Criminal law worksheet with answers

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. BThe prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt
3. CNobody, as the jury decides freely
4. DThe judge, on the medical evidence alone

Handling stolen goods (section 22 Theft Act 1968) requires that the defendant:

1. ASold the goods for profit
2. BKept the goods for over a month
3. CKnew or believed the goods to be stolen
4. DStole the goods personally

The presumption of innocence means:

1. AThe accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty
2. BJudges cannot convict anyone
3. CThe accused must prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt
4. DEveryone arrested is guilty

D attacks someone while sleepwalking. Following R v Burgess, the correct defence is:

1. AInsanity, because sleepwalking was caused by an internal factor
2. BSelf-defence, because D was dreaming of an attack
3. CInvoluntary intoxication, because D was not aware
4. DNon-insane automatism, because sleep is natural

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

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. AThe gun belonged to the friend
2. BThere was no assault, since the friend did not apprehend any force
3. CThe death was caused by the gun malfunctioning, not by any act of D's
4. DJokes cannot be criminal under English law

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

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

In Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass (1972), Tesco avoided liability because:

1. AThe customer had not paid for the goods
2. BThe offence was a strict liability offence
3. CThe store manager was not part of the company's "directing mind and will"
4. DCompanies can never commit offences that require proof of any mental element