Criminal law worksheet with answers

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

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

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

1. AKnew or believed the goods to be stolen
2. BStole the goods personally
3. CKept the goods for over a month
4. DSold the goods for profit

In English law, a battery is:

1. AAny rude remark made in public
2. BThe intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another
3. CCausing serious injury with a weapon
4. DCausing another to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force

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

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

Gang members threaten D to make her rob a post office. D had joined the gang knowing it used violence. Following R v Hasan, D:

1. ACan rely on necessity instead of duress
2. BCan rely on duress because the threat was real, immediate and impossible for her to escape
3. CCannot rely on duress because she voluntarily associated with violent criminals
4. DCan rely on duress only if the robbery failed

D takes his own car from a garage without paying for repairs. Following R v Turner (No 2), D can be guilty of theft because:

1. AD intended to return the car later
2. BProperty belongs to anyone who has possession or control of it
3. COwners who take back their own property are always acting dishonestly
4. DThe car was worth more after the repairs

In R v Jordan (1956), the court held the chain of causation was broken because:

1. AThe victim had an unusually thin skull
2. BA second attacker stabbed the victim again in hospital
3. CThe medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and the wound had mainly healed
4. DThe victim refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons, which was unforeseeable

In R v Hancock and Shankland (1986), striking miners pushed a concrete block onto a taxi, killing the driver. The House of Lords held:

1. AIntention can never be inferred from foresight
2. BThe miners intended to kill because death was their aim
3. CForesight of a high probability of death or serious injury is conclusive proof of intention as a matter of law
4. DForesight of a high probability is evidence from which intention may be inferred, but is not intention itself