Criminal Unit 4 SBAQs Flashcards
For the offence of unlawful act manslaughter, which one of the following statements is wrong?
A. There must be an unlawful act or omission.
B. Dangerous means there is some risk of some harm to a person.
C. The defendant must cause the victim’s death.
D. The defendant must take their victim as they find them.
A is correct
There must be an unlawful act - R v Lowe [1973] - not an omission. If a defendant fails to act and this results in a victim’s death, consider murder or gross negligence manslaughter. The other three statements are all correct.
Is it true or false that the court will apply a subjective test in deciding whether the act is dangerous?
FALSE
The authorities make it clear that this test is objective.
Is it true or false that the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is recklessness as to causing death?
FALSE
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.
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
D is correct
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.
Which of the following best describes the law in relation to voluntary intoxication?
A. Voluntary intoxication may be a defence to crimes of basic intent if the defendant was so intoxicated they did not form the mens rea.
B. Voluntary intoxication is always a defence to crimes of specific intent.
C. Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to crimes of specific intent.
D. The defendant is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if they were so intoxicated they did not form the mens rea but they may be guilty of a crime of basic intent.
D is correct
A defendant is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if they did not form the mens rea but they may be guilty of a crime of basic intent as, by becoming intoxicated, they are deemed to be reckless. Option A is wrong as the defendant is (in simple terms) deemed to be reckless in becoming intoxicated and this will satisfy the mens rea of recklessness for crimes of basic intent. Options B and C are both wrong as a defendant may rely upon voluntary intoxication for crimes of specific intent, but only if they are so intoxicated they are incapable of forming the mens rea.
The defendant gets very drunk and is involved in a fight which results in the victim being killed. The defendant is charged with murder but wants to rely on their voluntary intoxication as a defence. Which one of the following statements best describes reflects the current law?
A. The defendant’s voluntary intoxication is completely irrelevant as voluntary intoxication cannot be a defence to murder.
B. The defendant can rely on their voluntary intoxication as a defence if the effect was that they did not have the mens rea for murder at the time of the attack.
C. The defendant can rely on their voluntary intoxication if the effect was that they did not have the mens rea for murder but they may be criminally liable for unlawful act manslaughter.
C is correct
Although B is correct, option C is more accurate as unlawful act manslaughter would be available as an alternative verdict and, as this is a crime of basic intent, voluntary intoxication offers no defence.
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.
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.
Which of the following statements best reflects the principles of involuntary intoxication as a defence?
A. It may be a defence to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
B. It may be a defence to murder.
C. It may be a defence to all offences.
D. It cannot be a defence to any offences.
C is correct
Involuntary intoxication (as opposed to voluntary intoxication) can be a defence to crimes of specific and basic intent, provided the defendant lacked the mens rea for the crime. As a consequence, it can potentially be a defence to any of the crimes listed referred to.
A mistaken belief in the need to defend oneself is no defence if that mistaken belief is induced by voluntary intoxication? Is this statement true or false?
TRUE
A mistaken belief in the need to defend oneself is no defence if that mistaken belief is induced by voluntary intoxication.
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.
A is correct
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.
A man is charged with murder, having shot the victim. The man has pleaded not guilty on the basis that he did not intend to kill the victim. He claims that he had 10 pints of alcohol to drink along with 10 shots of spirits prior to the shooting and that, as a result, he felt extremely intoxicated and did not know what he was doing.
Can this man rely on the defence of voluntary intoxication?
A. Yes, because murder is a crime of basic intent and the man was so affected by drink that he did not form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence.
B. Yes, because murder is a crime of specific intent and the man was so affected by drink that he did not form the necessary intention for the actus reus of the offence.
C. Yes, because murder is a crime of specific intent and the man was so affected by drink that he did not form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence.
D. No, because the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available for murder because it is a crime of basic intent.
E. No, because the defence of voluntary intoxication is not available for murder because it is a crime of specific intent.
C is correct
Voluntary intoxication can only be a defence to crimes of specific intent where the defendant was so affected by the drink/drugs that they were not capable of forming the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence. It follows that voluntary intoxication is no defence to any basic intent crime that can be committed recklessly (or negligently, or if it is one of strict liability). Murder is a crime of specific intent and therefore the defence of voluntary intoxication is available to show the defendant was so affected by the drink that he did not form the necessary intention for the mens rea of the offence. The correct answer is C for this reason and well done for selecting this.
Option A is wrong because murder is a crime of specific intent; whilst option B is wrong because voluntary intoxication affects the mens rea of the crime and not the actus reus.
Option D is wrong because murder is a crime of specific intent and thus voluntary intoxication is available as a defence; as is option E because although murder is a crime of specific intent it is wrong to say the defence is not available.
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.
B is correct
Option B is correct 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.
A man is having an argument with his wife in the bathroom. He pushes her and she falls and crashes against the basin. As she suffers from a weak heart the shock causes her to have a heart attack and she dies on the spot.
If the defendant is charged with unlawful act manslaughter what does the prosecution need to prove to successfully convict the defendant?
A. They must prove that the defendant inflicted unlawful personal force, the act was dangerous and caused the wife’s death, and the man intended or was reckless as to inflicting unlawful personal force.
B. They must prove that the man caused grievous bodily harm, the act was dangerous and led to the wife’s death, and he intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
C. They must prove that the man inflicted unlawful personal force which caused the wife’s death and he intended or was reckless as to causing her actual bodily harm.
D. They must prove that the man inflicted unlawful personal force and he intended or was reckless as to the infliction of force.
E. They must prove that the man caused the wife’s death and the man intended or was reckless as to the infliction of unlawful personal force.
A is correct
For unlawful act manslaughter the prosecution must prove that the man committed an unlawful act. On the facts he commits battery (the infliction of unlawful personal force), which is dangerous (meaning the reasonable person would consider it carries a risk of some risk of some harm to some person - R v Church [1966]) and the act causes death. The defendant need only have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (in this case, battery). Here the man clearly intends the push.
Option B is wrong as it refers to the mens rea required for murder; whereas option C is wrong because the prosecution does not need to prove intent or recklessness as to actual bodily harm as the unlawful act here is battery. The mens rea for battery does not require intention or recklessness as to actual bodily harm, merely the infliction of unlawful personal force.
Option D is wrong as it is an incomplete description of the actus reus, it does not mention the requirement to prove that the act was dangerous nor that it caused death. Finally, option E is wrong as it is an incomplete description of the actus reus because it does not set out the need for a dangerous unlawful act.
A lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service is asked to provide charging advice to the police in relation to a number of defendants.
A man sees a two-year-old child lying face down in a puddle in the park. The child is clearly in distress, but the man does nothing to help and the child drowns. A father leaves his six-month-old son unattended in a bath for 30 minutes while he gambles on his mobile phone; the child drowns. A heating engineer fails to notice he has wrongly connected a customer’s boiler when he services it, because he is in a rush to finish work. The householder dies in her sleep from carbon monoxide poison that is leaking from the boiler. A woman drops her cigarette onto the ground and walks away as she believes (wrongly) that it has been extinguished. The ensuing fire destroys a nearby building.
Which defendants are most likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter?
A. All of them.
B. The man and the heating engineer.
C. The man, the father and the woman.
D. The father, the heating engineer and the woman.
E. The father and the heating engineer.
E is correct
option E correctly lists the defendants who are most likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. All the other answers either include a defendant who is not liable or miss one who is.
The father has a duty of care to his son – this is both a statutory duty and a special relationship and he breaches this by leaving the child unattended for so long in a bath. Given his young age there is a risk the father’s conduct could cause death and it does. The heating engineer has a contractual duty towards his customer to service the boiler with reasonable care and skill, and he breaches this by allowing carbon monoxide – a toxic gas – to leak. In both cases, the defendant’s conduct is likely to be regarded as so gross (bad) as to be deserving of criminal punishment sufficient for gross negligence manslaughter.
In contrast, the man would not be liable for his failure to rescue the child. This is because there is no general duty to act and the law only imposes such a duty in exceptional circumstances – none of which apply here. Similarly, the woman is not under a duty of care when she drops her cigarette as, although she creates a dangerous situation, she is unaware of this as she thought the cigarette had been extinguished.
A man and his girlfriend were on their summer holiday at a seaside resort. They walked to a cliff above the beach. After a while, they got bored and decided to push a monument on the cliff edge off its base and onto the beach below. The monument landed on a swimmer’s head who became unconscious and then drowned.
What offence will the man and his girlfriend most likely be charged with?
A. Murder because they intentionally pushed the monument off the cliff and the swimmer died.
B. Unlawful act manslaughter because they pushed the monument off the cliff, which was dangerous, and a swimmer died.
C. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm because the man and his girlfriend had not intended to kill the swimmer, but he did suffer some harm by being hit by the monument.
D. Manslaughter by gross negligence because the man and woman did not look first to see if anyone was below and they had a statutory duty to do so.
E. Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, because they intended to push the monument off the cliff. The monument hit the swimmer hard on the head causing him to be unconscious.
B is correct
option B; unlawful act manslaughter because they intended to push the monument off the cliff (criminal damage being the unlawful act as they damaged property belonging to another by pushing the monument from its base), which was objectively dangerous (risk of some harm to some person) and the swimmer died as a result of their act.
Option A is not the best answer because the man and his girlfriend did not intend to kill nor did they intend to cause grievous bodily harm to the swimmer.
Option C is not the best answer because the swimmer died, and so assault occasioning actual bodily harm would not be the appropriate charge. Actual bodily harm means suffered some bodily harm. In any event, they would have to intend or be reckless as to the infliction of unlawful personal force and on these facts, it does not appear they have considered the risk of inflicting unlawful personal force on anyone.
Option D is not the best answer because there is no statutory duty requiring the man and his girlfriend to look before they pushed the monument. Finally, option E is not the best answer because grievous bodily harm would be charged had the swimmer survived and had he suffered really serious harm. In this case, the swimmer died. In any event, they did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm and so this charge would not be successful.
