Criminal law worksheet with answers

The principle "nullum crimen sine lege" means that:

1. AAll crimes are punished with prison
2. BThere is no crime without a law defining it beforehand
3. CLaws apply retroactively
4. DJudges can create new crimes freely

Diminished responsibility is a partial defence available only to a charge of:

1. ATheft
2. BRobbery
3. CRape
4. DMurder

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

1. ALoss of consciousness
2. BAny visible bruise on the body
3. CA broken bone
4. DA break in both layers of the skin

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

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

D, a diabetic, takes insulin, skips food, becomes hypoglycaemic and hits V without knowing what he is doing. D may rely on:

1. ANon-insane automatism, because an external factor caused the episode
2. BDiminished responsibility, because harm was caused
3. CInsanity, because diabetes is a disease affecting the functioning of the mind
4. DDuress of circumstances, because D was ill

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

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

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. BAttempt requires the last act before the crime
3. CImpossibility gave him a complete defence
4. DHis acts were merely preparatory, as he had not embarked on the "crime proper"

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

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