Criminal law worksheet with answers

Under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, who bears the burden of proving diminished responsibility?

1. AThe judge, on the medical evidence alone
2. BThe prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt
3. CNobody, as the jury decides freely
4. DThe defendant, on the balance of probabilities

The defence of duress requires a threat of:

1. ADamage to one's property
2. BPublic embarrassment
3. CDeath or serious injury
4. DLosing one's job

The principle "nullum crimen sine lege" means that:

1. ALaws apply retroactively
2. BJudges can create new crimes freely
3. CAll crimes are punished with prison
4. DThere is no crime without a law defining it beforehand

D puts poison in V's drink intending to kill her, but V dies of an unrelated heart attack before the poison works. D is guilty of:

1. AMurder
2. BAttempted murder
3. CManslaughter
4. DNo offence at all

Involuntary intoxication can be a defence when:

1. AThe offence is a strict liability offence
2. BThe defendant chose to drink heavily
3. CIt meant the defendant lacked the required mens rea
4. DThe defendant was less inhibited but still formed intent

A, a lifeguard paid to watch a pool, reads a magazine while a child drowns. A could be liable for an omission because of:

1. ABeing the only person who saw the child
2. BA special relationship with the child's parents
3. CHaving created the dangerous situation
4. DA contractual duty to act

In R v Evans (2009), D supplied heroin to her half-sister, who overdosed. D failed to seek help. The Court of Appeal held:

1. AD was guilty of murder, because she supplied the drug
2. BNo duty arose, because sisters owe each other no duties
3. CD was liable because family members always owe each other a duty to seek medical help
4. DA duty arose because D had contributed to a life-threatening situation she knew of

The Gammon (Hong Kong) v Attorney-General (1985) criteria are used to decide whether:

1. AAn appeal should go to the Supreme Court
2. BAn omission can lead to criminal liability
3. CThe presumption of mens rea is displaced, making an offence strict liability
4. DA defendant was acting under duress