Final Revision Criminal Law Flashcards
A man was involved in a long-running dispute with his neighbour. After a particularly nasty argument, the man decided to burn down his neighbour’s garden shed. That night, he walked over to his neighbour’s garden and checked to make sure no one was in or near the shed. He then poured petrol on the shed, set it on fire, and watched it burn to the ground.
Is the man guilty of the offence of aggravated arson?
No, because the man checked that there were no people inside or near the shed before setting it on fire.(D) The man is not guilty of aggravated arson because he checked that there were no people inside or near the shed. Arson is committing criminal damage by fire. Criminal damage is the destruction or damaging of property belonging to another, intending to do so or being reckless as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged. Aggravated arson has all the elements of ordinary arson, but there is an additional mens rea requirement that the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life by the damage caused to the property. Because the man checked that there were no people in or near the shed, he did not intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life. (A) is incorrect because the defendant’s intent to burn the property does not differentiate arson from aggravated arson; the difference between the two offences is that aggravated arson requires the defendant to intend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life. (B) is incorrect because a defendant can commit aggravated arson even if the damage to the property is slight. (C) is incorrect as recklessness will suffice for aggravated arson. (E) is incorrect as there is no requirement for death or injury to result; the additional requirement relates to mens rea rather than actus reus.QUESTION ID: CRL207
QUESTION ID: CRL207
A woman was walking her beloved dog in a park when she was confronted by a man who demanded that she give him her dog. She yelled, “Get away from me!” and tried to run away, but the man knocked her to the ground and threatened to cut her with a razor blade. The dog then attacked the man, causing him to drop the razor blade and turn to run away. Enraged that the man had threatened her and her dog and in a wave of uncontrollable anger, the woman immediately picked up the razor blade and cut the man. The blade hit a vital artery, and the man died from blood loss. The woman was arrested and charged with murder.
Which of the following would be the woman’s strongest defence?
(D) Loss of control would be the woman’s strongest defence. Loss of control is a partial defence that reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter, thereby avoiding a mandatory life sentence. It is available when the defendant kills someone due to (1) a loss of control (2) owing to a fear of serious violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, and (3) a hypothetical person of the defendant’s age and sex might have reacted in the same way. Here, the facts indicate the woman was enraged and acting in an uncontrollable wave of anger. Arguably, an ordinary woman would have a sense of being wronged when physically threatened by a man who wants to steal her dog. (A) is not correct as the woman was not acting in self-defence when she assaulted the man. For self-defence, the woman must have believed force was immediately required to protect her interests. At the point the woman cut the man, the man was starting to run away and no longer had the razor blade. The woman did not cut the man to protect herself but rather because she was angry. (B) is incorrect. Intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is required for murder, but it appears the woman acted with intent; the woman clearly intended to cause the man grievous bodily harm when she cut him with the razor blade. (C) is incorrect because duress applies when a defendant commits a crime because they are threatened with death or serious injury, which is not the situation here. Also, duress is not available as a defence to murder. (E) is incorrect. Diminished responsibility arises when the defendant acts due to an abnormality of mental functioning. It is not available here because there is no evidence of such an abnormality. QUESTION ID: CRL194
A man decided to get a new tattoo. He asked his friend, who was an amateur tattoo artist, to give him the tattoo. The friend carried out the tattooing according to standard procedures. However, the tattoo became infected. The infection spread to the rest of the man’s body, and he eventually died.
What crime, if any, has the friend committed?
No offence.(A) The friend has not committed any offence. The general rule is that a victim’s consent is not a defence to any assault offence higher than common assault-that is, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, and manslaughter. However, there are important exceptions to this rule. Sports, surgical procedures, religious ritual, piercings, and tattoos are all such exceptions. As long as the ‘victim’ consented to be tattooed, which he did in this scenario, the friend would have the defence of consent to any offence against the person. (B) is incorrect because although section 18 grievous bodily harm requires an intention to cause serious bodily injury or a wound, which a tattoo is, the man consented. Similarly, (C) is incorrect because the man consented to the ‘harm’ of the tattoo. (D) is incorrect because there is no evidence here that the friend committed an unlawful act or was grossly negligent when tattooing the man. (E) is incorrect as there was clearly no desire on the part of the friend to kill the man. The facts in no way lead to that conclusion. Again, the man consented to the bodily harm of the tattoo.
QUESTION ID: CRL198
Question
The owner of an art gallery sold a painting for £20,000 to a wealthy art collector. The owner told the collector that the painting was by an up-and-coming artist whose work is growing in value. In fact, the painting is a replica painted by an art student and is worth only £500.
What will the prosecution have to show for the gallery owner to be convicted of fraud by false representation?
The gallery owner dishonestly made a misrepresentation that she knew was false, intending to make a gain for herself or loss to the collector.(A) The prosecution will have to show the gallery owner dishonestly made a misrepresentation to make a gain for herself or cause a loss to the collector. A conviction for fraud by false representation requires a showing that the defendant acted dishonestly. She must also know the representation is false and must intend to make a gain for herself or another, to cause a loss to others, or to expose the others to such a risk. (B) is incorrect because the defendant also needs to know the representation is false. (C), (D), and (E) are incorrect because they each are based on recklessness. That is not sufficient. The defendant must intend all these parts of the offence to be guilty. Recklessness does not play a part in fraud. If there is no intentional dishonesty, there is no fraud. QUESTION ID: CRL205
A woman went to a crowded park to watch a fireworks display. She put down a blanket and a chair, accidentally placing a leg of the chair on the long hair of a teenager sitting nearby. The teenager shouted at the woman to move the chair leg off her hair. Once the woman realised what she had done, she refused to move her chair, as she thought the teenager was rude. After a few minutes, the teenager’s friends moved the chair off the teenager’s hair.
Is the woman guilty of battery?
Yes, because the actus reus was an ongoing act and the woman formed the necessary mens rea when she refused to move the chair.
D) The woman is guilty of battery. A person commits battery when they intentionally or recklessly apply unlawful personal force upon another person. At the time the woman accidentally put her chair on the teenager’s hair, there was no battery because whilst she satisfied the actus reus, she had not yet formed the necessary mens rea. However, her refusal to move the chair from the hair meant that she continued to commit the actus reus as an ongoing act. When the woman formed the necessary intent (at the point when she refused to move the chair), actus reus and mens rea coincided. (A) is incorrect as battery can be committed by omission. (B) is incorrect as battery can be committed indirectly. (C) is incorrect as there is coincidence once the woman forms the necessary mens rea. (E) is incorrect because the apprehension of unlawful violence is a requirement of assault, not battery.QUESTION ID: CRL197
Question
In a busy sandwich shop, two women reached for the last chicken sandwich on the shelf. The younger woman lightly shoved the older woman so that she could grab the sandwich first. The shove caused the older woman to slip and fall to the floor, hitting her head on a display on the way down. The woman was knocked unconscious. Another customer bent over the woman, pretending to check on her, but instead the customer stealthily removed the woman’s wallet and phone from her bag. A shop employee saw the customer put the woman’s wallet and phone in the customer’s own bag. The employee confronted the customer, who put the wallet and phone back in the woman’s bag.
Is the customer guilty of robbery?
No, because the customer did not use force to obtain the wallet and phone.(B) The customer is not guilty of robbery because robbery requires a theft of property accompanied by the defendant’s use of force or threat of the use of force immediately before or at the same time as the theft. Here, the customer did not use any force to accomplish the theft of the wallet and phone. So, whilst there was a theft, there was no robbery. (A) is incorrect because there is no requirement for robbery that the robber actually gets away; the crime occurs as soon as there is a forcible taking. (C) is incorrect because the force needed to lift a wallet and phone from a person’s bag is not the type of force required for robbery. The crime requires an act or threat of violent force. (D) is incorrect because the customer did not have any hand in the force that was used to render the victim unconscious. (E) is incorrect because it does not address the requirement of force. QUESTION ID: CRL204
Question
A hitman was hired by an organised crime boss to kill an associate who was talking to the police. The hitman decided that he would poison the associate with a drug that would kill him but mimic the signs of a heart attack. The hitman broke into the associate’s house at night and put the drug in several drinks in the associate’s refrigerator. Unbeknownst to the hitman, the associate had died of a stroke just a few hours earlier.
Has the hitman committed attempted murder?
Yes, even if it was factually impossible under the circumstances
.(B) The hitman is guilty of attempted murder. Attempt can be charged when a defendant does something which is more than preparatory toward the commission of a crime. Here, the hitman put poison in the associate’s drinks to kill him. A defendant can be guilty of attempting an offence even if the completed offence would be impossible because of the facts. Thus, it does not matter that the associate was already dead. Therefore, (C) is incorrect. (D) is incorrect for the same reason; it is just a fancier way of writing what is in (C). (A) and (E) are incorrect because there is no legal impossibility here. A legal impossibility occurs when the completed offence would not be illegal even if a defendant thinks it would be. Here, murder-what the hitman thought he was doing-is illegal.
A defendant is charged with murder. The defendant pleads diminished responsibility.
Which of the following best describes the burden of proving the defence of diminished responsibility?
The defence must prove the defence of diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities.(A) The burden of proof for all elements of an offence is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. However, the burden of proof for certain defences, including the defence of diminished responsibility, is on the defence to prove on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, (B), (C), (D), and (E) are incorrect.QUESTION ID: CRL156
A young man and his friend were kicking a football around in a park. A stranger approached them, gave them a flyer, and said, “Come to my talk and learn about how you can make millions of pounds while working from home!” The man and his friend tried to brush off the stranger, but the stranger continued to talk about his “business opportunity”. The friend became annoyed and told the stranger to leave them alone, using rude language. The stranger got upset and shoved the friend. The man then pushed the stranger hard, causing him to fall and hit his head on a park bench.
Which of the following best describes whether the young man can rely on self-defence for pushing the stranger?
He can rely on self-defence if he believed force was necessary, and if the amount of force was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.C) The young man can rely on self-defence if he believed force was necessary, and the amount of force was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be. There are two limbs to the defence of self-defence. The first is the trigger: Did the defendant believe the use of force was necessary? This is a subjective test. For this reason, (A) and (D) are incorrect, as they list the trigger test as being objective. The second limb of the test is the response: Was the amount of force used reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be? This part of the test is objective. For this reason, (B) is incorrect, as it lists the response as being subjective. (E) is incorrect, as self-defence can be used in protection of oneself, another, or property.QUESTION ID: CRL215
QUESTION ID: CRL215
Question
A man asked his cousin if he could borrow his motorcycle to ride to his friend’s house. Although the cousin knew the man sometimes pickpocketed, he gave the man the key to his motorcycle and told him he could use it to go to his friend’s house and back. The man rode to his friend’s house as agreed because that is where he and his friend had arranged to meet before going to the city centre to pickpocket tourists. The man was arrested later that day when he was caught taking a tourist’s phone while riding the motorcycle. The police then traced the motorcycle back to the man’s cousin.
Can the cousin be held criminally liable for the theft of the phone?
No, because the cousin’s acts were not sufficient for liability for aiding, abetting, procuring, or counselling.(A) The cousin is not guilty of any crime because the cousin’s acts were not sufficient for liability for aiding, abetting, procuring, or counselling. The best way to arrive at this choice is to eliminate the other choices. (B) is incorrect because a person can be guilty of aiding even if the person’s action is not part of the physical acts (actus reus) required for the crime. Any act that aids, abets, procures, or counsels can be a sufficient basis for imposing liability. (C) is incorrect. The mere knowledge that a person sometimes commits crimes is not a sufficient basis for imposing criminal liability on anyone who unknowingly helps the person commit a crime. (D) is incorrect because a co-principal is one who acts together with another to commit the prohibited act, and here the cousin did not act with the man in stealing the phone. (E) is incorrect. An accomplice aids, abets, counsels, or procures another offender. Here, despite the fact the cousin knew the man sometimes pickpocketed, nothing indicates he thought the man was doing anything other than going to his friend’s house. Therefore, he did not act as an aider or abettor
A waiter was serving diners in a high-end restaurant when he accidentally spilled a glass of red wine on a woman’s white dress. The woman’s husband grabbed the waiter’s arm and told him to be more careful. The waiter tried to pull away from the husband, but the husband stood up and berated the waiter. The confrontation escalated into a shoving match. After a hard shove from the waiter, the husband lost his balance and fell awkwardly on his wrist, breaking it. The waiter did not intend for the husband to fall over or break his wrist. The husband was taken to hospital so his wrist could be treated. In hospital, the husband died of a stroke completely unrelated to the fall.
Which of the following is the most appropriate charge that the prosecution could bring against the waiter?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
Grievous bodily harm under section 20.(A) Section 20 grievous bodily harm is the most appropriate charge. It applies when the defendant causes a wound or serious bodily harm, intending to cause or being reckless about causing some harm. Here, the waiter was reckless about causing some harm when he shoved the husband, causing the husband to break his wrist. (B) is incorrect because section 18 requires causing harm with intent, and the facts make it clear the waiter did not intend to cause the injury. (C), (D), and (E) are incorrect because the question makes it clear that the waiter did not cause the death of the husband, so the waiter cannot be guilty of any offence that links his actions to the husband’s death; the requisite factual causation of death is missing.QUESTION ID: CRL199
A solicitor’s family members like to ask her questions about the law. They have recently asked her about the concept of basic intent.
Which of the following offences is an offence of basic intent?
Criminal damage.(A) Criminal damage is a basic intent crime. A basic intent crime is one that can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. Criminal damage is the destruction or damage of property belonging to another without lawful excuse, with either the intention to do so or recklessness as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged. (B) is incorrect because theft is a specific intent crime. It arises when a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. (C) is incorrect because section 18 grievous bodily harm is a specific intent crime. It requires the intent to cause serious bodily harm or the intent to resist lawful apprehension when a risk of some harm is foreseen. (D) is incorrect because attempt is a specific intent offence. Note that battery can be committed recklessly, but attempted battery requires the specific intent to apply force upon another person. (E) is incorrect because murder is a specific intent crime. It requires an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
A young man came across a stack of free newspapers and thought it would be funny to set some newspapers on fire and put them through people’s letterboxes. He walked down a residential street, setting a newspaper on fire with a lighter, putting it through a house’s letterbox, and then moving to the next house. He foresaw the risk of damaging the interior of the houses but did not foresee the risk of death. He also did not intend to kill or harm anyone. In one of the houses, the fire from the newspaper spread to the rest of the house, eventually burning it down. A person inside the house died from smoke inhalation.
Is the young man guilty of unlawful act manslaughter?
ResponsesPress Enter or Space to submit the answer
Yes, as the act was unlawful, dangerous, and intentional and caused the death of the victim.(E) The young man is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter because the act of putting flaming newspapers through people’s letterboxes was unlawful, dangerous, and intentional and caused the death of the victim. Unlawful act manslaughter arises when a person kills another while committing a criminal offence that carries an objective risk to the victim. The requirements are that the act (1) was unlawful, (2) was deliberate, (3) carried the risk of some harm, and (4) caused the death of the victim. Here, the underlying offence is arson, as the young man intentionally or recklessly damaged property belonging to another by fire. The act of setting newspapers on fire and putting them through letterboxes was dangerous by an objective standard and was intentional, and there is a causal link between the act and the death. The young man is therefore guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. (A) is incorrect, as the defendant need not foresee the risk of death. (B) is incorrect, as damaging property belonging to another (here, the houses) by fire whilst foreseeing the risk of damage is unlawful; it constitutes arson. (C) is incorrect, as the act must be intentional, not the death. (D) is incorrect, as an obvious risk of death is not required for unlawful act manslaughter. QUESTION ID: CRL193
A woman was doing some last minute Christmas shopping and went to a toy shop to find the toy her son wanted. There was only one toy left on the shelf. As the woman walked over to take the toy, another harried shopper approached her and shouted, “If you take the last toy, I swear I’ll slap you!” The woman was not afraid and said, “Slap me if you must, but this toy is mine” and took the toy. The other shopper stomped off, disappointed.
Is the shopper guilty of assault?
Yes, because the shopper caused the apprehension of immediate, unlawful force.(B) The shopper is guilty of assault. Assault requires the defendant to intentionally or recklessly cause the apprehension of immediate, unlawful violence. Here, it was the shopper’s intention for the woman to believe the shopper would apply unlawful force upon her, so the requirements are all satisfied. (A) is incorrect because the application of unlawful personal force is a requirement of battery, and the shopper did not slap the woman. (C) is incorrect as conditional threats are sufficient for assault. (D) is incorrect as apprehension does not mean fear-it simply means belief that unlawful force will be applied. (E) is incorrect as assault requires no outcome aside from apprehension of immediate, unlawful violence.QUESTION ID: CRL200
A woman who ran a business with her sister and her friend discovered that her sister and friend had been stealing from the business for years. Feeling furious and betrayed, the woman decided to attack both her sister and her friend. She armed herself with a hammer and went to the business’s office when she knew both her sister and friend would be there. The woman walked into the office, shouted at both her friend and her sister, and attacked them by hitting them repeatedly with the hammer. The woman intended to cause them both serious harm but did not intend to kill either of them. After the attack, the sister died from her injuries. The friend sustained serious injury but recovered.
Assuming there are no defences available to the woman, what are the most serious charges she is guilty of?
Murder of the sister and section 18 grievous bodily harm (‘s18 GBH’) on the friend.(D) The most serious charges the woman is guilty of are murder of the sister and section 18 grievous bodily harm (‘s18 GBH’) on the friend. The definition of murder is causing the death of another human being, with intent to kill or cause GBH. Here, the woman intended to cause GBH and she caused the death of her sister, so the offence of murder is made out. We are told there are no defences available to the woman. This means that the charge of murder will not be reduced to manslaughter, and so (A) and (B) are wrong. A person commits s18 GBH when they cause a wound or serious bodily harm with the intent to cause serious harm. Here, the woman caused the friend serious harm with the hammer, and she intended to cause serious harm; this means the actus reus and mens rea of s18 GBH are satisfied. (C) is incorrect because the mens rea for s20 GBH mens rea requires only intention or recklessness regarding causing some harm. Whilst this is also present, it is not the most serious charge. (E) is incorrect because the mens rea for attempted murder is an intention to kill. Here, the woman did not intend to kill; she only intended to cause serious harm. QUESTION ID: CRL195
Question
A woman’s son was killed when the car he was driving malfunctioned due to a manufacturing defect. She believed that the car company should be held responsible for his death, so, to bring attention to her situation, she placed some explosives in the lobby of the company’s headquarters. The woman knew the explosives were likely to result in serious injury to anyone in the lobby. She did not intend to cause serious harm to anyone, but she was determined to raise awareness of her son’s death and so was not deterred by the risk of serious harm. The explosives detonated, and two employees died as a result.
Is the woman guilty of murder?
Correct
B Yes, because death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and the woman foresaw that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty.B) The woman is guilty of murder here. The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause serious harm. This can be satisfied by direct intention (aim or purpose-which is not relevant on these facts) or by indirect intention. Indirect intention requires the outcome to be a virtual certainty and for the defendant to foresee that the outcome is a virtual certainty. On the facts, the woman foresaw at least that serious harm was a virtual certainty, so the mens rea is satisfied. (A) is incorrect as this is the test for recklessness, which is not relevant to murder. (C) and (E) are incorrect as the test for direct intention is not relevant here. (D) is incorrect as intention to cause either death or serious harm is sufficient, and here we have indirect intention to cause serious harm. QUESTION ID: CRL191
A woman shares a flat with two other women. Each month, the woman collects money from her flatmates for the purpose of paying the communal gas bill. Ordinarily, the woman pays the gas bill as agreed.
In November, the woman collected money from her flatmates as she usually did. However, rather than using the money to pay the gas bill, the woman then spends it on Christmas presents for her flatmates and leaves the gas bill unpaid.
Is the woman guilty of theft?
Yes, because the money was supposed to be used to pay the gas bill.
(C) The woman is guilty of theft because the money was supposed to be used to pay the gas bill. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it. When money is given for a particular purpose, the recipient is under an obligation to use it for that purpose. (A) and (B) are incorrect, as property belonging to another includes property given to the defendant with instructions on how to use it. (D) is incorrect, as it is irrelevant when the money has been given for a specific purpose. (E) is incorrect as the woman did demonstrate an intention to permanently deprive, as she did not use the money as intended by the givers. QUESTION ID: CRL188
A woman recently lost her job. She decided to get revenge on the company by stealing intellectual property from the company’s computer network. She asked a hacker she knew if she could use some code the hacker had written to create a computer programme that would infiltrate the company’s network and take the intellectual property. The hacker responded by handing a USB drive containing the code to the woman, saying, “I don’t want to be a part of this, but here’s the code”. A few days later, the woman used the code to create a programme that infiltrated the company’s network and successfully stole some intellectual property. However, she was unsuccessful at covering her tracks and was later arrested for the theft of the intellectual property. The code was traced back to the hacker.
Can the hacker be held criminally liable for the theft?
The hacker can be held liable for the theft as an accomplice because he aided in the commission of the crime.(C) The hacker can be held liable for the theft as an accomplice. A person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures another offender is an accomplice and will also be guilty of the crime committed. Here, the hacker aided the woman by allowing the woman to use his computer code so that she could steal her former employer’s intellectual property. (A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant; the fact that the hacker said he did not want to be involved does not negate his action of allowing the woman to use his code to commit the crime. (B) is incorrect because one does not need to share in the proceeds of a crime to be guilty of aiding, abetting, procuring, or counselling. (D) is incorrect because a co-principal is one who acts together with another to commit the prohibited act, and here the hacker did not act with the woman in committing the act of theft. (E) is incorrect because it misstates what an innocent agent is. An innocent agent is not guilty of a crime. An innocent agent is one who unknowingly aids in an offence. For example, if the woman had asked the hacker to deliver a package to a man and the hacker did so thinking the package contained candy rather than the illegal drugs it did contain, the innocent agent in that case would not be criminally liable. Here, the hacker knew his code was to be used in the commission of a crime and so was not an innocent agent.QUESTION ID: CRL213
A burglar broke into a home, planning to steal any valuables he found inside. He knew that the homeowners were on holiday, but he was not aware that they had hired a house sitter to stay in the house while they were gone. The house sitter confronted the burglar while he was walking through the kitchen. The burglar grabbed a kitchen knife and said, “If you let me leave and don’t tell anyone about this, I won’t hurt you”. The house sitter was young and athletic and managed to knock the knife out of the burglar’s hand. He then punched the burglar and knocked him to the floor, kicking him repeatedly. Finally, he put the burglar in a headlock until the burglar lost consciousness. The house sitter then called the police. The police arrested not only the burglar, but the house sitter as well, and charged him with assault under Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 47. At trial, the house sitter raised self-defence.
Which of the following best states the standard for determining whether the defence of self-defence is available?
The force used must not have been grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be at the time.(B) For self-defence, the general rule is the force used must be reasonable based on the facts as the defendant believed them to be. However, when an intruder enters someone’s home, the level of force deemed to be reasonable in self-defence is higher than in other circumstances. For householders, force will be considered reasonable so long as it is not grossly disproportionate. The courts will take into account that decisions are made in the heat of the moment in deciding what amounts to grossly disproportionate. (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect both because the force need not actually have been necessary (just reasonable), and we do not judge by the actual circumstances but rather by the circumstances as the defendant believed them. (E) is incorrect because the force used can be disproportionate but may not be grossly disproportionate.QUESTION ID: CRL214
