Criminal law worksheet with answers

Which statute contains the main non-fatal offences against the person in England and Wales (ABH, wounding, GBH)?

1. AThe Theft Act 1968
2. BThe Criminal Damage Act 1971
3. CThe Homicide Act 1957
4. DThe Offences Against the Person Act 1861

In English law, a "wound" for section 20 OAPA 1861 requires:

1. AAny visible bruise on the body
2. BA break in both layers of the skin
3. CA broken bone
4. DLoss of consciousness

An "either-way" offence is one that:

1. ACan lead either to prison or to a fine only
2. BCan be prosecuted either by the CPS or by the victim as a private prosecutor
3. CCan be tried in either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court
4. DCan be committed either by act or by omission

D grabs V's handbag so forcefully that V's hand is pulled down. Following R v Clouden, this can be:

1. AOnly battery, because the bag was not taken
2. BOnly theft, because there was no direct contact with V's body
3. CRobbery, because force was used on the person to steal
4. DBurglary, because the bag was V's property

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

D takes a college exam paper, reads it and returns it, planning to cheat. Following Oxford v Moss, D did not steal because:

1. AD was a student at the college
2. BThe paper itself was returned, so there was no intention to deprive
3. CExam papers have no economic value
4. DConfidential information is not property under the Theft Act

Which principle comes from DPP v Majewski (1977)?

1. AVoluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent
2. BIntoxication can never be considered by a jury
3. CInvoluntary intoxication is always a complete defence
4. DDrunkenness reduces murder to manslaughter in every case

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