1.Easy
An omission (failure to act) can lead to criminal liability when:
- AThe defendant had a legal duty to act
- BThe defendant was asleep
- CAny person failed to help a stranger
- DNever, in any legal system
2.Easy
In English law, a "wound" for section 20 OAPA 1861 requires:
- AA broken bone
- BAny visible bruise on the body
- CLoss of consciousness
- DA break in both layers of the skin
3.Easy
Which two elements usually make up a criminal offence?
- ADuty and breach
- BMotive and opportunity
- COffer and acceptance
- DActus reus and mens rea
4.Medium
D swaps price labels on two items in a supermarket, intending to pay the lower price. Following R v Morris, the appropriation took place when D:
- ASwitched the labels, assuming one of the owner's rights
- BPut the item in the trolley
- CLeft the shop without paying
- DPaid at the checkout
5.Medium
Duress as a defence is generally NOT available in English law to a charge of:
- ATheft
- BCriminal damage
- CMurder
- DDrug possession
6.Medium
Involuntary intoxication can be a defence when:
- AThe defendant was less inhibited but still formed intent
- BThe defendant chose to drink heavily
- CIt meant the defendant lacked the required mens rea
- DThe offence is a strict liability offence
7.Hard
In R v Jordan (1956), the court held the chain of causation was broken because:
- AThe victim refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons, which was unforeseeable
- BThe medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and the wound had mainly healed
- CA second attacker stabbed the victim again in hospital
- DThe victim had an unusually thin skull
8.Hard
In R v Evans (2009), D supplied heroin to her half-sister, who overdosed. D failed to seek help. The Court of Appeal held:
- AD was liable because family members always owe each other a duty to seek medical help
- BD was guilty of murder, because she supplied the drug
- CA duty arose because D had contributed to a life-threatening situation she knew of
- DNo duty arose, because sisters owe each other no duties
Answer key
- 1. A · The defendant had a legal duty to act
- 2. D · A break in both layers of the skin
- 3. D · Actus reus and mens rea
- 4. A · Switched the labels, assuming one of the owner's rights
- 5. C · Murder
- 6. C · It meant the defendant lacked the required mens rea
- 7. B · The medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and the wound had mainly healed
- 8. C · A duty arose because D had contributed to a life-threatening situation she knew of
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.