Criminal law worksheet with answers

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, criminal damage by fire is charged as:

1. AArson
2. BAggravated theft
3. CBurglary
4. DAffray

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

An omission (failure to act) can lead to criminal liability when:

1. AThe defendant was asleep
2. BThe defendant had a legal duty to act
3. CNever, in any legal system
4. DAny person failed to help a stranger

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

1. AIvey v Genting Casinos
2. BR v Cunningham
3. CDonoghue v Stevenson
4. DR v Ghosh

D throws a glass of beer over V intending only to wet her; the glass slips and cuts V. Following R v Savage, D's liability under section 47 OAPA requires:

1. AIntention to cause actual bodily harm
2. BOnly the mens rea of assault or battery, with no foresight of harm needed
3. CForesight that at least some actual bodily harm would result from the assault
4. DForesight that grievous bodily harm would be caused

D, a diabetic, takes insulin, skips food, becomes hypoglycaemic and hits V without knowing what he is doing. D may rely on:

1. AInsanity, because diabetes is a disease affecting the functioning of the mind
2. BDuress of circumstances, because D was ill
3. CDiminished responsibility, because harm was caused
4. DNon-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode

In R v Malcherek and Steel (1981), doctors switched off life-support machines after diagnosing brain death. The court held:

1. ASwitching off did not break the chain; the original assailants caused the deaths
2. BThe defendants were guilty only of attempted murder
3. CThe doctors became the legal cause of death by deliberately switching off the machines
4. DThe victims died of natural causes in law

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. BMental disorder as an excuse under Article 39 Sr
3. CNecessity (noodtoestand) as a form of overmacht under Article 40 Sr
4. DAn official order (ambtelijk bevel) as a justification under Article 43 Sr