Criminal law worksheet with answers

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

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

Which sentence must a court impose on an adult convicted of murder in England and Wales?

1. AA fixed term of 10 years
2. BLife imprisonment
3. CA suspended sentence
4. DA community order

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

1. AAssault occasioning actual bodily harm
2. BMurder
3. CBattery
4. DManslaughter

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

1. ADonoghue v Stevenson
2. BIvey v Genting Casinos
3. CR v Cunningham
4. DR v Ghosh

Two adult friends agree to a fist fight in the street, and one breaks the other's nose. Following A-G's Reference (No 6 of 1980), consent is:

1. ARelevant only to the sentence and never to guilt
2. BA full defence, because both adults freely agreed to the fight and accepted the risk of injury
3. CNo defence, because a street fight causing actual bodily harm is not in the public interest
4. DA defence only if the fight was planned in advance

Oblique (indirect) intention in English law (R v Woollin) exists when:

1. AThe result was merely possible
2. BThe defendant did not foresee any harm
3. CDeath was a foreseeable consequence that a reasonable person would have appreciated
4. DDeath or serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this

In Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2001), the Court of Appeal allowed surgery that would kill the weaker twin to save the stronger. This is often cited as authority that:

1. AParental consent is a defence to homicide
2. BNecessity is a general defence to murder whenever more lives would be saved than lost
3. CDoctors can never be liable for murder
4. DNecessity can, in very exceptional circumstances, justify an act that causes death

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