Criminal law worksheet with answers

Which of these is a "specific intent" offence in English law for the purposes of intoxication?

1. AAssault occasioning actual bodily harm
2. BManslaughter
3. CMurder
4. DBattery

A person who helps or encourages another to commit a crime, without carrying out the act themselves, is called:

1. AAn accessory (secondary party)
2. BAn innocent agent
3. CA co-defendant witness
4. DA principal offender

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

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

D supplies heroin to V, an adult, who freely and knowingly injects herself and dies. According to R v Kennedy (No 2), D is:

1. AGuilty of unlawful act manslaughter, because supplying a class A drug is itself unlawful and dangerous
2. BGuilty of manslaughter, because supply always causes the death
3. CGuilty of manslaughter, because V's choice is irrelevant
4. DNot guilty of manslaughter, because V's free and informed choice broke the chain of causation

D, who honestly but wrongly believes V is attacking a stranger, punches V. Following R v Williams (Gladstone), D:

1. AIs liable, because the mistaken belief was not based on reasonable grounds
2. BMust prove the belief on the balance of probabilities
3. CIs liable, because the mistake was about the facts
4. DIs judged on the facts as D honestly believed them to be

Duress as a defence is generally NOT available in English law to a charge of:

1. AMurder
2. BDrug possession
3. CTheft
4. DCriminal damage

In R v Hinks (2000), the House of Lords held that:

1. AOnly shop thefts involve appropriation
2. BReceiving a valid gift can be an appropriation, so it can be theft if dishonest
3. CCivil law always decides criminal liability for theft
4. DA valid gift can never be theft because full ownership passes to the recipient at once

In R v Gullefer (1990), D ran onto a greyhound track to get the race declared void and recover his bet. The Court of Appeal held:

1. AHe was guilty of attempted theft, as running onto the track was more than preparatory
2. BImpossibility gave him a complete defence
3. CAttempt requires the last act before the crime
4. DHis acts were merely preparatory, as he had not embarked on the "crime proper"