Copiar y Editar

Criminal Law

Descripción

Criminal Law Test sobre Criminal Law, creado por Jade Herring el 20/04/2013.
Jade Herring
Test por Jade Herring, actualizado hace más de 1 año
Jade Herring
Creado por Jade Herring hace más de 11 años
537
19
0

Resumen del Recurso

Pregunta 1

Pregunta
The case of Stone v Dobinson [1977] demonstrates a duty can arise in which situations?
Respuesta
  • Relationship
  • Statute
  • Voluntary Assumption

Pregunta 2

Pregunta
In which situations can a person have a duty to act?
Respuesta
  • Statute, Voluntary Assumption, Law Enforcement, Contract of Employment, Marriage
  • Contract of Employment, Statute, Law Enforcement,. Relationship, Voluntary Relationship, Creating a Dangerous Situation

Pregunta 3

Pregunta
What does the case of Dytham [1979] demonstrate?
Respuesta
  • You can have a duty under a law enforcement
  • You have a duty to act when you see something is not right

Pregunta 4

Pregunta
Which cases demonstrate a duty to act through creating a dangerous situation?
Respuesta
  • Instan [1893]
  • Lewis v CPS [2002]
  • Lowe [1973]
  • Miller [1982]
  • Evans [2009]

Pregunta 5

Pregunta
What do you have to do to discharge a duty?
Respuesta
  • Take reasonable steps
  • Look at the defendants state of mind at the time

Pregunta 6

Pregunta
Which case stated that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution?
Respuesta
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935]
  • Woolmington v DPP [1967]

Pregunta 7

Pregunta
Which can held conduct has to be voluntary?
Respuesta
  • Winzar v CS Working Police Station [1983]
  • Winzar v CC of Kent [1983]

Pregunta 8

Pregunta
What generally comes after a word meaning 'causing'? i.e. ocassioning
Respuesta
  • Circumstance
  • Consequence

Pregunta 9

Pregunta
What do you have to prove in causation?
Respuesta
  • Causation in Fact - BUT-FOR-TEST = White [1910]
  • Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE = Cheshire [1991]
  • Causation in Law - SUBSTANTIAL = Cheshire [1991] & OPERATING CAUSE.

Pregunta 10

Pregunta
What do the cases of Latimer (1866) & Pembilton (1874) demonstrate?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 11

Pregunta
What does state of affairs mean?
Respuesta
  • 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

Pregunta 12

Pregunta
Which case stated that you can not double transfer transferred malice?
Respuesta
  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997]
  • AG Reference (No.2 of 1994) [1998]

Pregunta 13

Pregunta
Unreasonable mistake is what?
Respuesta
  • Thinking about the risk and unreasonably concluding it would not happen.
  • Thinking about the risk and running it anyway

Pregunta 14

Pregunta
Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent mens rea prior to actus reus?
Respuesta
  • Miller [1982]
  • Thabo Meli [1954]
  • Lowe [1973]
  • Church [1965]
  • Fagan v MPC [1969]
  • Le Brun [1991]

Pregunta 15

Pregunta
What is negligence?
Respuesta
  • Failing to take reasonable steps
  • Failing to take reasonable care

Pregunta 16

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Unreasonable Interference
  • Unreasonable Inadvertance

Pregunta 17

Pregunta
What happened in the case of White [1910]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 18

Pregunta
Principle of Contemporaneity - Which cases represent the actus reus occurring prior to the mens rea?
Respuesta
  • Fagan v MPC [1969]
  • Le Brun [1991]
  • Miller [1992]
  • Church [1965]
  • Miller [1982]

Pregunta 19

Pregunta
The mens rea of intention is split in to two: these two are?
Respuesta
  • Direct & Oblique
  • Direct & Opaque

Pregunta 20

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

Pregunta 21

Pregunta
Can a defendant be found to have intended a circumstance even if they have not aimed for the consequence to occur?
Respuesta
  • Yes - Virtually certain
  • No

Pregunta 22

Pregunta
Which case stated that you can be guilty of murder if the defendant knew/realised death or GBH was virtually certain?
Respuesta
  • Woolinmington v DPP [1935]
  • Woollin [1998]

Pregunta 23

Pregunta
Oblique intention is a ... test
Respuesta
  • Objective
  • Subjective

Pregunta 24

Pregunta
Negligence is a ... test.
Respuesta
  • Objective
  • Subjective

Pregunta 25

Pregunta
Intention is a ... test.
Respuesta
  • Subbjective
  • Objective

Pregunta 26

Pregunta
Virtual certainty of a consequence is evidence of intention states...
Respuesta
  • Nedrick [1986]
  • Nedrick [1985]

Pregunta 27

Pregunta
Maloney [1985] set out what?
Respuesta
  • Forseeing something as a natural consequence is evidence of intention.
  • Forseeing something as a natural consequence cannot be evidence of intention

Pregunta 28

Pregunta
R v Smith [1974] was about what?
Respuesta
  • Mistake of fact - defendant damaged property believing it was his own
  • Mistake of law - defendant damaged property believing it was his own

Pregunta 29

Pregunta
A consequence has to be highly probable for intention states...
Respuesta
  • Maloney [1985]
  • Hancock [1986]

Pregunta 30

Pregunta
G [2003] defined recklessness as...
Respuesta
  • '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.'

Pregunta 31

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

Pregunta 32

Pregunta
Which cases demonstrated a mistake of fact? (must relate to element in the AR)
Respuesta
  • DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]
  • DPP v Morgan [1976]
  • DPP v B (A minor) [2000]

Pregunta 33

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

Pregunta 34

Pregunta
Wounding or causing GBH with intent is under which section of the Offences Against the Person Act?
Respuesta
  • S.20
  • S.18

Pregunta 35

Pregunta
Wounding or Causing GBH, under s.20 OAPA can be committed...
Respuesta
  • Negligently
  • Recklessly

Pregunta 36

Pregunta
Assault Ocassioning Actual Bodily Harm is under which section & what doesn't the act involve?
Respuesta
  • S.18. ABH doesn't involve wounding or intent
  • S.47. ABH doesn't involve GBH or wound

Pregunta 37

Pregunta
'Intentionally or recklessly inflicting unlawful force or violence on V without consent' is what?
Respuesta
  • Physical Assault (Battery)
  • Psychic Assault (Assault)

Pregunta 38

Pregunta
'Intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate & unlawful force or violence' is what?
Respuesta
  • Psychic Assault (Assault)
  • Physical Assault (Battery)

Pregunta 39

Pregunta
A common law battery is touching someone and causing an injury
Respuesta
  • True
  • False

Pregunta 40

Pregunta
A battery...
Respuesta
  • only involves proof of contact, no injury.
  • involves proof of contact causing an injury

Pregunta 41

Pregunta
A battery has to be in some form hostile or agressive
Respuesta
  • True
  • False

Pregunta 42

Pregunta
Which case stated that the contact for a battery has to be unlawful else the actus reus is not complete?
Respuesta
  • Fagan v MPC [1969]
  • Williams (Gladstone) [1987]

Pregunta 43

Pregunta
Which case stated that you cannot commit an assault by omission?
Respuesta
  • Fagan v MPC [1969]
  • DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003]

Pregunta 44

Pregunta
An assault can occur
Respuesta
  • By frightening someone
  • By making them fear something is going to happen

Pregunta 45

Pregunta
Assault - Which case stated that words can negate apprehension?
Respuesta
  • Turberville v Savage (1669)
  • Constanza [1997]
  • Ireland v Burstow [1998]
  • Smith v CS of Working (1983)

Pregunta 46

Pregunta
What did Ireland v Burstow [1998] prove?
Respuesta
  • Silence cannot negate an assault.
  • Silence can negate an assault.

Pregunta 47

Pregunta
Can an assault occur through words?
Respuesta
  • No - Constanza [1997]
  • Yes - Constanza [1997]

Pregunta 48

Pregunta
What happened in the case of Smith v CS of Working [1983]
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 49

Pregunta
A fear of violence 'within a minute or two' might be sufficient to constitute an assault stated...
Respuesta
  • Lord Diplock in Ireland [1997]
  • Lord Steyn in Ireland [1997]

Pregunta 50

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Logdon v DPP [1976]
  • Lowe [1973]

Pregunta 51

Pregunta
Williams (Gladstone) [1987] proved that assault was...
Respuesta
  • a strict liability crime
  • a full mens rea offence

Pregunta 52

Pregunta
What is the mens rea of S.18 Wounding with Intent
Respuesta
  • An intent to wound
  • An intent to cause GBH

Pregunta 53

Pregunta
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)
Respuesta
  • Bryony [1985]
  • Bryson [1985]

Pregunta 54

Pregunta
The actus reus of S.20 Wounding is: the defendant unlawfully either:
Respuesta
  • Wounded
  • Inflicted Grevious Bodily Harm
  • Wounded with intent
  • Inflicted Actual Bodily Harm

Pregunta 55

Pregunta
S.20 - GBH is 'really serious bodily harm' states:
Respuesta
  • DPP v Morgan [1961]
  • DPP v Smith [1961]

Pregunta 56

Pregunta
Ireland v Burstow [1998] set out that psychological injuries can fall under s.20 IF...
Respuesta
  • The V was really frightened
  • It was a recognisable psychological condition

Pregunta 57

Pregunta
Under S.47 you need to show that the def. intended or foresaw actual bodily harm
Respuesta
  • True
  • False

Pregunta 58

Pregunta
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
Respuesta
  • True
  • False

Pregunta 59

Pregunta
C v Eisenhower [1984] stated a wound is...
Respuesta
  • a break in the continuity of the whole of the skin.
  • a scratch that draws blood

Pregunta 60

Pregunta
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:
Respuesta
  • Saunders [1985]
  • Rupert [1974]
  • Bollom [2003]

Pregunta 61

Pregunta
Can S.20 involve VERY serious psychological harm?
Respuesta
  • No - Burstow [1998]
  • Yes - Burstow [1998]

Pregunta 62

Pregunta
Chan-Fook [1994] stated that harm...
Respuesta
  • 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'

Pregunta 63

Pregunta
DDP v Smith [2006] is about
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 64

Pregunta
Ireland v Burstow [1998] set out that psychological injuries can fall under s.20 IF...
Respuesta
  • The V was really frightened
  • It was a recognisable psychological condition

Pregunta 65

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

Pregunta 66

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Rush (1994) & DPP v A [2001]
  • Rushmore (1992) & DPP v A [2001]

Pregunta 67

Pregunta
Sufficient that the def intended or could forsee some harm will result from actions was proved in...
Respuesta
  • Savage v Parmenter [1982]
  • Savage v Parmenter [1992]

Pregunta 68

Pregunta
What is actual bodily harm?
Respuesta
  • '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]

Pregunta 69

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

Pregunta 70

Pregunta
What is the actus reus of murder?
Respuesta
  • Unlawful killing of another under the queen's peace
  • Unlawful killing of another person under the queen's peace

Pregunta 71

Pregunta
Which case set out that a victim of murder has to be a person?
Respuesta
  • AG Reference (No.4 of 1992) [1998]
  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998]

Pregunta 72

Pregunta
Murder is not unlawful if done in self-defence
Respuesta
  • True
  • False

Pregunta 73

Pregunta
Does causation have to be proven in murder?
Respuesta
  • Yes
  • No

Pregunta 74

Pregunta
What happened in the case of R v Blaue [1975]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 75

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

Pregunta 76

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Corbett [2000]
  • Corbett [1996]
  • Corbett [1998]
  • Corbett [1975]

Pregunta 77

Pregunta
In which case was the mens rea of murder established?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 78

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

Pregunta 79

Pregunta
Prior to the mens rea of murder we use now, what was it known as beforehand that was deemed misleading?
Respuesta
  • Malice anafterthought
  • Malice aforethought

Pregunta 80

Pregunta
Intention to kill (express malice) & intention to inflict GBH (implied malice) - which mindset has to be in use for the mens rea of murder?
Respuesta
  • Both at the same time
  • Intention to kill
  • Intention to inflict GBH
  • Either one must be in use

Pregunta 81

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 82

Pregunta
What is voluntary manslaughter?
Respuesta
  • Where murder is reduced to manslaughter
  • The same as murder

Pregunta 83

Pregunta
Murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter in which of these circumstances?
Respuesta
  • Involuntary Intoxication
  • Abnormality of mental functioning (diminished responsibility)
  • Insanity
  • A loss of self-control

Pregunta 84

Pregunta
The 3 mens rea's of involuntary manslaughter are...
Respuesta
  • Intending to do unlawful/dangerous act (Constructive Manslaughter)
  • Negligence
  • Recklessness
  • Gross Negligence
  • Intention

Pregunta 85

Pregunta
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:
Respuesta
  • Negligent, dangerous, caused the death of the V
  • Unlawful, negligent, caused the death of the V
  • Unlawful, dangerous, caused the death of the V

Pregunta 86

Pregunta
R v MD [2004] set out what?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 87

Pregunta
The Court concluded a negligent omission was not sufficient for constructive manslaughter in which case?
Respuesta
  • Pittwood (1902)
  • Lowe [1973]

Pregunta 88

Pregunta
Which cases demonstrated that an unlawful act, under constructive manslaughter, need not be against a person?
Respuesta
  • AG Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] & Dhaliwal [2006]
  • AG Reference (No.4 of 1994) [1998] & Dalby [1982]

Pregunta 89

Pregunta
The cases of DPP v Newbury [1976] & Goodfellow [1986] proved what?
Respuesta
  • An offence against property is not successful under constructive manslaughter
  • An offence against property is successful is caused the death of V

Pregunta 90

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 91

Pregunta
Which case defined 'dangerous' as something likely to cause harm (Constructive Manslaughter)?
Respuesta
  • Dalby [1982]
  • Goodfellow [1986]
  • Church [1966]

Pregunta 92

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Dawson (1985)
  • Dalby (1982)

Pregunta 93

Pregunta
What set of facts are correct for the case of Watson [1989]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 94

Pregunta
Why was the def found guilty in the case of Rogers [2003]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 95

Pregunta
What is the difference between the decision in Dias [2002] & Finlay [2003]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 96

Pregunta
Def killed V foreseeing a risk of death or serious injury is...
Respuesta
  • Subjective Negligence Manslaughter
  • Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter

Pregunta 97

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 98

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

Pregunta 99

Pregunta
Which case set definition of subjective recklessness?
Respuesta
  • Caldwell [1981]
  • R v G [2003]

Pregunta 100

Pregunta
In which case did 2 young doctors admit medication wrongly resulting in death?
Respuesta
  • Adomako [1994]
  • Singh [1999]

Pregunta 101

Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
  • Lidar [2000]
  • Goodfellow (1986)

Pregunta 102

Pregunta
Gross negligence is a ... test
Respuesta
  • Subjective
  • Objective

Pregunta 103

Pregunta
Misra & Srivastava [2004] confirmed what degree of risk for gross negligence manslaughter?
Respuesta
  • Must be a risk of GBH
  • Must be a risk of death

Pregunta 104

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

Pregunta 105

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • Due to the relationship (sisters).
  • Because she created a dangerous situation

Pregunta 106

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [2003]
  • R (On Application of Rowley) v DPP [1991]

Pregunta 107

Pregunta
Why was there a conviction of manslaughter in Singh [1999]?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 108

Pregunta
Actus reus of criminal damage is...
Respuesta
  • 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

Pregunta 109

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

Pregunta 110

Pregunta
What happened in the case of Fiak [2005]
Respuesta
  • 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

Pregunta 111

Pregunta
Which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 sets out the definition of criminal damage?
Respuesta
  • S.2(1)
  • S.4(1)
  • S.1(1)
  • S.3(1)

Pregunta 112

Pregunta
In what case did the def do a karate kick believing no harm would be done & smashed a window? = no mens rea - not guilty.
Respuesta
  • Avon v Shimmen [1986]
  • Denton [1982]

Pregunta 113

Pregunta
Painting on a pavement is criminal damage demonstrated the case of...
Respuesta
  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]
  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1968]

Pregunta 114

Pregunta
In which case did the def jump on a policeman's hat resulting in conviction of criminal damage?
Respuesta
  • A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]
  • Samuels v Stubbs [1972]
  • Hardman v CC of Avon [1986]

Pregunta 115

Pregunta
What happened in the case of Fiak [2005]
Respuesta
  • 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

Pregunta 116

Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
  • Whiteley [1991]
  • Whiteley [1996]

Pregunta 117

Pregunta
Property & Belonging to Another is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
Respuesta
  • S.6
  • S.10
  • S.4
  • S.11

Pregunta 118

Pregunta
Def intended or was reckless as to damaging property belonging to another is the mens rea for which crime?
Respuesta
  • Aggrivated Criminal Damage
  • Criminal Damage

Pregunta 119

Pregunta
Without lawful (belief in consent - mens rea for criminal damage) is under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
Respuesta
  • S.6(2)(a)
  • S.5(2)(a)

Pregunta 120

Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
  • Denton [1999]
  • Denton [1982]

Pregunta 121

Pregunta
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.
Respuesta
  • Denton [1999]
  • Denton [1982]

Pregunta 122

Pregunta
The case of Blake v DPP [1993] stated what?
Respuesta
  • belief in god's consent is not enough
  • belief in god's consent is enough

Pregunta 123

Pregunta
Without lawful excuse is a defence to property under which section of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
Respuesta
  • S.5(2)(b)
  • S.5(2)(c)
  • S.5(2)(a)

Pregunta 124

Pregunta
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?
Respuesta
  • 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

Pregunta 125

Pregunta
What happened in the case of Hunt (1978)?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 126

Pregunta
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)
Respuesta
  • Baker & Wilkinson [1997]
  • Baker & Wilkins [1997]

Pregunta 127

Pregunta
What is aggrivated criminal damage?
Respuesta
  • Damage done to property during a burglary
  • Same as criminal damage except property doesn't have to belong to another

Pregunta 128

Pregunta
Can aggrivated criminal damage be committed by the defendant damaging his own property?
Respuesta
  • Yes
  • No

Pregunta 129

Pregunta
The case of Sangha [1988] proved what?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 130

Pregunta
What is the mens rea of aggrivated criminal damage?
Respuesta
  • 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.

Pregunta 131

Pregunta
Steer [1987] proved that
Respuesta
  • there has to be the risk of endangerment from the criminal damage
  • that endangerment must be a result of the criminal damage
Mostrar resumen completo Ocultar resumen completo

¿Quieres crear tus propios Tests gratis con GoConqr? Más información.

Similar

Criminal Law
jesusreyes88
Criminal Law Lecture 1 Spring Term
Maryam Z
A-Level Law: Theft
amyclare96
The Criminal Courts
thornamelia
Police Powers: Powers of Arrest
nings.doyle9418
Criminal Damage: S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971
beccehjane
Self Defence: S3 Criminal Law Act 1967
beccehjane
Theft: S1 Theft Act 1968
beccehjane
Robbery: S8 Theft Act 1968
beccehjane
Blackmail: S21 Theft Act 1968
beccehjane
Burglary: S9 Theft Act 1968
beccehjane
Explorar la Librería