Criminal law worksheet with answers

In Dutch criminal law, "noodweer" (Article 41(1) Sr) is:

1. AA justification for necessary defence against an immediate unlawful attack
2. BAn excuse based on a strong emotional disturbance caused by an unlawful attack
3. CA rule allowing police to stop and search people
4. DA form of preparation for committing a crime

Automatism as a defence refers to:

1. AActing without voluntary control over one's body
2. BActing under threats from another person
3. CActing under the influence of strong anger
4. DActing in the belief that the act is lawful

Which sentence must a court impose on an adult convicted of murder in England and Wales?

1. ALife imprisonment
2. BA community order
3. CA suspended sentence
4. DA fixed term of 10 years

D parks his car on a police officer's foot by accident, then refuses to move it once told. Under Fagan v MPC, this is:

1. ANo offence, because the original act was accidental and mens rea arose only afterwards
2. BOnly criminal damage to the officer's shoe
3. CA mere omission without any duty to act
4. DA battery, because the act was continuing when the mens rea arose

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

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

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

In R v Lloyd (1985), a cinema employee lent films to be copied and returned them within hours. The court held there was no theft because:

1. ACopying films was not illegal at the time
2. BThe films were returned with their "goodness or virtue" not wholly exhausted
3. CFilms are intangible property that cannot be stolen
4. DThe employee had the cinema's permission to borrow the films for a short time