Test
Principles/Context of the Criminal Law
Este test tiene tipos de pregunta que se abren en el reproductor de siempre.
Preguntas del test (27)
1The [blank_start]framework[blank_end] for liability is [blank_start]capacity[blank_end], [blank_start]fault[blank_end], conduct and [blank_start]defences[blank_end].
- Acapacity
- Bframework
- Cdefences
- Dfault
2Criminal capacity can be tested by [blank_start]procedures[blank_end] listed in the [blank_start]Criminal Procedure Acts[blank_end] [blank_start]1964[blank_end] and 1991.
- Aprocedures
- BCriminal Procedure Acts
- C1964
3Fault is the [blank_start]mens rea[blank_end] element of the crime.
Intention, [blank_start]recklessness[blank_end] and negligence are all crimes of [blank_start]strict liability[blank_end].- Amens rea
- Brecklessness
- Cstrict liability
4[blank_start]Conduct[blank_end] is the actus reus element of the [blank_start]crime[blank_end]. The law is concerned with punishing guilty [blank_start]acts[blank_end], not guilty minds.
- AConduct
- Bacts
- Ccrime
5[blank_start]Direct[blank_end] intention = [blank_start]aim/purpose[blank_end]
Indirect intention = [blank_start]consequence of the act[blank_end] is a virtually certain one- ADirect
- Bconsequence of the act
- Caim/purpose
6R v [blank_start]Woolin[blank_end]
Held: D could not be convicted of murder because it wasn't his [blank_start]intention[blank_end] to kill.- Aintention
- BWoolin
7R v Maloney.
Held: D did not have the necessary [blank_start]mens rea[blank_end] for murder.
Lord [blank_start]Bridge[blank_end]: it is for the jury to decide whether D intended to [blank_start]kill[blank_end] or cause GBH.- Amens rea
- Bkill
- CBridge
8Re A (2001)
Held: performing the operation to separate Jodie and Mary would be the [blank_start]lesser of two evils[blank_end]. Although it meant that [blank_start]Mary[blank_end] would die, in the eyes of the law it is preferable that at least one autonomous being survives.
This case distinguishes the difference between [blank_start]motive and intention[blank_end].
Intention = [blank_start]how[blank_end]?
Motive = [blank_start]why[blank_end]? (Referred to as [blank_start]ulterior intention[blank_end])- Alesser of two evils
- Bmotive and intention
- Chow
- Dulterior intention
- Ewhy
- FMary
9[blank_start]Chandler v DPP[blank_end] (1964)
D had wished to demonstrate their opposition to nuclear [blank_start]weapons[blank_end] so planned to break into an [blank_start]RAF station[blank_end] and immobilise it for 6 hours. They were convicted under the [blank_start]OSA 1911[blank_end].
They appealed, arguing that their purpose was in the [blank_start]interests of the state[blank_end].
Held: 'the motive behind the [blank_start]immediate action[blank_end] was irrelevant; they still intended the [blank_start]method[blank_end] of achieving it.'- AChandler v DPP
- Bimmediate action
- CRAF station
- DOSA 1911
- Emethod
- Finterests of the state
- Gweapons
10Intention is different from [blank_start]motive[blank_end].
[blank_start]Intention[blank_end] = intending to perform the specific [blank_start]act[blank_end].
Motive = [blank_start]purpose[blank_end] for having the intention to [blank_start]perform[blank_end] the specific act.- Amotive
- Bact
- Cpurpose
- DIntention
- Eperform
11[blank_start]R v Steane[blank_end] (1947)
D was charged with intending to [blank_start]assist the enemy[blank_end].
Held: his [blank_start]motive[blank_end] was to save his family but his [blank_start]intention[blank_end] was to assist the enemy.
Motive and intention cannot be [blank_start]separated[blank_end].- AR v Steane
- Bseparated
- Cassist the enemy
- Dintention
- Emotive
12Objective recklessness = [blank_start]Caldwell[blank_end] recklessness
Subjective recklessness = [blank_start]Cunningham[blank_end] recklessness- ACaldwell
- BCunningham
13[blank_start]Subjective[blank_end] recklessness
D acts recklessly if:
(i) He believes his conduct will give rise to a risk of [blank_start]harm[blank_end].
(ii) It is [blank_start]unreasonable[blank_end] for D to run the risk that he foresees. [blank_start]Actual foresight[blank_end] is required.- ASubjective
- BActual foresight
- Cunreasonable
- Dharm
14R v [blank_start]Cunningham[blank_end]
D interfered with a [blank_start]coin-operated gas meter[blank_end] in an unoccupied house to [blank_start]steal money[blank_end]. Gas escaped, seeped through the walls into an adjoining house and [blank_start]endangered[blank_end] the life of a person living there.
Held: malice requires either intention or [blank_start]recklessness[blank_end]. D was liable.- Acoin-operated gas meter
- Bsteal money
- Cendangered
- Drecklessness
- ECunningham
15R v [blank_start]Parker[blank_end]
D slammed down a public [blank_start]telephone[blank_end] so hard that he broke it.
Held: the Court rejected his defence that he was so enraged to even consider the [blank_start]risk[blank_end] of his conduct. He [blank_start]closed his mind[blank_end] to the idea of it and therefore he is [blank_start]liable[blank_end].- AParker
- Btelephone
- Cclosed his mind
- Dliable
- Erisk
16[blank_start]Objective[blank_end] recklessness
D is guilty of causing damage [blank_start]recklessly[blank_end] if:
(i) He does an act that creates an [blank_start]obvious risk[blank_end] that property would be destroyed or damaged, and
(ii) When he does the act, he has either not given any thought to the [blank_start]possibility[blank_end] of risk or has recognised that there was some [blank_start]risk[blank_end] and has gone on to do it anyway.- AObjective
- Bpossibility
- Crecklessly
- Dobvious risk
- Erisk
17MPC v [blank_start]Caldwell[blank_end]
D set fire to a hotel whilst [blank_start]intoxicated[blank_end]. He was charged with an offence against s1(1) of the CDA 1971.
Embraces gross [blank_start]negligence[blank_end] and advertent wrongdoing.- ACaldwell
- Bintoxicated
- Cnegligence
18R v [blank_start]G and Another[blank_end]
2 children entered the [blank_start]backyard[blank_end] of a Co-Op shop and caused a fire. They apparently expected the newspapers to burn out and did not [blank_start]foresee[blank_end] the risk of the fire spreading.
At trial, they were convicted of [blank_start]reckless arson[blank_end].
The HL quashed the conviction and overruled [blank_start]Caldwell[blank_end]. It was held to have misinterpreted [blank_start]Parliament's intention[blank_end] when enacting the [blank_start]Criminal Damage Act 1971[blank_end] and also labelled "[blank_start]unjust[blank_end]."- Aforesee
- Bbackyard
- CG and Another
- DParliament's intention
- Ereckless arson
- FCaldwell
- Gunjust
- HCriminal Damage Act 1971
19[blank_start]Negligence[blank_end] reflects fault on the part of D but does not require any [blank_start]particular state of mind[blank_end].
Where negligence is enough for liability, there is liability for intention or [blank_start]recklessness[blank_end].
D can [blank_start]foresee[blank_end] the AR without being [blank_start]reckless[blank_end], yet can still be negligent.
D is [blank_start]negligent[blank_end] if the [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] person in the same circumstances:
(i) would have been aware of the [blank_start]risks[blank_end] of doing the AR; and
(ii) would not have [blank_start]run[blank_end] those risks.- Anegligent
- Brisks
- Creasonable
- Dparticular state of mind
- Ereckless
- Frecklessness
- GNegligence
- Hforesee
- Irun
20Result crimes place [blank_start]emphasis[blank_end] on the result of the crime.
[blank_start]Conduct[blank_end] crimes are only concerned with D's [blank_start]behaviour[blank_end], not the consequence.
[blank_start]Status[blank_end] crimes have no guilty conduct whatsoever, i.e. liability for [blank_start]omissions[blank_end].- Aomissions
- Bemphasis
- CConduct
- Dbehaviour
- EStatus
21John [blank_start]Donne[blank_end]: "[blank_start]no man is an island[blank_end]." We all have a [blank_start]social responsibility[blank_end] to one another.
- Asocial responsibility
- Bno man is an island
- CDonne
22The general rule in criminal law is that there is [blank_start]no liability[blank_end] for omissions. There are, however, exceptions to this rule:
Duties arising out of a [blank_start]Relationship[blank_end]
[blank_start]Contractual[blank_end] Duties
Creation of a [blank_start]Dangerous Situation[blank_end]
Duties arising from [blank_start]Statute[blank_end]- Ano liability
- BRelationship
- CContractual
- DDangerous Situation
- EStatute
23Duties arising out of a [blank_start]relationship[blank_end]:
R v [blank_start]Gibbins and Proctor[blank_end]
A parent who omits to feed or care for their child may face [blank_start]criminal repercussions[blank_end] for subsequent death or injury.
The court held that this was so [blank_start]self-evident[blank_end] that it did not require [blank_start]analysis.[blank_end]- Arelationship
- BGibbins and Proctor
- Ccriminal repercussions
- Dself-evident
- Eanalysis.
24Duties arising out of a relationship:
R v [blank_start]Stone and Dobinson[blank_end]
A conviction for murder or [blank_start]manslaughter[blank_end] would arise where the [blank_start]neglect[blank_end] or lack of care by a parent is either [blank_start]intention[blank_end] or grossly negligent.- AStone and Dobinson
- Bneglect
- Cmanslaughter
- Dintentional
25Contractual Duties:
[blank_start]R v Pittwood[blank_end]
A railway gatekeeper forgot to do his job and a [blank_start]pedestrian[blank_end] was killed as a result.
Held: D was liable for his [blank_start]omission.[blank_end]- AR v Pittwood
- Bpedestrian
- Comission.
26Creation of a [blank_start]dangerous situation:[blank_end]
[blank_start]R v Miller[blank_end]
A [blank_start]squatter[blank_end] fell asleep in someone's house and his [blank_start]cigarette[blank_end] was not put out. It smouldered the mattress and the house caught on fire. He was convicted of [blank_start]arson[blank_end] - he was under a duty to act as soon as the [blank_start]mattress[blank_end] became lit.- Adangerous situation:
- BR v Miller
- Cmattress
- Darson
- Ecigarette
- Fsquatter
27Duties arising from [blank_start]statute[blank_end]
i.e. Failing to provide a [blank_start]specimen of breath[blank_end] at the roadside.- Aspecimen of breath
- Bstatute
Información
- Descripción
- Fill in the blanks quiz on the principles and context of the criminal law.
- Autor
- emhutton
- Idioma
- English
- Visitas
- 53
- Etiquetas
- Valoración
- Aún sin valoraciones Valora este test