Criminal law worksheet with answers

Automatism as a defence refers to:

1. AActing under the influence of strong anger
2. BActing in the belief that the act is lawful
3. CActing under threats from another person
4. DActing without voluntary control over one's body

In English law, a common assault (in the narrow sense) is committed when the defendant:

1. ADamages the victim's property
2. BCauses the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force
3. CCauses the victim serious bodily harm
4. DActually applies unlawful force to the victim's body, however slight

In English law, theft is defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as:

1. AUsing force to obtain property belonging to another person
2. BDishonestly taking property belonging to another without consent, with intention to use it and later return it
3. CBorrowing property from another person without asking first
4. DDishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it

D parks his car on a police officer's foot by accident, then refuses to move it once told. Under Fagan v MPC, this is:

1. ANo offence, because the original act was accidental and mens rea arose only afterwards
2. BOnly criminal damage to the officer's shoe
3. CA battery, because the act was continuing when the mens rea arose
4. DA mere omission without any duty to act

D drives a car she believes is her own, but which is actually V's identical car. She is not guilty of theft because:

1. AThe car was insured by V
2. BShe returned it the next morning
3. CCars cannot be stolen under the Theft Act
4. DShe is not dishonest and lacks intent to deprive another

D supplies heroin to V, an adult, who freely and knowingly injects herself and dies. According to R v Kennedy (No 2), D is:

1. AGuilty of manslaughter, because V's choice is irrelevant
2. BGuilty of unlawful act manslaughter, because supplying a class A drug is itself unlawful and dangerous
3. CNot guilty of manslaughter, because V's free and informed choice broke the chain of causation
4. DGuilty of manslaughter, because supply always causes the death

In R v Hancock and Shankland (1986), striking miners pushed a concrete block onto a taxi, killing the driver. The House of Lords held:

1. AForesight of a high probability is evidence from which intention may be inferred, but is not intention itself
2. BForesight of a high probability of death or serious injury is conclusive proof of intention as a matter of law
3. CIntention can never be inferred from foresight
4. DThe miners intended to kill because death was their aim

Why is the principle of "lex certa" important in criminal law?

1. ACriminal laws must be clear enough for people to foresee what is punishable
2. BOnly certain crimes can be prosecuted
3. CLaws must be certain to be enforced, so the police have no discretion in applying them
4. DJudges must be certain before sentencing