Criminal law worksheet with answers

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

1. AThe defendant had a legal duty to act
2. BThe defendant was asleep
3. CAny person failed to help a stranger
4. DNever, in any legal system

Under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, who bears the burden of proving diminished responsibility?

1. AThe defendant, on the balance of probabilities
2. BNobody, as the jury decides freely
3. CThe prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt
4. DThe judge, on the medical evidence alone

Which statute contains the main non-fatal offences against the person in England and Wales (ABH, wounding, GBH)?

1. AThe Offences Against the Person Act 1861
2. BThe Criminal Damage Act 1971
3. CThe Theft Act 1968
4. DThe Homicide Act 1957

Two adult friends agree to a fist fight in the street, and one breaks the other's nose. Following A-G's Reference (No 6 of 1980), consent is:

1. AA full defence, because both adults freely agreed to the fight and accepted the risk of injury
2. BRelevant only to the sentence and never to guilt
3. CA defence only if the fight was planned in advance
4. DNo defence, because a street fight causing actual bodily harm is not in the public interest

D is present when a crime is committed but does nothing to help or encourage it. Following R v Clarkson, D is:

1. AThe principal, because D witnessed the whole crime
2. BAn accessory, because D could have called the police
3. CAn accessory, because voluntary presence at the scene always amounts to encouragement
4. DNot an accessory, because mere presence without intent to encourage is not enough

Oblique (indirect) intention in English law (R v Woollin) exists when:

1. AThe defendant did not foresee any harm
2. BDeath was a foreseeable consequence that a reasonable person would have appreciated
3. CDeath or serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this
4. DThe result was merely possible

In the Dutch "Opticien" judgment (Hoge Raad, 1923), an optician sold glasses after closing time to a man who had broken his. The court recognised:

1. AAn official order (ambtelijk bevel) as a justification under Article 43 Sr
2. BSelf-defence of property under Article 41 Sr
3. CNecessity (noodtoestand) as a form of overmacht under Article 40 Sr
4. DMental disorder as an excuse under Article 39 Sr

In the Dutch "Melk-en-water" judgment (Hoge Raad, 1916), the court recognised:

1. AForce majeure as a written justification
2. BAbsence of all blame (AVAS) as an unwritten excuse
3. CConditional intent as a form of intention
4. DThe legality principle as part of the Constitution