Criminal law worksheet with answers

What is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales?

1. A12
2. B10
3. C14
4. D16

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

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

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

1. AAny person failed to help a stranger
2. BThe defendant had a legal duty to act
3. CThe defendant was asleep
4. DNever, in any legal system

D makes repeated silent phone calls to V, causing her psychiatric illness. Following R v Ireland, D can be guilty of:

1. AAn assault, as silent calls can cause apprehension of immediate force
2. BNo offence, because words or silence can never amount to an assault in law
3. COnly a civil wrong, because no physical harm occurred
4. DOnly harassment, because no force was used

Involuntary intoxication can be a defence when:

1. AThe defendant chose to drink heavily
2. BThe offence is a strict liability offence
3. CIt meant the defendant lacked the required mens rea
4. DThe defendant was less inhibited but still formed intent

D drinks heavily to gain courage before killing V, as planned. Following A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher, D:

1. ACan rely on intoxication because murder is a specific intent offence
2. BHas a defence of involuntary intoxication
3. CCan only be guilty of manslaughter
4. DCannot rely on intoxication, because the intent to kill was formed before drinking

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

In R v Lloyd (1985), a cinema employee lent films to be copied and returned them within hours. The court held there was no theft because:

1. AThe films were returned with their "goodness or virtue" not wholly exhausted
2. BFilms are intangible property that cannot be stolen
3. CThe employee had the cinema's permission to borrow the films for a short time
4. DCopying films was not illegal at the time