Criminal law worksheet with answers

In English law, a battery is:

1. AThe intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another
2. BCausing another to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force
3. CAny rude remark made in public
4. DCausing serious injury with a weapon

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

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

Self-defence is generally a defence when the force used is:

1. AAs strong as possible
2. BNecessary and reasonable in the circumstances
3. CUsed after the threat has ended
4. DPlanned in advance as revenge

Duress as a defence is generally NOT available in English law to a charge of:

1. ATheft
2. BMurder
3. CCriminal damage
4. DDrug possession

D points a gun at his friend as a joke, both believing it will not fire. It fires and kills the friend. Following R v Lamb, there was no unlawful act manslaughter because:

1. AJokes cannot be criminal under English law
2. BThe death was caused by the gun malfunctioning, not by any act of D's
3. CThere was no assault, since the friend did not apprehend any force
4. DThe gun belonged to the friend

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

In R v Cheshire, the court held that negligent medical treatment of a gunshot victim:

1. ABroke the chain of causation whenever it was negligent enough to be the immediate medical cause of death, even if the wound still operated
2. BMakes the doctors liable for murder
3. CDid not break the chain of causation unless it was so independent and potent that the original wound became insignificant
4. DAlways breaks the chain of causation

In "Thabo Meli v R", the defendants beat the victim, believed him dead and threw him off a cliff, where he died of exposure. The court held:

1. AThe victim's death was not caused by the defendants
2. BThe series of acts formed one transaction, so actus reus and mens rea coincided
3. CThere was no murder because the mens rea existed only before the act that actually caused death
4. DThe defendants were guilty only of attempted murder