Revision

Question 1

1. What is the minimum sentence that must be imposed on an individual convicted of drugs trafficking offences before a travel restriction order can be considered?
2. Fagin is being prosecuted for an offence of handling stolen goods. He has a previous conviction for theft.S27 of the Theft Act 1968 makes the provision that details of the previous offence could be admissible
   in the current proceedings to potentially show he had the required mens rea?
3. S55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows for detainees at police stations to be searched or examined to establish their identity. If the detainee does not consent, who can authorise their search or examination?

Answer 1

1. 4 years
2. Five years preceding the date of the current offence charged
3. Inspector

Question 2

The consent of the Attorney General is required for a prosecution for which of the following offences?

a. Selling a harmful publication contrary to s2 Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955
b. Possessing an indecent photograph of a child contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988
c. Taking an indecent photograph of a child contrary to s1 Protection of Children Act 1978
d. Possession of prohibited images of children contrary to s62 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Incorrect

Answer 2

a. Selling a harmful publication contrary to s2 Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955

Question 3

Which of the following is an example of an offence of ‘strict liability’?

a. Wounding with intent contrary to s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
b. Burglary contrary to s9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 Incorrect
c. Possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s5 Firearms Act 1968
d. Possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to s16 Firearms Act 1968

Answer 3

c. Possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s5 Firearms Act 1968

Question 4

Which of the following is capable of being held to be a conclusive presumption relating to an offence of rape?

a. The complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act Incorrect
b. The complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act
c. Because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented
d. The defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.

Answer 4

d. The defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.

Question 5

S55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows for detainees at police stations to be searched or examined to establish their identity.

If the detainee does not consent, who can authorise their search or examination?

Answer 5

Inspector

Question 6

Bryant sets fire to a shed in the grounds of a school. He is charged with arson and there is no suggestion that his actions endangered life.

Which of the following statements is true regarding mode of trial?

a. This offence must be tried on indictment Incorrect
b. This offence is only triable summarily
c. This offence can be tried either summarily or on indictment
d. This offence is only triable summarily if the value of the damage is below £5,000

Answer 6

c. This offence can be tried either summarily or on indictment

Question 7

The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 creates an offence of placing advertisements relating to prostitution in the vicinity of public telephones. (s46). The section however gives a specific definition of ‘public place’ and if children below a certain age are not permitted access then the location cannot be considered a ‘public place’.

What is the age limit specified?

Answer 7

Under the age of 16 years

Question 8

In dealing with minor offences against the person which of the following statements is true?

a. Assault and battery are two separate statutory offences.
b. Assault and battery is a common law offence.
c. Words alone are sufficient to amount to an assault. Incorrect
d. The slightest touch is an assault even if there is no injury.

Answer 8

a. Assault and battery are two separate statutory offences.

Question 9

When considering an application for an extension of a warrant of further detention which of the following is the court required to consider?

a. Whether are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is justified
b. Whether the offence is indictable
c. Whether there is prima facie evidence of the offence
d. The general nature of the evidence on which the person was arrested

Answer 9

a. Whether are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is justified

Question 10

In relation to the offence of perjury which is contrary to Section 1 of The Perjury Act 1911 which of the following statements is incorrect?

a. The offence extends to individuals acting as interpreters in court.
b. The offence is committed if a person makes a false statement on an MG 11 which is tendered in evidence.
c. The offence can be committed by persons making affidavits.
d. Corroboration is required before a conviction can be obtained.

Answer 10

b. The offence is committed if a person makes a false statement on an MG 11 which is tendered in evidence.

***check

Question 11

1. On hearing an application for a closure order relating to a premises under s1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 the Court has power to order an adjournment for the occupier or another person with control of the premises to show cause why an order should not be made. What is the maximum period the Court can adjourn the case for?

Answer 11

14 days

Question 12

In relation to proving an offence of manslaughter by gross negligence which of the following statements is incorrect?

a. The defendant must have been in breach of a duty of care to the deceased
b. The existence of such a duty of care is a matter of law
c. The negligence must have caused the death Incorrect
d. The negligence, in the opinion of the jury, must have been so bad in all the circumstances to amount to a criminal act or omission

Answer 12

b. The existence of such a duty of care is a matter of law

Question 13

With regard to the offence of theft contrary to s1 Theft Act 1968, which of the following statements is correct?

a. ‘Dishonest’ is defined in s2 Theft Act 1968
b. Whether a defendant has been ‘dishonest’ is a matter of law to be decided by the judge
c. Whether a defendant has been ‘dishonest’ is a matter for the jury
d. Whether a defendant has been ‘dishonest’ is a subjective test dependent on what the defendant believes to be dishonest.

Answer 13

c. Whether a defendant has been ‘dishonest’ is a matter for the jury

Question 14

Which of the following aspects is not amongst specifically those that must be established before any CHIS activity is authorised by a Superintendent?

a. The activity must be necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder
b. The activity must be necessary for the purposes of protecting public health
c. The activity must be necessary in order to protect life or property
d. The activity must be necessary in the interests of national security

Answer 14

c. The activity must be necessary in order to protect life or property

Question 15

Code C of the PACE Codes of Practice allow, in certain circumstances for detained persons to undergo tests to ascertain if controlled drugs are present in their body. In relation to the authorising of such tests, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Authority must be given by a sergeant or above in writing. Incorrect
b. Authority must be given by a sergeant or above orally or in writing.
c. Authority must be given by an inspector or above in writing
d. Authority must be given by an inspector or above orally or in writing.

Answer 15

The correct answer is D

A straight test of memory. The oral permission must be confirmed in writing as soon as possible after it being granted. There are numerous levels of authorisation for different aspects of the treatment of detained persons. If you are struggling to recall the correct one, ask yourself how intrusive is the course of action proposed and how often its it likely to be carried out. More frequent situations and less invasive steps are likely to have a lower authority level.

The correct answer is: Authority must be given by an inspector or above orally or in writing.

Question 16

Prescott runs a business supplying fancy dress hire to members of the public. Windsor is having a themed garden party and contracts Prescott to supply cowboy gear for the staff to wear. Then party is a great success but Windsor is unhappy about the quality of the outfits supplied by Prescott and declines to pay. There is a preliminary hearing in the County Court. Windsor’s solicitor, Falconer, is on the way out of Court when Prescott says to him ‘Tell her if she gives evidence she is dead’.

In relation to an offence intimidation of witnesses which of the following statements is correct?

a. Prescott does not commit an offence as Falconer is not a witness in the case.

b. There is no offence committed as the proceedings are in the civil court
c. Prescott commits an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

d. Prescott commits an offence contrary to section 52 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Answer 16

The correct answer is C

This question tests the student’s knowledge of two offences of witness intimidation which in many ways are similar but contain a crucial difference. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offence of witness intimidation protects only witnesses in proceedings for an offence i.e. criminal cases. The 2001 act extends protection to those giving evidence in ‘relevant proceedings’ which will include virtually all civil cases such as breach of contract. Whilst the requirement for students to learn acts and sections has fallen out of favour in police training in recent years there is simply no alternative bearing in mind the amount of legislation, often overlapping, we have been faced with in recent years. Including protection for witnesses in civil cases in an act entitled Criminal Justice and Public Order can only add to the potential for confusion! For the purposes of the relevant section is matters not that the act is done to someone who is not a witness, such as the solicitor (provided the required intent is present) therefore answer A is incorrect. Answer B is wrong for the reasons described above. Again, the act and section described in answer D only protects witnesses in criminal cases.

The correct answer is: Prescott commits an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

Question 17

Allison went shopping for perfume in a department store. She took a bottle of perfume to the till. The perfume was labelled £39.95 and that was the amount rung up on the till. Allison gave the shop assistant a £50 note and she was given change. After she had left the shop Allison checked her change and found she had been given a £20 note and five pence. Pleased with her windfall she decided to go to the café where she spent the extra £10 on coffee and cream cakes.

With regard to Allison’s criminal liability which of the following is true?

a. She commits an offence of theft as soon as she discovers that she has been given too much change and decides to keep it.
b. She commits an offence of theft only when she spends the money.

c. She does not commit an offence of theft because she was not dishonest at the time she came into possession of the money.
d. She does not commit an offence of theft because the shop can charge what they want for goods and this is no more than a discount.

Answer 17

The correct answer is A.

An essential ingredient of theft is ‘appropriation’. This is defined in Section 3 Theft Act 1968 as any assumption of the rights of an owner. Those rights include the rights to keep, sell, pawn, give away or destroy. The assumption of just one of those rights is sufficient for appropriation in theft. The section of the act goes on to say that appropriation ‘…includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner’. Those are the circumstances in which Allison came by the excess change so as soon as she realised she had been given too much change and decided to keep the money the appropriation was complete; thus B is incorrect. Spending the money on coffee and cakes is evidence that she intended permanently to deprive the shop of the money. The final element to prove is ‘dishonesty’. It must be proved that Allison was dishonest at the time she appropriated the property; in this case the time when she decided that she was going to keep the money. She cannot claim any of the exemptions to dishonesty contained in s2 of the 1968 Act so any challenge on dishonesty would be on the basis of the test laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689. Answer D is incorrect because on the facts it was not the shop’s intention to sell at a lower price as evidence by the correct amount being registered on the till.

The correct answer is: She commits an offence of theft as soon as she discovers that she has been given too much change and decides to keep it.

Question 18

Kev broke into a house and stole a collection of Abba records. He took them to Geoff, a second hand dealer, who regularly bought stolen goods from him. He gave Kev £10 for the records. Two days later they met in a pub. Geoff waved a bundle of bank notes at Kev and said, “Some collector gave me £300 for those records. Let’s have a drink on it.” Using the money from the sale of the records Geoff bought a number of drinks which they both drank.

With regard to Kev, which of the following is true?

a. Kev has not committed an offence of handling stolen goods because he was the thief.
b. Kev has not committed an offence of handling stolen goods because the goods were not sold for the benefit of another.

c. Kev has committed an offence of handling stolen goods when he accepted the drinks from Geoff
d. Kev has committed an offence of handling stolen goods as soon as he gave them to Geoff because he was assisting in the disposal.

Answer 18

The correct answer is C.

The offence of handling stolen goods can be committed in a number of ways. The simplest is receiving the stolen goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen. In this question it is important to know what ‘stolen goods’ means. This is found in Section 24 Theft Act 1968. In its simplest form it means the actual stolen goods; in this case the records. However, if those goods are sold or swapped, the money obtained from the sale or item obtained from the swap will also become ‘stolen goods’. So in this case the money Geoff obtained by the sale of the records is ‘stolen goods’ and then the drinks purchased with that money also become ‘stolen goods’ because in the words of s24(2)(b) of the Act they ‘represent the stolen goods in the hands of a handler’ - Geoff. As the drinks are now ‘stolen goods’, because they represent the stolen records, and Kev ‘receives’ them knowing them to be stolen goods he commits an offence of handling stolen goods. Kev cannot exonerate himself by saying that he is the thief as in these circumstances his action in receiving the drinks is too remote to be considered as being ‘in the course of the stealing’: thus A is incorrect. B and D are incorrect because when Kev passes the goods to Geoff it can be said to be ‘in the course of stealing’ and he is not doing anything for the benefit of another.

The correct answer is: Kev has committed an offence of handling stolen goods when he accepted the drinks from Geoff

Question 19

Tony and Gordon are neighbours but have disliked each other for years after Tony got the foreman’s job at the factory where they worked. They were both sacked for fighting at work and since then have often fought or damaged each other’s property. One afternoon Gordon found that his car had been damaged. He saw Tony in the garden and blamed him for causing the damage. He said, “You wait till tonight. You’ll be down the pub and your wife and kids will be left at home as usual. I’ll see how fast they can get out when I put a petrol bomb through the window”. The last time he threatened to burn down Gordon’s shed he went ahead and did so, but the matter was not reported to the police. In fact Tony had no intention of petrol bombing Tony’s house and he was going away that evening; he just wanted to frighten him. Tony was not actually frightened and did not believe Gordon would carry out his threat.

Under the provisions of s 2(1)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971 which of the following statements is true?

a. Gordon does not commit an offence because Tony does not believe that he will cause the damage and is not put in fear that he will.
b. Gordon does not commit an offence because he does not intend to carry out the threat.
c. Gordon commits an offence because he intends Tony to fear that he will damage his house in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of Tony’s wife and children.
d. Gordon does not commit the offence because the property he is threatening to damage is not his own.

Answer 19

The correct answer is D.

The offences regarding threats to cause criminal damage are not at all straightforward and need to be read very carefully.

The question specifically refers to s 2(1)(b) which only applies to threats to ‘destroy or damage his own property’ - unlike s1 of the Act where when life is endangered it can be his own or another’s property that is damaged. Thus in these circumstance the charge would have to be laid under s 2(1)(a) of the Act, which makes no mention of endangering life but carries the same penalty as 2(1)(b).

Whether or not Tony actually fears that the threat will be carried out is irrelevant. If Gordon intends that he will fear that the threat will be carried out the test is an objective one: would a reasonable person consider that the threat would have caused Tony to believe that the threat would be carried out (See R v Caknak [2002] Crim LR 581) Thus Answer A is incorrect.

It matters not that Gordon is unable or disinclined to carry out the threat. It is necessary only to prove that he intended Tony to fear that it would be carried out. Therefore Answer B is incorrect.

As explained above the threat under s 2(1)(b) must be to his own property, therefore Answer C is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Gordon does not commit the offence because the property he is threatening to damage is not his own.

Question 20

Tyrone, an 18 year-old man had spent an afternoon drinking and was intoxicated. On his way home on the estate where he lived he came across an abandoned motor car. It’s registration plates and all other means of identification had been removed and it had obviously been dumped. Tyrone decided to set fire to the car and then call the fire brigade just to watch them put it out – and this he did. The fire brigade arrived and as the first firefighter approached the burning car the petrol tank exploded, knocking him to the ground but otherwise not causing serious injury.

Which of the following statements is true with regard to the s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971?

a. Tyrone has not committed any offence because the car did not belong to anyone
b. Tyrone has not committed an offence of aggravated criminal damage because the firefighter’s life was not actually endangered
c. Tyrone has committed an offence of aggravated criminal damage because he was reckless as to whether the firefighter’s life would be endangered.
d. Tyrone has committed an offence of arson regardless of whether or not life was endangered.

Answer 20

The correct answer is A.

For there to be an offence of criminal damage the property damaged must belong to somebody. For simple criminal damage under s 1(1) the property must belong to ‘another’ and for aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) the property must belong to ‘himself or another’. In this case the property has clearly been abandoned and therefore does not belong to anyone therefore there is no offence under the Act. This loophole is the reason why there is always a discrepancy between the number of ‘deliberately started fires’ recorded by the fire brigade and the number of ‘arsons’ recorded by the police. Thus B, C & D are all incorrect. If the car had belonged to another B would still be incorrect and C correct because it is not necessary to show that life was actually endangered, merely that D was reckless as to whether it would be endangered (See R v Parker [1993] Crim LR 856). Arson does not stand alone as an offence. It requires all the ingredients of either s 1(1) or s 1(2) plus the damage being caused by fire which is why, for the reason given above D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Tyrone has not committed any offence because the car did not belong to anyone

Question 21

Following allegations in the media that a man arrested by police was ill treated in custody a number of instances of serious public disorder break out. These occur over a number of weekends. Pc Johnson, an officer from West Thames Police Force is responding to a routine call when he is attacked by a mob and stabbed to death. The subsequent independent investigation establishes the possibility that West Thames Police Force were aware of the potential for disorder and failed to make adequate staffing provisions to support their officers.

Dealing with the potential liability of West Thames Police Force for an offence of Corporate Manslaughter which of the following statements is correct?

a. The force could be convicted of an offence of corporate manslaughter providing it can be established that the activities of senior management are a substantial element in any breach of duty of care
b. The provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 are not applicable to police forces when dealing with serious disorder
c. The force could be convicted of an offence of corporate manslaughter if it was established that there was a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to Pc Johnson
d. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 does not, yet, apply to police forces so West Thames Police cannot be liable.

Answer 21

The correct answer is B

The provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 are extremely complex as indeed are the potential issues it is intended to deal with. One of the most difficult factors in drafting the Bill was the aspect of how to achieve a balance between emergency services being able to deal with the unpredictable and difficult problems they have to grapple with as well as ensuring appropriate protection is given to their staff. There is an exemption for police forces contained in s5 when carrying out law enforcement activities in dealing with serious disorder making answer B the correct one and ruling all other answers out. In order to achieve a conviction for an offence it would normally be necessary to establish that the way in which an organisation’s activities are organised caused a persons death and that there was a gross breach of a duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. It is also a requisite that the way it’s activities are managed or organised by senior management are a substantial element in the breach as stated in answer A but this is not applicable because of the exemption already discussed. The exemption in s5 means there is no duty of care so answer C cannot be correct. It is not accurate to say that all the provisions of the Act do not apply to police forces as in answer D. There are certain aspects relating to death in custody not yet in force so Answer D is also incorrect

The correct answer is: The provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 are not applicable to police forces when dealing with serious disorder

Question 22

Amy goes to see her friend Pete and takes with her some heroin. Pete is a user and later in the evening he dissolves the heroin and injects himself with it. Amy, who is also an experienced user of heroin, notices that he is exhibiting signs of heroin overdose. She does not seek medical help for him but decides to stay for the night to look after him. In the morning when she wakes Pete is dead. An autopsy confirms that he died of heroin overdose.

With regard to the offence of manslaughter by gross negligence, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Amy does not commit the offence because Pete injected himself with the heroin.
b. Amy does not commit the offence because she does not owe a duty of care to Pete because she is just a friend and has no professional or family ties with him
c. Amy does commit the offence because she did not take reasonable steps to save his life.
d. Amy does commit the offence if the jury decide that she had a duty of care for Pete.

Answer 22

The correct Answer is C.

In the past the Court of Appeal seemed determined to uphold convictions for unlawful act manslaughter against anyone with a vague connection to the self-administration of controlled drugs by the deceased. In R v Kennedy (No2) [2005] EWCA Crim 685 he had merely handed the syringe to the deceased who had injected himself and died. He was convicted and the conviction upheld at his first appeal in 1999 on grounds that were very difficult to understand on any sensible basis. A second appeal, in which the Court of Appeal again upheld the conviction, eventually reached the House of Lords. The point of law the House was asked to consider was: “When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death?” The answer was clear: “In the case of a fully-informed and responsible adult, never”. Thus Amy would not commit an offence of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, but that is not the question, making Answer A incorrect.

Later in R v Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650 on similar facts to the question D was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence. The first element to prove in these cases is that D owes a Duty of Care to V. Most of the case law relates to professional relationships – mainly doctors and relatives – but the court in Evans made it clear that wider relationships were potentially relevant. making Answer B incorrect . Who has a duty of care is a matter of law for the judge, not the jury, making Answer D in correct.

So we are left with Answer C. The Court in Evans held that “when a person had created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, had become life-threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking reasonable steps to save the other’s life would normally arise”. In this case by taking the drugs to Pete and giving them to him she had created the state of affairs, which when he displayed symptoms of overdose, she knew was life-threatening, she did nothing to save his life by calling for medical assistance.

The correct answer is: Amy does commit the offence because she did not take reasonable steps to save his life.

Question 23

Gavin is the boyfriend of Molly who has a five year old daughter Chantelle. Police are called one evening to Molly’s home by Norris, a neighbour who is concerned for the welfare of Chantelle. When officers arrive they find the child unconscious. She is taken to hospital but dies soon afterwards. At the autopsy it is discovered that Chantelle has numerous injuries caused by acts of violence and these caused her death. Molly is arrested and admits physically abusing her child and is charged with murder. Gavin is also arrested and interviewed. He denies assaulting Chantelle. There is no evidence that Gavin has caused any of the injuries.

In order to establish an offence of causing or allowing the death of a child contrary to s5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which of the following will investigators not have to prove?

a. Gavin lived at the same address as Chantelle
b. Gavin was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk of grievous bodily harm to Chantelle
c. Gavin failed to take such steps that he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect Chantelle
d. The injuries to Chantelle occurred in circumstances that Gavin foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

Answer 23

The correct answer is A

The requirement in the Act is for the defendant to be a member of the same household as the victim (s5(1)(a)). ‘Member of the same household’ is defined in the section quite widely to include people who visit often and for such periods of time that they can be regarded as members of the household. Therefore it will not be necessary for the investigator to prove that Gavin actually resided at the premises and answer A is correct. This is obviously a potential area of uncertainty for any investigation. The remaining elements outlined in answers B, C and D are all necessary to be established when seeking to ascertain that the defendant was not the person who caused the death but who should or could have taken action to prevent it (s5(4)(d))

The correct answer is: Gavin lived at the same address as Chantelle

Question 24

Moseley intends to stand at the general election as a candidate for the ‘Keep Britain Pure’ party although he and his wife are in fact the only members of the organisation. He is concerned at what he sees as resources and jobs being given to people of minority ethnic origins and feels this threatens the economic well-being of the country. Moseley holds a rally in a local hall he rents for the purpose. Bhupesh is a Hindu who attends the rally wishing to register his disagreement. Moseley is enraged when he sees Bhupesh at the event and attacks him. He strikes Bhupesh in the face breaking his nose. As he does this Moseley shouts ‘How dare you come here you Paki git.’ Moseley is arrested and subsequently convicted of a racially or religiously aggravated offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

In relation to the possible maximum penalty Mosley could face which of the following statements is correct?

a. Mosley faces a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment
b. Mosley faces a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment
c. Mosley faces a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment
d. Mosley faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment

Answer 24

The correct answer is B

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new racially aggravated versions of offences already on the statute book. Following the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 extended these to include religiously aggravated crimes. The practical implication of this is that maximum sentences are increased. This sounds very worthy but how often does anyone receive the maximum possible sentence, or even anything approaching it, for a crime? The maximum sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 is five years imprisonment. This is increased under the more recent legislation to seven years making answer B correct. The other offences in this section of the syllabus affected are common assault and battery where the six month penalty for each of these offences is increased to two years and assault occasioning actual bodily harm where the ‘original’ five year penalty is also potentially increased to seven years.

The correct answer is: Mosley faces a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment

Question 25

Data relating to which of the following topics is not classed as ‘special category data’ for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018?

a. Genealogical Data
b. Political Opinions
c. Trade Union Membership
d. Sex Life

Answer 25

The correct answer is A.

Perhaps data protection is not at the top of every trainee investigator’s list of interests but the inclusion of the topic in the syllabus reflects the importance of the subject in todays society.

The Data Protection Act creates Special Category Data which reflects the sensitivity of the information. There are ten categories and Genealogical history is not amongst them, although genetic data is

The correct answer is: Genealogical Data

Question 26

Leticia, aged 26, lives alone in a detached house. One evening she held a party in a marquee erected in the garden for the purpose. One of the guests at the party was Jocelyn. He drank a lot of wine and started making lewd suggestions to women and touching them in a sexual manner. Leticia confronted him and said, “I want you to leave and don’t some back – ever!” Jocelyn walked away but did not leave the marquee but hid under the band stage until all the guests had left and Leticia was alone in the marquee tidying up. He then took off his clothes and emerged from under the stage. He walked naked towards Leticia and said: “now the fun can really begin”. Leticia said, “I told you to go, now get out”. At that moment, Rupert, who had left his umbrella behind, returned to fetch it.

With regard to an offence of Trespass with Intent to Commit a Sexual Offence (s63), which of the following statements is correct?

a. Jocelyn does commit an offence
b. Jocelyn does not commit an offence because he did not enter the marquee as a trespasser – he was an invited guest.
c. Jocelyn does not commit an offence because a marquee is not structure of sufficient permanence because it was only erected for the party.
d. Jocelyn does not commit an offence because he does not commit a ‘relevant sexual offence’ as he does not touch or penetrate Leticia

Answer 26

Your answer is incorrect.

The correct answer is A. All the elements of the offence are present. Jocelyn became a trespasser as soon as Leticia told him to leave and he did not do so. Unlike the old offence of burglary with intent to rape it is not necessary that the defendant should have entered as a trespasser. An invited guest becomes a trespasser when told to leave and a person with ‘licence’ to enter, such as a deliveryman, would become a trespasser as soon as he formed an intention to commit a ‘relevant sexual offence’ because he would have exceeded his licence. Therefore Answer B is incorrect. A tent, even a big one, would probably not have been sufficient to amount to a building for the purposes of the old burglary offence but s 63(2) of the 2003 Act specifically includes tents as a structure, thus C is incorrect. A ‘relevant sexual offence’ for the purposes of s 63 is any offence in Part 1 of the 2003 Act. It would not matter if he had not committed an offence as it is a preparatory offence. It is necessary only you prove that Jocelyn intended to commit such an offence and that can be inferred from his what he says and does. Thus Answer D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Jocelyn does commit an offence

Question 27

Melissa was a 17 year old student studying fashion design at college. She lived with her boyfriend Max, with whom she had had an on-going intimate relationship for some 18 months and they intended to marry. He was studying photography at the same institution. Melissa wanted to become a model so she could exhibit her own work in later years. She asked Max to take a portfolio of photographs for her so she could see what she looked like as a model. Max took a number of photographs of her including some in which she was naked and showing her genitals. Having printed the photographs he put them in a folder and took them to Melissa’s parent’s home where they had agreed to meet. Max was showing the photographs to Melissa when her father, John, walked into the room and saw the folder. He asked what was in it. Max said it was just something for Melissa. John snatched the folder from Max and looked inside. He saw the photographs and called the police.

With regard to the Protection of Children Act 1978 which of the following statements is correct?

a. Max has committed an offence under s1(a) by taking indecent photographs of Melissa who is a child.
b. Max has not committed an offence under s1(a) because Melissa consented to the taking and they live together.
c. Max has committed an offence under s1(b) because he showed the indecent photographs to another person.
d. Max has committed an offence under s 1(c) because he possessed them with a view to them being distributed to forward Melissa’s modelling career.

Answer 27

The correct answer is B. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 and increased the age of ‘children’ from under 16 to under 18. So prima facie there would be an offence, however, the 2003 Act also added a defence so that: if the ‘child’ is 16 or over; and, consents; and, the photograph shows only the child (or the child and the defendant); and, the child and defendant are either married or live together in an enduring relationship; then there is no offence. This, on the facts is the case here. Thus Answer A is incorrect and B is the correct answer. Section 1(5) negates an offence under s1(b) where the photograph is shown only to the child - and that was Max’s intention. The snatching away of the photographs by John would not amount to ‘showing’ to another. Thus Answer C is incorrect. The purpose of taking the photographs was to allow Melissa to see how she looked, not for publication and Max only showed them to her. On the facts there is no evidence to prove that he intended to distribute or show the photographs to anyone but Melissa. Thus Answer D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Max has not committed an offence under s1(a) because Melissa consented to the taking and they live together.

Question 28

Which of the activities described in the following statements will amount to an offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act contrary to section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

a. John, 23 years, agrees to look after his neighbour’s child, Laura, 14 years for a short period of time. Laura is in John’s house and selects a DVD to watch. The disc she chooses is a film of two people having sexual intercourse. John sees Laura watching the film. He finds the situation amusing and does nothing to stop her.
b. William, 18 years, and his long term girlfriend Jackie, 15 years, enjoy watching pornographic films in order to get them in the mood for sexual intercourse. They get in to bed and William puts a pornographic tape into the machine and they both watch it.
c. Julie is 15 years of age. She looks and dresses much older than this. She spends the evening drinking in a local pub where she meets Dave, 42 years, and agrees to go back to his flat with him. Dave in an attempt to seduce Julie shows her some pornographic images which are on his computer.
d. Anthony, 56 years, does not believe in censorship of any kind. He is looking after his nephew Tony who is fourteen and allows him to stay up late and watch a play on television. The program carries a warning that there is sexual content but Anthony, in keeping with his principles, allows Tony to remain and watch the whole program.

Answer 28

Your answer is incorrect.

The correct answer is B. The offence requires an individual to ‘intentionally cause’ another to watch sexual activity. Mere omission, as in answer A, will not suffice therefore John in failing to put a stop to the situation does not commit the offence. It must also be shown that an offender did not have a reasonable belief that the viewer is over sixteen. Dave, in these circumstances, would therefore not be convicted under this section, making answer C incorrect. The offence must be committed for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. Whilst Anthony’s views may be unusual he does not commit the offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act as his motivation is not sexual so answer D is wrong. Although William and Julie have an existing sexual relationship (albeit an unlawful one) his behaviour falls within the ambit of s12. The Sexual Offences Act creates a large number of individual offences which often overlap. It is therefore imperative that students closely study the question and only deal with the offences at which the question aims.

The correct answer is: William, 18 years, and his long term girlfriend Jackie, 15 years, enjoy watching pornographic films in order to get them in the mood for sexual intercourse. They get in to bed and William puts a pornographic tape into the machine and they both watch it.

Question 29

David is seventeen years of age. He lives next door to Lolita. They get on very well and begin to spend time together. Lolita tells David it is her fifteenth birthday so David invites her to the cinema. However Lolita is actually twelve years of age. They spend a pleasant evening together and walk home. As they are saying goodnight David kisses Lolita and whilst he is doing so strokes her breast over her shirt. Lolita is quite happy with this as she likes David and wants to see him again. Unfortunately for them both the incident is witnessed by Lolita’s mother who is looking out of the window waiting for her daughter to arrive home. She is horrified at what she sees and contacts the police.

In relation to an offence of sexual activity with a child contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which of the following statements is true?

a. David does not commit an offence. Lolita consents to the activity.
b. David commits the offence. He believes Lolita is under sixteen when he commits the act of touching her breast.
c. David does not commit the offence as he is under eighteen years of age.
d. David commits the offence as Lolita is under thirteen years of age. Because of this consent is immaterial

Answer 29

The correct answer is C

This question illustrates the dangers for students in dealing with issues under the Sexual Offences Act. There are a number of overlapping offences therefore it is important to carefully read the question and identify which section is relevant. A number of the required elements are present. David intentionally touches Lolita and the touching is undoubtedly sexual. However the offence under s9 can only be committed if the suspect is over eighteen years of age. In this instance David is seventeen years old and therefore cannot commit the offence. It is therefore immaterial if Lolita consents or otherwise ruling out answer A. The section does differentiate between victims who are under thirteen and those who are at least thirteen but under sixteen. However the statements in answer’s B and D are also wrong because David is under the required age for this offence. This section, again, differentiates in sentence depending on the act in question. If the act involves penetration there is a potential sentence of fourteen years imprisonment and the matter can be dealt with on indictment only. Otherwise it is possible, at least in theory, for this offence to be heard summarily. David would commit the offence under s13 of the Act but this is not what the question seeks.

The correct answer is: David does not commit the offence as he is under eighteen years of age.

Question 30

Rosie, 14 years, lives with her mother in a flat which is in a tower block. Her mother is an alcoholic who spends most of her time away from the home and Rosie is frequently left to her own devices. Rosie frequently allows boys from her school to visit and allows them to have sex with her for money in order to pay for her drug consumption. Mavis, a neighbour, has lived in the flat next door for many years and has always tried to help Rosie by feeding her and giving her advice. Rosie tells Mavis what she is doing but refuses to stop. Mavis is very concerned and agrees to supply Rosie with condoms in order to prevent her from becoming pregnant or contracting a disease. Mavis does not trust the authorities and does not report the situation.

Does Mavis commit an offence of arranging or facilitating child sex offences contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

a. No. There are statutory exceptions for anyone who is acting in order to protect a child.
b. Yes. Mavis is facilitating sexual offences committed against Rosie by supplying her with condoms. Incorrect
c. No. The sexual activity will take place whether or not Mavis supplies condoms.
d. Yes. Mavis has failed to report the activity to the proper authorities.

Answer 30

The correct answer is A

The section specifically protects those who act for the purpose of protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection, protecting the physical safety of the child, preventing the child from becoming pregnant or promoting the child’s emotional well-being by giving advice (s14(3)). Mavis’s actions fall within this category therefore A is the correct answer. Answer B is incorrect for the same reason. For the purposes of the section it is immaterial if as to whether or not the activity continues so answer C is also wrong. There is no requirement for anyone to report the activity to enjoy the protection of the exemption so, although you may question Mavis’s judgement, answer D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: No. There are statutory exceptions for anyone who is acting in order to protect a child.

Question 31

Stanley is a paedophile. Next door lives Trixie a nine-year-old girl. Her mother who does not know he is a paedophile allows her to play in Stanley’s garden where he keeps pet rabbits. He intends to groom Trixie with a view to having sex with her at a later date. On three occasions he has invited her into his house and shown her a video of children playing in a field. At this stage children are fully dressed and are just playing: later videos will involve nudity. One day while Trixie is watching the video he cannot wait any longer to indulge himself. He shows her his penis and masturbates.

With regard to the offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act under, s 12 Sexual Offences Act 2003, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Stanley does not commit an offence because he is the only person doing a sexual act.
b. Stanley does not commit an offence because a video does not count as a photograph

c. Stanley does commit an offence because masturbation is a sexual act and he causes Trixie to watch it.
d. Stanley commits the offence by showing Trixie the video because it is part of the grooming process

Answer 31

The correct answer is A

The question refers specifically to s12 of the Act. Under that a section D must cause the child to watch a third person engaging in a sexual activity. As he is the only person present and engaging in the activity, there is no third person, so the offence cannot be committed. There is an offence under s11 but not s12, making Answer C incorrect. The section is rather strange as he does not commit an offence under the section by masturbating in front of her, but if he showed her a video of him masturbating the offence would be complete because it is an offence to cause her to ‘look at an image of any person’. The wording of the Act talks about ‘images’ of children instead of photographs and pseudo-photographs as in earlier legislation. The video does count as an image, making Answer B incorrect. It is true that showing the video is part of a grooming process which would eventually lead to sexual gratification but at this stage the video does not contain an image of anybody engaging in a sexual activity; thus Answer D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Stanley does not commit an offence because he is the only person doing a sexual act.

Question 32

Belinda was 17 when she split up with her 19 year old boyfriend Benny with whom she had lived since she was just 16 and who she expected to marry. During that time, with Belinda’s consent Benny had taken digital photographs of them during sexual activity. Belinda kept a hard copy of one of the photographs. She soon had a new boyfriend, Shane, to whom she showed the photograph and allowed him to keep. Shane kept the photograph in his wallet.

With regard to the Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended), which of the following statements is correct?

a. Benny commits an offence by taking an indecent photograph of Belinda who is a child.
b. Belinda commits an offence by showing an indecent image of a child to Shane
c. Shane commits and offence of possessing an indecent photograph of a child.
d. None of them commit an offence under this Act

Answer 32

The correct answer is B

This answer may seem extraordinary but it is true. The Act provides that it is an offence for a person to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs and does not specify any party who cannot commit the offence. Benny takes the photograph of Belinda and it is indecent but he has a defence under s1A(1) as at the time the photograph was taken they were living together as partners in an enduring family relationship. Thus Answer A is incorrect. Under the 1978 Act the offence under s1(1)(c) of possessing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs exists only where he possess them with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others. IN this case Shane merely keeps it in his wallet making Answer C incorrect.

The correct answer is: Belinda commits an offence by showing an indecent image of a child to Shane

Question 33

As a result of an intelligence led inquiry into the trafficking of Class A drugs DC Grierson causes Flanagan to be stopped and arrested while in a taxi on the way to the airport. Flanagan is in police detention for possession of a Class A controlled drug. He admits that he has the drug contained in condoms in his rectum and he has tried but cannot get them out. With regard to an intimate search for the drugs which of the following statements is correct?

a. Before being asked to give consent to the search Flanagan must be legally represented.
b. Before being asked to give consent to the search Flanagan must be warned that if he refuses without good cause it may harm his case if it comes to trial.
c. A search can be conducted only if he possesses a Class A drug with intent to supply another.
d. If an officer of at least inspector rank considers it is not practicable to wait for a registered medical practitioner or nurse to carry out the search he may authorise a police officer of the same sex to carry out the search in an emergency.

Answer 33

The correct answer is B

The amended PACE Code C Annex A 2B requires a warning to be given that refusal to consent to an intimate drug search may harm D’s case if it comes to trial. A suggested form of words for the warning is given at Note A6.

D does not have to be legally represented before being asked to give consent; thus Answer A is incorrect. However, if he is not represented he must be reminded of his entitlement to free legal advice. The search power is available only for Class A drugs but it is available not only where the possession is with intent to supply but also where D intends to export the drug even for his own use; therefore Answer C is incorrect. Intimate drug searches can only be carried out by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse. The proviso for the inspector’s authority only applies to intimate searches for items which could or might be used to injure themselves or another at the police station; thus Answer D is incorrect.

The correct answer is: Before being asked to give consent to the search Flanagan must be warned that if he refuses without good cause it may harm his case if it comes to trial.

Question 34

Liam and Noel were brothers who shared a house. While they lived there, they made a number of improvements with the landlord’s permission including putting up a wall dividing one of the rooms and laying a new floor. Liam was the tenant. When he was about to marry he gave notice to the landlord that he was leaving and asked if Noel could take over the tenancy. The landlord refused, so before they left the brothers smashed the partition wall and ripped up the new floor. The landlord went to inspect the property as they were leaving and on seeing the damage called the police. They were arrested and interviewed. Both men said that they had only smashed up their own property that they had put in so they believed they were entitled to do it.

With regard to criminal damage, which of the following statement is correct?

a. They both commit the offence of criminal damage because the wall and floor became part of the house and therefore belonged to another, the landlord. Incorrect
b. They do not commit an offence because they both honestly believed that the property was theirs and they were entitled to damage it
c. They do commit the offence even if they believed it was their property because it was not a justifiable belief.
d. Only Liam commits the offence because he was the tenant and therefore responsible to the landlord for the property.

Answer 34

The correct answer is B.

The problem in this question was addressed by the Court of Appeal in R v Smith (David Raymond) [1974] 1 All ER 632. The partition wall and the flooring the tenant had installed became part of the house and therefore did belong to the landlord who was ‘another’ for the purposes of the Act. At first sight then it appears that the offence was committed as they deliberately damaged property belonging to another. However, we must look at the mens rea for the offence. The act requires that D did the damage ‘intending to destroy or damage such property’ (or being reckless). The Court held that when looking at the mens rea the words ‘such property’ must mean, ‘property belonging to another’. Thus in this case they did not intend to damage property ‘belonging to another’; they intended to damage property that they honestly believed was their own. Therefore, Answer A is incorrect. The Court held that an honestly held belief was sufficient to negate the mens rea it was not necessary for the defence to show that the belief was justifiable – merely that it was honestly held; thus making Answer C incorrect. Answer D is incorrect as the relationship with the landlord would only be relevant in civil proceedings – in theft it may be different!

The correct answer is: They do not commit an offence because they both honestly believed that the property was theirs and they were entitled to damage it

Question 35

Parker is a ninety year old man who, because of his age, is permanently confined to his bed. He lives in a supported housing scheme and his welfare needs are undertaken by a number of professional visitors. Grimshaw is a trained nurse who visits Parker daily to dispense his prescription drugs and is also responsible for turning Parker in his bed to prevent bed sores. She is contracted to spend four hours every working day with her patient. Unfortunately Grimshaw has some difficulties in her private life and this leads her to neglect her duties. Frequently pushed for time she only visits Parker for a brief period each day, gives him his drugs, but fails to alter his position. As a result Parker develops severe bed sores which, in turn, become infected and he dies.

Could Grimshaw commit an offence of causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult?

a. Yes, but only if the court is satisfied that she should have foreseen or ought to have foreseen the consequences of her omission.
b. No. There is a requirement for a physical act by the defendant rather than an omission before the offence is made out.
c. Yes. Grimshaw dies as a direct result of Parkers failure to carry out her responsibilities therefore a conviction in these circumstances is possible.
d. No. Parker is only a visitor to Grimshaw’s address rather than residing at the property so cannot commit the offence.

Answer 35

The correct answer is C.

This offence was introduced as a result of a number of cases where children died at the hands of the people responsible for their care and it was not possible to establish who had been responsible for the death. Under s5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004the protection is extended to cover vulnerable adults. There are two potential sources of offenders. The first is the person whose act or omission is responsible for the death. The second is a member of the household who failed to take action to prevent the death. Only in the latter category is it necessary to establish that the defendant had, or ought to have, foreseen the consequences. As in this scenario Grimshaw is the person responsible for the death answer A is incorrect. The offence can be committed by act or omission so answer B is also wrong. The act covers not only people who reside in the same household but also people who visit with a frequency and duration they can reasonably be regarded as members of the household (s4(a)). This makes the offence potentially very wide and certainly likely to encompass professional visitors such as Nurse Grimshaw so answer D can be ruled out

The correct answer is: Yes. Grimshaw dies as a direct result of Parkers failure to carry out her responsibilities therefore a conviction in these circumstances is possible.

Question 36

In which of the following cases will D be guilty of an offence because of ‘transferred mens rea (malice)’?

a. John and Tariq are arguing. John tries to attack Tariq with a baseball bat. In order to defend himself Tariq throws a heavy glass ashtray at John but misses and hits Brenda causing a nasty wound.
b. Irene and Dawn are both in love with the same man and are intensely jealous of each other. Irene decides to shoot Dawn and waits for her one evening with a shotgun. She sees a silhouette who she thinks is Dawn approaching and fires. She then finds she has shot and killed Pauline by mistake.
c. Colin and Michael are sworn enemies. Colin lays in wait for Michael and fires a gun at him. He misses and the bullet goes into a house and smashes a vase belonging to Diane.
d. Norman and Barry live in an old people’s home, both being 76 years of aged. They often argue. On one such occasion Barry punches Norman on the nose causing it to bleed but no other injury. However, Norman falls against Maureen who was 82 causing her to fall and break her leg; an injury from which she subsequently dies.

Answer 36

The correct answer is D.

On similar facts the Court of Appeal in R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 upheld the conviction for her manslaughter, Staughton J saying: ‘We can see no reason of policy for holding that an act calculated to harm A cannot be manslaughter if it in fact kills B’.

Whilst the mens rea can be transferred so can any defence to it. So, if there is a defence of self -defence, that can be transferred making Answer A incorrect.

Irene sees a person in front of her and shoots and kills her. It matters not that it is not the person she intended to kill; she has killed the person she aimed at. She is guilty of murdering Pauline but not by transferred mens rea. Thus Answer B is incorrect.

The actus reus and mens rea must be for the same offence. When Colin shoots, misses Michael and breaks the vase, he has the mens rea for murder but the actus reus of criminal damage. The actus reus and mens rea put together must add up to an offence and they do not making Answer C incorrect.

The correct answer is: Norman and Barry live in an old people’s home, both being 76 years of aged. They often argue. On one such occasion Barry punches Norman on the nose causing it to bleed but no other injury. However, Norman falls against Maureen who was 82 causing her to fall and break her leg; an injury from which she subsequently dies.

Question 37

Pc WALKER is investigating a handbag snatch at the local shopping arcade. Despite thorough inquiries no potential suspects have been identified. A witness is confident that they would be able to identify the offender. After consultation with Sergeant GRAHAM it has been decided to show the witness photographs of known offenders in an attempt to identify the person responsible.

Regarding a potential identification procedure by using photographs which of the following statements is true?

a. Pc WALKER can attempt to identify the suspect by showing photographs in these circumstances and can show the witness as many photographs as she feels appropriate
b. Pc WALKER can attempt to identify the suspect by showing photographs in these circumstances but should not show the witness more than eight photographs,
c. Pc WALKER can attempt to identify the suspect by showing photographs in these circumstances but should not show the witness more than twelve photographs.
d. Pc WALKER cannot show photographs in these circumstances. The witness should be taken back to the shopping centre in an attempt to identify the suspect.

Answer 37

The correct answer is A

Where the investigators have no suspect the it is perfectly acceptable to either show a witness photographs of potential offenders or take them to a locality where the person responsible might be. The procedures for either of these initiatives is laid down in Code D. Showing of photographs is dealt with in Annex E. The procedure must be supervised by an officer of sergeant rank or above but the actual showing can be done by another officer or a member of police staff. In paragraph three of the Annex it is specified that the witness shall be shown ‘not less than twelve photographs at a time….’, There is therefore no overall limit and answers B and C are incorrect for this reason. As already stated it would be perfectly acceptable to take the witness back to the shopping centre in an attempt to spot the offender should they frequent there. However there is nothing in the codes which indicate that this type of procedure should be undertaken. It will be a matter for the investigators to decide and doubtless a number of factors such as achievability, logistics and safety will be taken into account.

The correct answer is: Pc WALKER can attempt to identify the suspect by showing photographs in these circumstances and can show the witness as many photographs as she feels appropriate

Question 38

Kazim runs a wholesale butchers and meat processing factory. He supplies doner kebabs to takeaway shops. His customers are mainly Turkish and they insist on only lamb being used in the kebabs. . Mehmet, who works in the packing department, knows that Kazim puts a lot of cheaper chicken and pork fat into the orders for the restaurants. Mehmet tells Kazim what he has seen and says, “That’s fraud. Unless you give me a thousand pounds I’m telling the police about what you’re doing”. Kazim says, “If you tell the police, you will be in the next batch of doners”. No more is said on the subject.

With regard to Mehmet’s criminal liability, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Mehmet commits an offence of ‘compounding a relevant offence’ contrary to s5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967.
b. Mehmet does not commit any offence because Kazim selling the wrong meat is a breach of contract and not a ‘relevant offence’ under s5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967.
c. Mehmet commits an offence of attempting to commit an offence contrary to s5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967
d. Mehmet does not commit an offence because attempting to commit an offence contrary to S5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 is not an offence.

Answer 38

The correct answer is D.

The offence under s5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 creates an offence of accepting or agreeing to accept a consideration for not disclosing information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for a ‘relevant offence’ . The offence used to refer to refer to ‘arrestable offences’ but when this category of offence was removed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 the term ‘relevant offence’ was substituted. Selling the wrong cheaper meat would amount to an offence under the Fraud Act and because it carries a penalty of 10 years imprisonment is a ‘relevant offence’ making Answer B incorrect. To commit the offence D must accept or agree to accept some consideration. Whilst Mehmet seeks consideration in the form of £1,000 he does not accept it and does not agree to accept because there is no offer for him to agree to accept, making Answer A incorrect. On the facts given it would appear that Mehmet has attempted to commit the offence. However, s 1(4)(c) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 specifies that there can be no offence of attempting an offence contrary to s5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967, as it is seen to be too remote from the substantive offence, thus making Answer C incorrect and leaving Answer D as the correct answer.

The correct answer is: Mehmet does not commit an offence because attempting to commit an offence contrary to S5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 is not an offence.

Question 39

Oscar is a primary school teacher. He bought a motorcycle from Rocci for £2,500. He had only £2,000 so Rocci gave him a month to pay the balance. Two months later he had not paid and Rocci is pressing for payment. Rocci sees Oscar drinking in a pub with two men who he knows to be convicted paedophiles. They are talking animatedly and looking at images of children on a lap-top computer.

Later Rocci telephones Oscar and tells him what he has seen. He says “I want that money you owe me by 5 o’clock tomorrow or I’ll be on to the school about you and your friends”

With regard to the offence of blackmail, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Rocci does not commit an offence of blackmail because the money is owed to him so he has a claim of right
b. Rocci does not commit an offence of blackmail because he has a public duty to report to the school what he has seen
c. Rocci does commit an offence of blackmail he is not entitled to press for payment other than through the county court
d. Rocci does commit an offence of blackmail because the demand he makes is unwarranted.

Answer 39

The correct Answer is D.

Blackmail can be a strange offence. It is perfectly lawful to demand payment for money owed and it is perfect lawful to expose somebody’s gross misconduct. But when the two are put together it becomes a criminal offence. To avoid conviction the defendant must show that he believed that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand, which in this case he did, but he must also show that he believed that the use of the menaces is a proper means of enforcing the demand. It is highly unlikely that a jury would accept that he believed that threatening to expose him as a paedophile, and agreeing not to do so in return for his money was a proper means of reinforcing the demand. Thus D is the correct answer and A and B incorrect.

It is lawful to demand payment of money owed without having to go to court, making Answer C incorrect. The demand must stop short of harassing the debtor otherwise an offence may be committed under s40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 for Unlawful Harassment of a Debtor.

The correct answer is: Rocci does commit an offence of blackmail because the demand he makes is unwarranted.

Question 40

Councillor Haddock is a self-important person. He would like to be appointed as chairman of the town museum trustees, a post that has become vacant. It is an unpaid post but has considerable kudos. Haddock approaches Pilbeam, the chairman of the selection board, and reminds him that he is aware of the affair he had with his secretary while they were at a conference, and it would be unfortunate if his wife found out about it.

With regard to the offence of blackmail, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Haddock does not commit the offence because he does not make a specific demand
b. Haddock does not commit the offence because the post is unpaid
c. Haddock does commit the offence because there is a clearly recognisable demand
d. Haddock does commit the offence because another candidate will be denied the post.

Answer 40

The correct Answer is B.

The demand must be made with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another. That gain or loss must be in terms of money or other economic gain. The appointment to an unpaid post does not represent a gain, making B the correct answer and C incorrect. As the post is unpaid, not getting the post does not represent a loss to another candidate, making Answer D incorrect.

The demand does not have to be explicit: it can be implicit. In the old case of Robinson (1796)East 2 PC 1110, the words ‘Remember, Sir, I am now only making an appeal to your benevolence’, were held to be a demand. In this case the implication of what Haddock says would be clear to the recipient, making Answer A incorrect.

The correct answer is: Haddock does not commit the offence because the post is unpaid

Question 41

Raffles is a guest at a wedding being held at a country house hotel. The bride wears a tiara which catches Raffles’ attention. He asks other guests whether he stones are real diamonds or imitations. No one knows. After the ceremony and wedding breakfast, the bride and groom change for the evening ball. Raffles decides to establish whether the stones are real diamonds, and if so steal the tiara. When the couple come down, Raffles climbs up a drain pipe and enters the bridal suite. He finds the tiara and on examination establishes that it is made up entirely of imitation stones. He puts the tiara back and is leaving the room when he is caught by hotel staff.

With regard to the offence of burglary, which of the following statements is correct?

a. Raffles commits an offence of burglary because he enters the hotel room as a trespasser intending to steal the tiara
b. Raffles does not commit an offence of burglary because he only intended to steal the tiara if it had genuine stones
c. Raffles does not commit an offence of burglary because he is an invited guest at the hotel and therefore not a trespasser.
d. Raffles commits an offence of burglary because he enters intending to steal anything worth stealing.

Answer 41

The correct Answer is B.

This is the unexpected and unfortunate position because of the Court of Appeal ruling in R v Husseyn (1978) 67 Cr App R 131. The court have subsequently done their best to distinguish this case and now it applies only in cases such as this where D intends to steal only a specific article and then only if it is as they wish is to be; in this case genuine diamonds. As it is not genuine Raffles does not steal the item and does not commit an offence of burglary.

Had he entered the room intending to steal anything that might take his fancy he would have committed the offence, but as he intends only to steal the tiara if genuine he does not commit the offence making Answer A and D incorrect.

Although he is a guest at the wedding to invitation does not extend to the rooms of other guests in the hotel, making him a trespasser in the bridal suite and Answer C incorrect.

The correct answer is: Raffles does not commit an offence of burglary because he only intended to steal the tiara if it had genuine stones

Question 42

Taylor, 35 years, is a school caretaker. In his office he keeps a stash of pornographic magazines. One afternoon during the summer holidays when the school is closed he is reading one of the magazines and whilst he does so he rubs his own penis through his overalls. Trudy, 14 years, has arrived at the school to attend a singing class and she looks through the office window and observes what Taylor is doing.

Could an offence of Sexual Activity in the Presence of a Child contrary to s11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 be committed in these circumstances?

a. Yes, the offence can be committed in these circumstances provided it can be established that Taylor was acting in order to obtain sexual gratification
b. No. The offence can only be committed if the child is under thirteen years of age.
c. Yes. The offence can be committed provided it can be established that Taylor knows that he is being observed.
d. No. Taylor is in a private place so the offence cannot be committed.

Answer 42

The correct answer is A.

The requirement for the age of the child, under s11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is that they must be under 16 years of ageso you can eliminate answer 2. There is no requirement for the offender to actually be aware that he/she is being observed although it would obviously be very relevant if this were the case and doubtless make proving the offence much easier so answer C is also incorrect. The offence can be committed in public or private making answer D also wrong. It is however necessary for the prosecution to establish that the defendant was acting in that way for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

The correct answer is: Yes, the offence can be committed in these circumstances provided it can be established that Taylor was acting in order to obtain sexual gratification