Criminal law worksheet with answers

Which Act provides the statutory framework for reasonable force in self-defence and householder cases in England and Wales?

1. AThe Human Rights Act 1998
2. BThe Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
3. CThe Sexual Offences Act 2003
4. DThe Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

An omission (failure to act) can lead to criminal liability when:

1. AThe defendant had a legal duty to act
2. BNever, in any legal system
3. CThe defendant was asleep
4. DAny person failed to help a stranger

Unlawful act manslaughter is a form of:

1. AInvoluntary manslaughter
2. BVoluntary manslaughter
3. CDiminished responsibility
4. DAttempted murder

D throws a paving stone off a bridge onto a train, killing the guard. D did not think anyone would be hurt. Following DPP v Newbury and Jones, D is guilty of:

1. AUnlawful act manslaughter, as the act was unlawful and objectively dangerous
2. BNo offence, as D did not subjectively foresee any risk of harm to anyone at all
3. CGross negligence manslaughter only
4. DMurder, as the act was likely to kill

For malicious wounding or inflicting GBH under section 20 OAPA, the defendant must at least have foreseen:

1. AThat some physical harm might result
2. BThat serious harm would certainly result
3. CNothing, because it is strict liability
4. DThat the victim would die

D makes repeated silent phone calls to V, causing her psychiatric illness. Following R v Ireland, D can be guilty of:

1. AOnly harassment, because no force was used
2. BAn assault, as silent calls can cause apprehension of immediate force
3. CNo offence, because words or silence can never amount to an assault in law
4. DOnly a civil wrong, because no physical harm occurred

In R v Hinks (2000), the House of Lords held that:

1. AReceiving a valid gift can be an appropriation, so it can be theft if dishonest
2. BA valid gift can never be theft because full ownership passes to the recipient at once
3. COnly shop thefts involve appropriation
4. DCivil law always decides criminal liability for theft

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