Criminal Unit 3 SBAQs Flashcards
Is it true or false that the actus reus of murder is any killing of a human being?
FALSE:
This is because the killing must be ‘unlawful’.
Which one of the following describes the mens rea for murder?
A. An intention to kill.
B. An intention to kill or an intention to cause bodily harm.
C. An intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
D. An intention or recklessness to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
C is correct.
To be guilty of murder, the accused must intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This is the modern interpretation of the phrase ‘with malice aforethought’.
Dakshi has an argument with his wife, Siya. Frustrated, he stabs Siya in the arm with a knife, intending to give her a small cut but not to cause serious harm. Siya dies as a result of an infection arising from her injury. Which of the following answers is correct?
A. As Dakshi intended to cause a wound, he will have the required mens rea for murder.
B. As Dakshi did not intend to cause serious harm, he will not be liable for murder.
C. Only an intention to kill will suffice for Dakshi to be liable for murder.
D. Dakshi will not be guilty of any offence as he can rely upon the defence of loss of control.
B is correct:
Option A is wrong because the mens rea for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous (really serious) harm – not to wound. Option C is wrong as an intention to cause grievous bodily harm will also satisfy the mens rea for murder. Option D is wrong because loss of control, even if successful, will only be a partial defence to murder reducing Dakshi’s conviction to voluntary manslaughter.
Which one of the following best describes voluntary manslaughter?
A. Where the accused has killed the victim with malice aforethought but is able to rely on a partial defence.
B. Where the accused has killed the victim due to their negligence.
C. Where the accused has killed the victim but lacks the necessary mental capacity to be guilty of murder.
D. Where the accused has killed the victim but only intended to hurt them
A is correct:
Option B is wrong because it is a key component of voluntary, as compared to involuntary, manslaughter that the accused has the actus reus and mens rea for murder. Only then will the partial defences be considered. In option B, the accused does not satisfy the mens rea for murder. Option C is wrong because the accused’s mental capacity is irrelevant to the requirements for the mens rea of murder. Option D is also wrong as an intention only to hurt the victim will not be sufficient for them to be convicted of murder.
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?
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.
Which of the following is NOT an element of the partial defence of diminished responsibility?
A. An abnormality of mind.
B. An abnormality of mental functioning.
C. A recognised medical condition.
D. Substantial impairment of the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct
A is correct:
An ‘abnormality of mind’ is not part of the definition of diminished responsibility; the correct phrase is ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ under s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 [as amended by s.52(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009]. The elements set out in options B, C and D are correct.
In which of these scenarios can the defendant rely upon the partial defence of diminished responsibility?
A. Raoul suffers from diabetes (a medical condition). One evening, he takes illegal drugs and kills his mother. He says that he would not have acted in this way had it not been for his intoxication.
B. Ulyana is of a nervous disposition. She dislikes her employer and believes (wrongly) that she singles her out for criticism. During a meeting at work, she loses her temper and throws a paperweight at her boss, killing her.
C. Tommy suffers from a paranoid personality disorder. He is embroiled in a dispute with his neighbour and discovers that the neighbour has scratched his car. In a fit of rage, he hits the neighbour over the head with a hammer, killing him.
D. Shaid suffers from schizophrenia. She is sitting on a bench in the local park when she stabs a man as he passes by. Although she believes that he is about to attack her, in fact, the man is just taking his dog for a walk.
D is correct:
Shaid suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition which substantially affects her ability to form a rational judgment and/or exercise self-control. The schizophrenia also provides an explanation for the killing.
Option A is wrong as a defendant who voluntarily takes drugs and then behaves in a way that he would not otherwise is not excused from responsibility. In this scenario, Raoul’s medical condition has no bearing on his actions.
Option B is wrong, as it is unlikely that being of a nervous disposition would be sufficient to count as a recognised medical condition. Option C is also wrong as, although Tommy suffers from a recognised medical condition, the killing was not caused by this, but by his anger.
Which one of the following statements concerning the partial defence of loss of control is wrong?
A. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
B. The defendant must have lost control due to provocation by the victim immediately prior to losing control.
C. The loss of control must have a qualifying trigger.
D. A person of the defendant’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted in the same or a similar way in these circumstances to the defendant.
B is correct
For this partial defence, the provocation does not need to have come from the victim and, furthermore, there is no requirement for the defendant to lose control ‘immediately’ before any such provocation. The other statements are correct.
Consider the partial defence to murder of loss of control. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Danek will be able to rely on loss of control if he killed Vicente to ‘pay him back’ for burgling Danek’s house.
B. Erin will be able to rely on loss of control if she kills her boyfriend because she finds out that he is having an affair with a work colleague.
C. Fatima has an evidential burden to raise loss of control if she wishes to rely upon the partial defence when she kills his father after years of abuse.
D. Gunther can rely on fear of serious violence from Hans as a qualifying trigger even if Gunther deliberately incited Hans to attack him in the hope of starting a fight.
C is correct:
under s.54(5) and (6) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the defendant has an evidential burden only. Provided the trial judge is satisfied that sufficient evidence is adduced to raise loss of control as an issue, the jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is not.
In option A, Danek does not appear to have lost control and in any event, he is acting out of a considered desire for revenge. Erin cannot rely upon the partial defence as sexual infidelity on its own may not be relied upon as a qualifying trigger. Similarly, in option D, the defendant (Gunther) cannot rely upon the triggers where they have incited the situation to provide them with an excuse to use violence.
Where the defendant has pleaded loss of control as a partial defence to murder, which one or more of the following characteristics can the jury take into account when considering whether someone with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to the defendant.
To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all correct statements.
A. The defendant’s age.
B. The defendant’s particularly short temper.
C. The fact that the defendant is very immature for their age.
D. The defendant’s sex.
A and D are correct
The jury may take into account the defendant’s age and sex when considering whether a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way. However, the defendant’s particularly short temper will not be taken into account as, under s.54(3) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, any circumstances of the defendant which only affect their general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint are disregarded. Their immaturity is similarly disregarded as are other personal characteristics which are not relevant to the objective test.
The defendant has been married to her husband for 10 years and during this time he has regularly abused her both physically and mentally. In particular, he taunts her about her hair loss, which was caused by a childhood medical condition. As a result, the defendant has developed depression and anxiety. One night she returns from work to find her husband in a particularly bad mood. He starts pushing her and taunting her, calling her “an ugly, bald waste of space”. She pleads with him to stop saying: “I can’t take it anymore” but he continues to taunt her. In desperation, the defendant snatches a heavy brass doorstop and hits her husband over the head repeatedly with it, until he falls down. He dies from the head injury that he sustains. The defendant is charged with murder. She pleads loss of control as a defence.
Which of the following statements best describes the operation of the evidential and legal burden of proof and the standard of proof in relation to this defence?
A. The evidential and legal burden are on the defendant on the balance of probabilities.
B. The evidential burden is on the defence. The legal burden is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
C. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
D. The evidential and legal burden are on the prosecution on the balance of probabilities.
E. The evidential burden is on the defence to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities.
B is correct
The defendant will have an evidential burden in relation to this defence. This means that the defence must raise some evidence of a fact in issue (usually by the defendant and/or someone else giving evidence in the witness box) to make the defence a live issue. Once the defence have discharged this evidential burden, the legal burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove this defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Options A, D and E are therefore wrong and option C is incomplete. Thus, it is not the best answer as the burden is only on the prosecution to disprove the defence once the defendant has discharged her evidential burden
A man is facing trial for murder after he caused the death of his wife by stabbing her during an argument outside a restaurant. An expert has been instructed by the defence solicitor who confirms that the man was suffering from battered person syndrome at the time of the stabbing, and that this amounted to an abnormality of mental functioning arising from this recognised medical condition.
Which of the following statements best describes the operation of the partial defences to murder as they apply to the man?
A. The partial defence of diminished responsibility will be available to the man only if the abnormality of mental functioning was the sole cause of him stabbing his wife.
B. The man should be able to rely on the partial defence of diminished responsibility provided that the abnormality of mental functioning prevented him from forming the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm to his wife.
C. For the man to be successful in this defence, he will need to prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt, and it will be for the prosecution to then disprove it.
D. The man may argue the partial defence of loss of control, as well as relying on the partial defence of diminished responsibility at trial.
E. If the jury are satisfied that the defence is established, the man will be acquitted of all charges against him.
D is correct
the correct answer is option D as the man is not prevented from arguing loss of control just because he is also arguing diminished responsibility, as both can be argued at the same time.
Option A is wrong because the abnormality need not be the sole cause of impairment of his ability to do one of the three things, but instead a ‘substantial’ cause. Option B is also wrong because a lack of mens rea to murder means that the man is not guilty of murder, and therefore ought not be arguing a partial defence to it.
Option C is wrong because the burden of proof is on the defence but only on the balance of probabilities; whilst option E is wrong because this is only a partial defence and therefore the man will be guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.
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.
D is correct
This 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.
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.
E is correct
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.
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.
B is correct
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.
