Criminal law worksheet with answers

What is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales?

1. A10
2. B12
3. C16
4. D14

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 judge, on the medical evidence alone
4. DThe prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt

In English law, a common assault (in the narrow sense) is committed when the defendant:

1. ACauses the victim serious bodily harm
2. BDamages the victim's property
3. CCauses the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force
4. DActually applies unlawful force to the victim's body, however slight

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 gun belonged to the friend
3. CThere was no assault, since the friend did not apprehend any force
4. DThe death was caused by the gun malfunctioning, not by any act of D's

D knocks over a candle by accident, sees a fire start, and walks away without doing anything. The house burns down. D is most likely:

1. ANot liable, because the fire started by accident
2. BLiable only if D intended to start the fire initially
3. CLiable, because D created a dangerous situation and failed to act
4. DNot liable, because the law imposes no duty to act to protect property

In English law, the mens rea of murder is:

1. ASubjective recklessness as to causing death or serious harm
2. BIntention to frighten the victim
3. CNegligence in causing death
4. DIntention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm

Under the "transferred malice" doctrine, if A aims a blow at B but hits C:

1. AA cannot be liable for harm to C because A had no mens rea at all in relation to C
2. BB becomes liable for the harm to C
3. CA's intention towards B is transferred, so A can be liable for the harm to C
4. DA is only liable for attempted harm to C

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