because, although he tried not to damage the car, we are told that he thinks he has only somewhat reduced the risk, and therefore he has seen that there is a risk, he has gone on to take that risk, and the risk is unjustified (R v Cunningham).
Option A is wrong because the man was trying not to damage the car and therefore did not have an intention (aim, purpose or desire) to cause damage to the car.
Option B is wrong because the test for indirect intent requires the man to see the outcome as a virtual certainty (R v Woollin), not that the reasonable person would have seen it as a virtual certainty. On these facts, whilst he did foresee a risk and attempted to mitigate it, it does not appear that he foresaw the risk as a virtual certainty.
Option D is wrong because the mens rea for criminal damage can be formed through either intent or recklessness, so the fact that he did not have the intention does not mean he lacks the mens rea for the offence altogether.
Option E is wrong because his intention to damage his wall meant that he intended to damage his own property. Criminal damage requires that you intend to damage property belonging to another. Damaging your own property is not a criminal offence in itself. The malice (his intention) cannot, therefore, be transferred in relation to property that belongs to another, because he did not have the intention to damage property belonging to another in the first place.
A young woman is walking along an icy pavement on a cold winters evening when she sees an elderly woman using a walking stick slip on some ice and fall into the road. Although the young woman realises that the elderly woman is in danger of being struck by a vehicle, she decides not to help as she is in a rush. The elderly woman is subsequently run over by a heavy goods vehicle and dies from her injuries.
Will the young woman’s failure to act make her criminally liable for the elderly woman’s death?
A. Yes, because the young woman realised that the elderly woman was in danger of being struck by a vehicle when she fell into the road.
B. No, because the young woman was not under a duty to act to save the elderly woman.
C. Yes, because the young woman had a social and statutory duty to act to save the elderly woman from harm.
D. Yes, because the young woman identified the dangerous situation but failed to act to save the elderly woman.
E. No, because the young woman did not foresee that the elderly woman would be run over by a heavy goods vehicle.
Option B is the correct answer. This scenario falls into the category in which there is no general duty recognised by criminal law to act and help someone in trouble, so her omission here will not amount to the actus reus of a criminal offence.
Option A is wrong as it is irrelevant whether the young woman realised the danger to the elderly woman – none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.
Option C is wrong as although the young woman may have had a social (moral) duty to act she did not have a statutory duty to act.
Option D is wrong as the young woman did not create the dangerous situation (R v Miller [1983]).
Option E is wrong as it is irrelevant whether or not the young woman foresaw that the elderly woman would be run over by a heavy goods vehicle, if she was under no duty to act to save her.
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.
