Jade Herring
Quiz by , created more than 1 year ago

Criminal Law Quiz on Criminal Law, created by Jade Herring on 20/04/2013.

529
19
0
Jade Herring
Created by Jade Herring over 11 years ago
Close

Criminal Law

Question 1 of 131

1

The case of Stone v Dobinson [1977] demonstrates a duty can arise in which situations?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Relationship

  • Statute

  • Voluntary Assumption

Explanation

Question 2 of 131

1

In which situations can a person have a duty to act?

Select one of the following:

  • Statute, Voluntary Assumption, Law Enforcement, Contract of Employment, Marriage

  • Contract of Employment, Statute, Law Enforcement,. Relationship, Voluntary Relationship, Creating a Dangerous Situation

Explanation

Question 3 of 131

1

What does the case of Dytham [1979] demonstrate?

Select one of the following:

  • You can have a duty under a law enforcement

  • You have a duty to act when you see something is not right

Explanation

Question 4 of 131

1

Which cases demonstrate a duty to act through creating a dangerous situation?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Instan [1893]

  • Lewis v CPS [2002]

  • Lowe [1973]

  • Miller [1982]

  • Evans [2009]

Explanation

Question 5 of 131

1

What do you have to do to discharge a duty?

Select one of the following:

  • Take reasonable steps

  • Look at the defendants state of mind at the time

Explanation

Question 6 of 131

1

Which case stated that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution?

Select one of the following:

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935]

  • Woolmington v DPP [1967]

Explanation

Question 7 of 131

1

Which can held conduct has to be voluntary?

Select one of the following:

  • Winzar v CS Working Police Station [1983]

  • Winzar v CC of Kent [1983]

Explanation

Question 8 of 131

1

What generally comes after a word meaning 'causing'? i.e. ocassioning

Select one of the following:

  • Circumstance

  • Consequence

Explanation

Question 9 of 131

1

What do you have to prove in causation?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Causation in Fact - BUT-FOR-TEST = White [1910]

  • Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE = Cheshire [1991]

  • Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL = Cheshire [1991] & OPERATING CAUSE.

Explanation

Question 10 of 131

1

What do the cases of Latimer (1866) & Pembilton (1874) demonstrate?

Select one of the following:

  • You transfer actus reus from A to B & has to be actus reus of the same crime = transferred malice.

  • You cannot transfer malice until both the mens rea and actus reus have been committed against both the V's.

Explanation

Question 11 of 131

1

What does state of affairs mean?

Select one of the following:

  • This is part of the mens rea and the defendants state of mind at the time of their actions

  • This is part of the actus reus and is a word describing some form of conduct

Explanation

Question 12 of 131

1

Which case stated that you can not double transfer transferred malice?

Select one of the following:

  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997]

  • AG Reference (No.2 of 1994) [1998]

Explanation

Question 13 of 131

1

Unreasonable mistake is what?

Select one of the following:

  • Thinking about the risk and unreasonably concluding it would not happen.

  • Thinking about the risk and running it anyway

Explanation

Question 14 of 131

1

Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent mens rea prior to actus reus?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Miller [1982]

  • Thabo Meli [1954]

  • Lowe [1973]

  • Church [1965]

  • Fagan v MPC [1969]

  • Le Brun [1991]

Explanation

Question 15 of 131

1

What is negligence?

Select one of the following:

  • Failing to take reasonable steps

  • Failing to take reasonable care

Explanation

Question 16 of 131

1

What is it called when a person fails to give reasonable thought to a risk when a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk?

Select one of the following:

  • Unreasonable Interference

  • Unreasonable Inadvertance

Explanation

Question 17 of 131

1

What happened in the case of White [1910]?

Select one of the following:

  • Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Guilty for murder as his actions caused the V's death.

  • Put poison in the V's drink causing them to suffer a heart attack & die. Was not the cause of her death = causation was missing & so wasn't guilty of murder. Guilty of attempted murder.

Explanation

Question 18 of 131

1

Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent the actus reus occurring prior to the mens rea?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Fagan v MPC [1969]

  • Le Brun [1991]

  • Miller [1992]

  • Church [1965]

  • Miller [1982]

Explanation

Question 19 of 131

1

The mens rea of intention is split in to two: these two are?

Select one of the following:

  • Direct & Oblique

  • Direct & Opaque

Explanation

Question 20 of 131

1

If the defendant intends a consequence, if they desire it, it is their purpose or aim - this is ... intention?

Select one of the following:

  • Direct

  • Oblique

Explanation

Question 21 of 131

1

Can a defendant be found to have intended a circumstance even if they have not aimed for the consequence to occur?

Select one of the following:

  • Yes - Virtually certain

  • No

Explanation

Question 22 of 131

1

Which case stated that you can be guilty of murder if the defendant knew/realised death or GBH was virtually certain?

Select one of the following:

  • Woolinmington v DPP [1935]

  • Woollin [1998]

Explanation

Question 23 of 131

1

Oblique intention is a ... test

Select one of the following:

  • Objective

  • Subjective

Explanation

Question 24 of 131

1

Negligence is a ... test.

Select one of the following:

  • Objective

  • Subjective

Explanation

Question 25 of 131

1

Intention is a ... test.

Select one of the following:

  • Subbjective

  • Objective

Explanation

Question 26 of 131

1

Virtual certainty of a consequence is evidence of intention states...

Select one of the following:

  • Nedrick [1986]

  • Nedrick [1985]

Explanation

Question 27 of 131

1

Maloney [1985] set out what?

Select one of the following:

  • Forseeing something as a natural consequence is evidence of intention.

  • Forseeing something as a natural consequence cannot be evidence of intention

Explanation

Question 28 of 131

1

R v Smith [1974] was about what?

Select one of the following:

  • Mistake of fact - defendant damaged property believing it was his own

  • Mistake of law - defendant damaged property believing it was his own

Explanation

Question 29 of 131

1

A consequence has to be highly probable for intention states...

Select one of the following:

  • Maloney [1985]

  • Hancock [1986]

Explanation

Question 30 of 131

1

G [2003] defined recklessness as...

Select one of the following:

  • 'A person acts recklessly with respect to...a) circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exists...b) a result when he is aware that it will occur & it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.'

  • 'A person acts reckless is he does an act which creates an obvious & serious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged & either a) recognised there was some risk but nevertheless went on to do it or b) gave no thought to the possibility of there being such a risk.'

Explanation

Question 31 of 131

1

G [2003] took back the definition of recklessness in which cases?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Cunningham [1957] - meaning of recklessness (if aware of the risk)

  • Brady [2010] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?

  • Adomako [1994] - test - was it objective?

  • Brady [2006] - test - was what they did unjustifiable?

Explanation

Question 32 of 131

1

Which cases demonstrated a mistake of fact? (must relate to element in the AR)

Select one or more of the following:

  • DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]

  • DPP v Morgan [1976]

  • DPP v B (A minor) [2000]

Explanation

Question 33 of 131

1

Why did G [2003] find Caldwell's definition of recklessness wrong altogether?

Select one of the following:

  • The subjective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an objective test

  • The objective test ran counter to the principles of mens rea & should revert to having an subjective test

Explanation

Question 34 of 131

1

Wounding or causing GBH with intent is under which section of the Offences Against the Person Act?

Select one of the following:

  • S.20

  • S.18

Explanation

Question 35 of 131

1

Wounding or Causing GBH, under s.20 OAPA can be committed...

Select one of the following:

  • Negligently

  • Recklessly

Explanation

Question 36 of 131

1

Assault Ocassioning Actual Bodily Harm is under which section & what doesn't the act involve?

Select one of the following:

  • S.18. ABH doesn't involve wounding or intent

  • S.47. ABH doesn't involve GBH or wound

Explanation

Question 37 of 131

1

'Intentionally or recklessly inflicting unlawful force or violence on V without consent' is what?

Select one of the following:

  • Physical Assault (Battery)

  • Psychic Assault (Assault)

Explanation

Question 38 of 131

1

'Intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate & unlawful force or violence' is what?

Select one of the following:

  • Psychic Assault (Assault)

  • Physical Assault (Battery)

Explanation

Question 39 of 131

1

A common law battery is touching someone and causing an injury

Select one of the following:

  • True

  • False

Explanation

Question 40 of 131

1

A battery...

Select one of the following:

  • only involves proof of contact, no injury.

  • involves proof of contact causing an injury

Explanation

Question 41 of 131

1

A battery has to be in some form hostile or agressive

Select one of the following:

  • True

  • False

Explanation

Question 42 of 131

1

Which case stated that the contact for a battery has to be unlawful else the actus reus is not complete?

Select one of the following:

  • Fagan v MPC [1969]

  • Williams (Gladstone) [1987]

Explanation

Question 43 of 131

1

Which case stated that you cannot commit an assault by omission?

Select one of the following:

  • Fagan v MPC [1969]

  • DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]

Explanation

Question 44 of 131

1

An assault can occur

Select one of the following:

  • By frightening someone

  • By making them fear something is going to happen

Explanation

Question 45 of 131

1

Assault - Which case stated that words can negate apprehension?

Select one of the following:

  • Turberville v Savage (1669)

  • Constanza [1997]

  • Ireland v Burstow [1998]

  • Smith v CS of Working (1983)

Explanation

Question 46 of 131

1

What did Ireland v Burstow [1998] prove?

Select one of the following:

  • Silence cannot negate an assault.

  • Silence can negate an assault.

Explanation

Question 47 of 131

1

Can an assault occur through words?

Select one of the following:

  • No - Constanza [1997]

  • Yes - Constanza [1997]

Explanation

Question 48 of 131

1

What happened in the case of Smith v CS of Working [1983]

Select one of the following:

  • an assault occurred because the defendant was on the other side of the window and this was classed as sufficiently imminent

  • an assault didn't occur because the defendant was on the other side of the window and therefore couldn't touch the V immediately and just frightened the V.

Explanation

Question 49 of 131

1

A fear of violence 'within a minute or two' might be sufficient to constitute an assault stated...

Select one of the following:

  • Lord Diplock in Ireland [1997]

  • Lord Steyn in Ireland [1997]

Explanation

Question 50 of 131

1

The fact that a defendant did not intend to carry out an attack against the V does not mean he didn't constitute an assault. Which case?

Select one of the following:

  • Logdon v DPP [1976]

  • Lowe [1973]

Explanation

Question 51 of 131

1

Williams (Gladstone) [1987] proved that assault was...

Select one of the following:

  • a strict liability crime

  • a full mens rea offence

Explanation

Question 52 of 131

1

What is the mens rea of S.18 Wounding with Intent

Select one of the following:

  • An intent to wound

  • An intent to cause GBH

Explanation

Question 53 of 131

1

Foresight that serious harm would probably not happen is not the same as an intention to cause GBH - must have ulterior intent (mens rea specifies more than you have to do to commit actus reus)

Select one of the following:

  • Bryony [1985]

  • Bryson [1985]

Explanation

Question 54 of 131

1

The actus reus of S.20 Wounding is: the defendant unlawfully either:

Select one or more of the following:

  • Wounded

  • Inflicted Grevious Bodily Harm

  • Wounded with intent

  • Inflicted Actual Bodily Harm

Explanation

Question 55 of 131

1

S.20 - GBH is 'really serious bodily harm' states:

Select one of the following:

  • DPP v Morgan [1961]

  • DPP v Smith [1961]

Explanation

Question 56 of 131

1

Ireland v Burstow [1998] set out that psychological injuries can fall under s.20 IF...

Select one of the following:

  • The V was really frightened

  • It was a recognisable psychological condition

Explanation

Question 57 of 131

1

Under S.47 you need to show that the def. intended or foresaw actual bodily harm

Select one of the following:

  • True

  • False

Explanation

Question 58 of 131

1

Under s.20 OAPA, for the mens rea, it is necessary to show that the defendant intended or foresaw that the V would suffer GBH

Select one of the following:

  • True

  • False

Explanation

Question 59 of 131

1

C v Eisenhower [1984] stated a wound is...

Select one of the following:

  • a break in the continuity of the whole of the skin.

  • a scratch that draws blood

Explanation

Question 60 of 131

1

The court has held when assessing whether injuries are 'really serious' to constitute GBH, the impact of the injuries on a particular V must be taken in to account states:

Select one of the following:

  • Saunders [1985]

  • Rupert [1974]

  • Bollom [2003]

Explanation

Question 61 of 131

1

Can S.20 involve VERY serious psychological harm?

Select one of the following:

  • No - Burstow [1998]

  • Yes - Burstow [1998]

Explanation

Question 62 of 131

1

Chan-Fook [1994] stated that harm...

Select one of the following:

  • need not be permanent, but it should 'not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.'

  • must be permanent and enough to be 'wholly significant'

Explanation

Question 63 of 131

1

DDP v Smith [2006] is about

Select one of the following:

  • a womans ponytail being cut off = held to be ABH as no need to show pain because harm includes hurt or damage. Court emphasised hair was an intrinsic part to the identify of individual.

  • a campaign of domestic violence where the def had caused the V to suffer severe psychological harm but this wasn't concluded as an actual recognised illness.

Explanation

Question 64 of 131

1

Ireland v Burstow [1998] set out that psychological injuries can fall under s.20 IF...

Select one of the following:

  • The V was really frightened

  • It was a recognisable psychological condition

Explanation

Question 65 of 131

1

What happened in the case of Saunders [1985]? (S.20 OAPA)

Select one of the following:

  • approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. Asked him what his problem was and he was attacked breaking his nose and suffering other injuries.

  • approached a stranger sitting at the roadside. asked him what his problem was and he said there wasn't one. punched him in face breaking nose & suffering other injuries.

Explanation

Question 66 of 131

1

Mens rea for s.20 is that def must intend or foresee (Cunningham Reckless). Not necessary to show def. believed would cause the V harm. Enough to prove he believed he MIGHT. This point stressed in?

Select one of the following:

  • Rush (1994) & DPP v A [2001]

  • Rushmore (1992) & DPP v A [2001]

Explanation

Question 67 of 131

1

Sufficient that the def intended or could forsee some harm will result from actions was proved in...

Select one of the following:

  • Savage v Parmenter [1982]

  • Savage v Parmenter [1992]

Explanation

Question 68 of 131

1

What is actual bodily harm?

Select one of the following:

  • 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Donovan [1934]

  • 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the V - Chan-Fook [1994]

Explanation

Question 69 of 131

1

Even though technically these could involve ABH, the Crown Prosecution Guidelines recommend charging as battery:

Select one of the following:

  • grazes, minor bruising, scratches, abrasions, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a 'black eye'

  • major bruising, distress, cuts, drawing blood, swellings, a 'black eye'

Explanation

Question 70 of 131

1

What is the actus reus of murder?

Select one of the following:

  • Unlawful killing of another under the queen's peace

  • Unlawful killing of another person under the queen's peace

Explanation

Question 71 of 131

1

Which case set out that a victim of murder has to be a person?

Select one of the following:

  • AG Reference (No.4 of 1992) [1998]

  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998]

Explanation

Question 72 of 131

1

Murder is not unlawful if done in self-defence

Select one of the following:

  • True

  • False

Explanation

Question 73 of 131

1

Does causation have to be proven in murder?

Select one of the following:

  • Yes

  • No

Explanation

Question 74 of 131

1

What happened in the case of R v Blaue [1975]?

Select one of the following:

  • V was extremely drunk and ran away from def who was assaulting him - died when feel in to a gutter & was hit by a car.

  • Girl refused blood transfusion due to her religion after being stabbed by the def 4 times.

Explanation

Question 75 of 131

1

What is the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 about?

Select one of the following:

  • It is now the law that a defendant is liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions.

  • It used to be the law that the def would be liable for murder only if the V died within a year and a day of the def's actions & this act abolished the rule as it gave rise to difficulties.

Explanation

Question 76 of 131

1

In which case did the V, who was extremely drunk, run away from the def who was assaulting him and died when V fell in gutter & was hit by a car?

Select one of the following:

  • Corbett [2000]

  • Corbett [1996]

  • Corbett [1998]

  • Corbett [1975]

Explanation

Question 77 of 131

1

In which case was the mens rea of murder established?

Select one of the following:

  • Caldwell [1981] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.

  • Cunningham [1982] - def did not intend to kill but intended to cause GBH = sufficient for murder conviction.

Explanation

Question 78 of 131

1

In what circumstances will the def remain liable for causing the death of V when something intervened between D's conduct & death?

Select one of the following:

  • Medical intervention (Cheshire [1991]); V refuses medical treatment (R v Blaue [1975]); D's conduct still operative (Blaue); Reasonable attempt to escape by V (Roberts; Corbett [1996])

  • V ran away and suffered a heart attack (Cheshire [1991]); Failure of medical intervention by medical staff; D's conduct is operative (Blaue); Def committed an assault made worse by a third party

Explanation

Question 79 of 131

1

Prior to the mens rea of murder we use now, what was it known as beforehand that was deemed misleading?

Select one of the following:

  • Malice anafterthought

  • Malice aforethought

Explanation

Question 80 of 131

1

Intention to kill (express malice) & intention to inflict GBH (implied malice) - which mindset has to be in use for the mens rea of murder?

Select one of the following:

  • Both at the same time

  • Intention to kill

  • Intention to inflict GBH

  • Either one must be in use

Explanation

Question 81 of 131

1

Def may not have acted with the purpose of killing or causing GBH but it was an extremely likely result of the def's actions. This was set out in?

Select one of the following:

  • Woollin [1999] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.

  • Cunningham [1982] - tested subjectively (def knew, wanted, desired). Jury may fin intention only if the death or GBH was a virtually certain result.

Explanation

Question 82 of 131

1

What is voluntary manslaughter?

Select one of the following:

  • Where murder is reduced to manslaughter

  • The same as murder

Explanation

Question 83 of 131

1

Murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter in which of these circumstances?

Select one or more of the following:

  • Involuntary Intoxication

  • Abnormality of mental functioning (diminished responsibility)

  • Insanity

  • A loss of self-control

Explanation

Question 84 of 131

1

The 3 mens rea's of involuntary manslaughter are...

Select one or more of the following:

  • Intending to do unlawful/dangerous act (Constructive Manslaughter)

  • Negligence

  • Recklessness

  • Gross Negligence

  • Intention

Explanation

Question 85 of 131

1

AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] found that for a person to be guilty of constructive manslaughter, it must be proved they performed an act which was:

Select one of the following:

  • Negligent, dangerous, caused the death of the V

  • Unlawful, negligent, caused the death of the V

  • Unlawful, dangerous, caused the death of the V

Explanation

Question 86 of 131

1

R v MD [2004] set out what?

Select one of the following:

  • If there is a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH, don't have to use Woollin. Virtual certainty does not need to be discussed if def had direct intent.

  • Virtual certainty still needs to be discussed even if the def had a desire or purpose to intend to kill or cause GBH as you need to look at whether the reasonable person would have been aware of the risk.

Explanation

Question 87 of 131

1

The Court concluded a negligent omission was not sufficient for constructive manslaughter in which case?

Select one of the following:

  • Pittwood (1902)

  • Lowe [1973]

Explanation

Question 88 of 131

1

Which cases demonstrated that an unlawful act, under constructive manslaughter, need not be against a person?

Select one of the following:

  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] & Dhaliwal [2006]

  • AG Reference (No.4 of 1994) [1998] & Dalby [1982]

Explanation

Question 89 of 131

1

The cases of DPP v Newbury [1976] & Goodfellow [1986] proved what?

Select one of the following:

  • An offence against property is not successful under constructive manslaughter

  • An offence against property is successful is caused the death of V

Explanation

Question 90 of 131

1

Under constructive manslaughter, the unlawful act must be a crime for it to succeed. In which case did the prosecution fail for constructive manslaughter because there was no unlawful crime?

Select one of the following:

  • Dhaliwal [2006] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.

  • Goodfellow [1986] - husband was abusive to wife causing severe emotional trauma = committed suicide. Psychological damage is not a crime or unlawful act.

Explanation

Question 91 of 131

1

Which case defined 'dangerous' as something likely to cause harm (Constructive Manslaughter)?

Select one of the following:

  • Dalby [1982]

  • Goodfellow [1986]

  • Church [1966]

Explanation

Question 92 of 131

1

Dangerousness is to be tested objectively - not need to show def was aware act was dangerous; question is whether a reasonable person would appreciate its dangerous. This point was demonstrated in?

Select one of the following:

  • Dawson (1985)

  • Dalby (1982)

Explanation

Question 93 of 131

1

What set of facts are correct for the case of Watson [1989]?

Select one of the following:

  • The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This wouldn't have been foreseeable to the reasonable person just because of the age of the man. The man wasn't convicted because of this reason.

  • The V was a frail 87 year old man & def broke in to his house. Man had serious heart condition, suffered a heart attack & died. This would have been foreseeable because of frailty of the old man. The def wasn't convicted because wasn't enough evidence to link burglary to heart attack.

Explanation

Question 94 of 131

1

Why was the def found guilty in the case of Rogers [2003]?

Select one of the following:

  • Supplied the V with heroin with the knowledge the V would administer it & had a weak heart.

  • Prepared the heroin & applied the tourniquet to V's arm then V self-injected.

Explanation

Question 95 of 131

1

What is the difference between the decision in Dias [2002] & Finlay [2003]?

Select one of the following:

  • In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was not guilty because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the V would administer the heroin straight away when it was prepared.

  • In Dias the def was not found guilty, even though purchased heroin & prepared syringe for V, because the V broke the chain by administering it themselves. In Finlay the def was liable as self-injection didn't break chain as was reasonably foreseeable.

Explanation

Question 96 of 131

1

Def killed V foreseeing a risk of death or serious injury is...

Select one of the following:

  • Subjective Negligence Manslaughter

  • Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter

Explanation

Question 97 of 131

1

In the case of Carey [2006], where a girl ran away & suffered a heart attack due to unknown heart condition, why could the def not be convicted under constructive manslaughter?

Select one of the following:

  • It wasn't the unlawful, dangerous act that caused the death of the V (the punch) - it was the affray because the def's behaviour caused the V to run away. Reasonable person would not have realised this was likely to cause physical injury.

  • It wasn't know to the def that the V had a weak heart and that her behaviour would cause the V to suffer a heart attack and therefore the link was missing between the actus reus & mens rea.

Explanation

Question 98 of 131

1

The unlawful & dangerous act must cause the death of the V. However this was overlooked in the case of ...

Select one of the following:

  • Cato [1987] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.

  • Cato [1976] - def supplied heroin to V & with consent he administered it - V died from overdose. CA held that the unlawful act was the possession of the drugs, not the administration which caused the death. Therefore link was missing.

Explanation

Question 99 of 131

1

Which case set definition of subjective recklessness?

Select one of the following:

  • Caldwell [1981]

  • R v G [2003]

Explanation

Question 100 of 131

1

In which case did 2 young doctors admit medication wrongly resulting in death?

Select one of the following:

  • Adomako [1994]

  • Singh [1999]

Explanation

Question 101 of 131

1

In which case did the def set fire to his house killing wife, son & other woman as a scam because he wanted to move from his council house but couldn't? REALISING A RISK, HOWEVER SLIGHT, OF PHYSICAL INJURY.

Select one of the following:

  • Lidar [2000]

  • Goodfellow (1986)

Explanation

Question 102 of 131

1

Gross negligence is a ... test

Select one of the following:

  • Subjective

  • Objective

Explanation

Question 103 of 131

1

Misra & Srivastava [2004] confirmed what degree of risk for gross negligence manslaughter?

Select one of the following:

  • Must be a risk of GBH

  • Must be a risk of death

Explanation

Question 104 of 131

1

Gross Negligence isn't just negligence, it is serious negligence. Therefore there are 4 elements which are:

Select one of the following:

  • D owed duty of care towards V; D breached the duty; Breach caused V's death; Breach (negligence) so gross as to amount to crime.

  • D owed duty of care to V; D breached the duty; Breach caused injury; Breach was negligent

Explanation

Question 105 of 131

1

In Evans [2009] the def supplied sister with heroin. She began to exhibit signs of overdose but def & mother did not call medical assistance = V died. Why was the sister under a duty to act & had a duty of care?

Select one of the following:

  • Due to the relationship (sisters).

  • Because she created a dangerous situation

Explanation

Question 106 of 131

1

A subjective state of mind isn't relevant for Gross Negligence as it is an objective test. However, if there is gross negligence, the state of mind can be relevant because it can make that negligence gross - awareness of the risk could tip the balance. Demonstrated in?

Select one of the following:

  • R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [2003]

  • R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [1991]

Explanation

Question 107 of 131

1

Why was there a conviction of manslaughter in Singh [1999]?

Select one of the following:

  • Def followed up complaints about a defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father. Contact a gas fitter who did not reasonably foresee that there was a problem with carbon monoxide and caused the death of a lodger.

  • Def followed up complaints about defective gas fire within a lodging house he run with his father other than to inspect it himself. Lodger died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the fire.

Explanation

Question 108 of 131

1

Actus reus of criminal damage is...

Select one of the following:

  • destruction to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse

  • destruction of or damage to property belonging to another without lawful excuse

  • damage of property belonging to another without lawful excuse

  • destruction of or damage to property belonging to another person without lawful excuse

Explanation

Question 109 of 131

1

Why was there no criminal damage in the case of A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]?

Select one of the following:

  • Spitting on a policeman's coat was held to be an assault not criminal damage

  • Spitting on a policeman's coat was held not to be criminal damage because of the coats material

Explanation

Question 110 of 131

1

What happened in the case of Fiak [2005]

Select one of the following:

  • Def flooded a police cell by blocking a toilet = resulting in criminal damage

  • Def pulled his bed apart in a police cell = resulting in criminal damage

Explanation

Question 111 of 131

1

Which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 sets out the definition of criminal damage?

Select one of the following:

  • S.2(1)

  • S.4(1)

  • S.1(1)

  • S.3(1)

Explanation

Question 112 of 131

1

In what case did the def do a karate kick believing no harm would be done & smashed a window? = no mens rea - not guilty.

Select one of the following:

  • Avon v Shimmen [1986]

  • Denton [1982]

Explanation

Question 113 of 131

1

Painting on a pavement is criminal damage demonstrated the case of...

Select one of the following:

  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]

  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1968]

Explanation

Question 114 of 131

1

In which case did the def jump on a policeman's hat resulting in conviction of criminal damage?

Select one of the following:

  • A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]

  • Samuels v Stubbs [1972]

  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]

Explanation

Question 115 of 131

1

What happened in the case of Fiak [2005]

Select one of the following:

  • Def flooded a police cell by blocking a toilet = resulting in criminal damage

  • Def pulled his bed apart in a police cell = resulting in criminal damage

Explanation

Question 116 of 131

1

In what case did a hacker access an academic network, delete/add files, left messages & change passwords? Proving need not be tangible property for criminal damage.

Select one of the following:

  • Whiteley [1991]

  • Whiteley [1996]

Explanation

Question 117 of 131

1

Property & Belonging to Another is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Select one of the following:

  • S.6

  • S.10

  • S.4

  • S.11

Explanation

Question 118 of 131

1

Def intended or was reckless as to damaging property belonging to another is the mens rea for which crime?

Select one of the following:

  • Aggrivated Criminal Damage

  • Criminal Damage

Explanation

Question 119 of 131

1

Without lawful (belief in consent - mens rea for criminal damage) is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Select one of the following:

  • S.6(2)(a)

  • S.5(2)(a)

Explanation

Question 120 of 131

1

Without lawful excuse is demonstrated in the case of... where the def set fire to machinery after being asked by his employer to do so.

Select one of the following:

  • Denton [1999]

  • Denton [1982]

Explanation

Question 121 of 131

1

Without lawful excuse is demonstrated in the case of... where the def set fire to machinery after being asked by his employer to do so.

Select one of the following:

  • Denton [1999]

  • Denton [1982]

Explanation

Question 122 of 131

1

The case of Blake v DPP [1993] stated what?

Select one of the following:

  • belief in god's consent is not enough

  • belief in god's consent is enough

Explanation

Question 123 of 131

1

Without lawful excuse is a defence to property under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Select one of the following:

  • S.5(2)(b)

  • S.5(2)(c)

  • S.5(2)(a)

Explanation

Question 124 of 131

1

Under S.5(2)(b) (without lawful excuse defence to property) - the def must be arguing the damage was done in order to protect the property belonging to the def or another believing two things... What are they?

Select one of the following:

  • Property is in need of immediate protection & Means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances

  • Property was deemed dangerous & means adopted are reasonable in all circumstances

Explanation

Question 125 of 131

1

What happened in the case of Hunt (1978)?

Select one of the following:

  • Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = no defence. Did it to show inadequacy of fire alarms not to protect the property.

  • Def set fire to bedding in block of flats to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarms = defence. By proving the inadequacy of the fire alarms - protecting property.

Explanation

Question 126 of 131

1

In what case did the mother and another person break in to the child's fathers house to remove the child believing the child was at risk? (Child not property)

Select one of the following:

  • Baker & Wilkinson [1997]

  • Baker & Wilkins [1997]

Explanation

Question 127 of 131

1

What is aggrivated criminal damage?

Select one of the following:

  • Damage done to property during a burglary

  • Same as criminal damage except property doesn't have to belong to another

Explanation

Question 128 of 131

1

Can aggrivated criminal damage be committed by the defendant damaging his own property?

Select one of the following:

  • Yes

  • No

Explanation

Question 129 of 131

1

The case of Sangha [1988] proved what?

Select one of the following:

  • Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = doesn't have to be an endangerment.

  • Def caused fire in a flat that, unbeknown to him, no one was in. However, a reasonable person would have thought there was a risk = does have to be an endangerment to life.

Explanation

Question 130 of 131

1

What is the mens rea of aggrivated criminal damage?

Select one of the following:

  • must be shown that def intended to destroy or damage property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.

  • must be shown that def intended or was reckless in destroying or damaging property & must show def intended or was reckless to endangerment of a life due to criminal damage.

Explanation

Question 131 of 131

1

Steer [1987] proved that

Select one of the following:

  • there has to be the risk of endangerment from the criminal damage

  • that endangerment must be a result of the criminal damage

Explanation

Previous
Next