Criminal law worksheet with answers

In Dutch criminal law, what distinguishes "moord" (Article 289 Sr) from "doodslag" (Article 287 Sr)?

1. AMoord requires the use of a weapon
2. BMoord can only be committed against a police officer
3. CMoord requires premeditation (voorbedachte raad)
4. DMoord requires more than one victim

Diminished responsibility is a partial defence available only to a charge of:

1. ATheft
2. BMurder
3. CRape
4. DRobbery

In English law, a "wound" for section 20 OAPA 1861 requires:

1. AA break in both layers of the skin
2. BA broken bone
3. CAny visible bruise on the body
4. DLoss of consciousness

D, carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note, walks towards a post office to rob it but is arrested outside before entering. Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, D is most likely guilty of:

1. AAttempted robbery, because D was carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note
2. BRobbery, because the intention was proved
3. CBurglary, because D intended to enter the building
4. DNothing as attempted robbery yet, because D has not gone beyond preparation

In English law, the test for dishonesty in theft is now set out in:

1. AR v Cunningham
2. BR v Ghosh
3. CIvey v Genting Casinos
4. DDonoghue v Stevenson

During a burglary, D has handed a knife to an accomplice. When someone arrives, D says "come on, let's go" and climbs out; the accomplice stabs the person. Following R v Becerra, D's withdrawal is:

1. AEffective, because any words of withdrawal are always enough
2. BIrrelevant, because once an accessory has supplied a weapon, no later act of withdrawal can ever relieve them of liability
3. CEffective, because D left before the crime was completed
4. DNot effective, because withdrawal must be timely and unequivocal and may need more than words once violence is imminent

Gross negligence manslaughter in English law (R v Adomako) requires:

1. AAn unlawful and dangerous act causing death, judged objectively by sober and reasonable people
2. BIntention to kill
3. CA duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that it should be criminal
4. DSubjective recklessness about death

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