Criminal law worksheet with answers

A defendant who did not know what they were doing because of a severe mental disease may rely on:

1. ANecessity
2. BInsanity
3. CDuress
4. DProvocation

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, criminal damage by fire is charged as:

1. ABurglary
2. BAggravated theft
3. CAffray
4. DArson

Handling stolen goods (section 22 Theft Act 1968) requires that the defendant:

1. AStole the goods personally
2. BKept the goods for over a month
3. CSold the goods for profit
4. DKnew or believed the goods to be stolen

D, carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note, walks towards a post office to rob it but is arrested outside before entering. Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, D is most likely guilty of:

1. ABurglary, because D intended to enter the building
2. BRobbery, because the intention was proved
3. CAttempted robbery, because D was carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note
4. DNothing as attempted robbery yet, because D has not gone beyond preparation

D, being pursued by armed police, uses V as a human shield and fires at the officers. The police return fire and kill V. Following R v Pagett, D is:

1. ALiable, because the police acted reasonably in self-defence and did not break the chain of causation
2. BLiable only if the police officers are also convicted
3. CNot liable, because V's death was not foreseeable to D
4. DNot liable, because the police officers' decision to fire was a free, deliberate and informed intervening act

D gets drunk voluntarily, mistakenly believes he is being attacked and stabs V. Under English law, D:

1. AHas a complete defence of intoxication
2. BCannot rely on a drunken mistaken belief in self-defence
3. CIs automatically guilty of murder
4. DCan always rely on any honest belief, however it arose, in self-defence

Gross negligence manslaughter in English law (R v Adomako) requires:

1. AAn unlawful and dangerous act causing death, judged objectively by sober and reasonable people
2. BA duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
3. CIntention to kill
4. DSubjective recklessness about death

In Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass (1972), Tesco avoided liability because:

1. ACompanies can never commit offences that require proof of any mental element
2. BThe store manager was not part of the company's "directing mind and will"
3. CThe customer had not paid for the goods
4. DThe offence was a strict liability offence