Exam (elaborations)
UK Criminal Law /107 Complete Questions And Answers
- Course
- Institution
UK Criminal Law /107 Complete Questions And Answers
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
HELLENAH
Reviews received
Content preview
UK Criminal Law /107 Complete Questions AndAnswers
Quiz :Reverse proof burden: - Answer :Only for insanity and diminished
responsibility
Quiz :How is guilt proved? - Answer :Mens rea can be proved because the
fact-finder (usually the jury for our purposes) infers it from what D did or did
not do. Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 - A court or jury, in determining
whether a person has committed an offence shall decide whether he did
intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, draw ing such
inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
Quiz :Lambert [2002] 2 AC 545 D - Answer :appealed against his conviction for
possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. He had been found in
possession of a bag containing a drug but said he neither knew, nor suspected,
nor had reason to suspect the nature of the contents of the bag. The question
on appeal was whether he had to prove his lack of knowledge of the contents,
or if the prosecution had to prove he did know. The section in issue was s 28
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Section 28, insofar as it contained an express
reverse proof burden, should be 'read down' as imposing an evidential burden
only on the accused (note: this is in fact obiter as the majority of the House
held that Human Rights Act 1998 did not have retrospective application).
Quiz :Sheldrake v DPP - Answer :D was convicted of drink-driving. He
appealed on the ground that the defence, which cast upon the defendant the
burden of proving that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while
over the limit, violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6. House of Lords
held that the allocation of a proof burden to the accused did not violate Article
6. It was directed to a legitimate objective (the prevention of death, injury, and
damage caused by unfit drivers); and the likelihood of the defendant driving
was a matter so closely conditioned by his own knowledge as to make it much
more appropriate for him to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would
not have been likely to drive.
Quiz :Woolmington [1935] AC 462 - Answer :D was charged with murder. The
trial judge directed the jury that once the prosecution had proved a person had
died at D's hands; it was for D to prove it was not murder. Viscount Sankey
held that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and that includes proof
,of each element of the crime, and the elements of any defence, other than the
defence of insanity and other 'statutory provisions'. "Golden thread" case.
Quiz :Definitional elements of gross negligence manslaughter - Answer :In
Adomako [1994], Lord Mackay, the then Lord Chancellor, stated we can
therefore conclude that the elements of the offence are: 1.a duty of care exists
between D and V; 2. which is breached; 3. breach involves a risk of death; 4.
which caused V to die; and 5. the jury finds the breach serious enough to be a
crime.
Quiz :Definitional elements of criminal damage - Answer :s 1 Criminal Damage
Act 1971: without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging
to another intending or being reckless as to whether any such property would
be destroyed or damaged.
Quiz :Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea - - Answer :'the act is not guilty
unless the mind is guilty'.
Quiz :Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 - Answer :D worked as a level crossing
operator. He forgot to close the gate and V was killed by a train. D's
contractual duties were used to find a duty because his breach of contract
endangered the public. Liability for failing to act under the common law, Duties
may arise in situations of Contract, but rarely in criminal law.
Quiz :Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134 - Answer :Acts and
omissions D (V's father) and D2 (V's stepmother) deliberately failed to feed V,
who died. D and D2 were both convicted of murder. D owed V a duty as
parent, but D2 also owed a duty as she had assumed de facto (meaning in
reality or as good as) parental responsibility. If D is under a legal responsibility
to care for V, and D deliberately fails to feed V, and V dies, that is murder by
omission
Quiz :Khan and Khan [1998] Crim LR 830 - Answer :The Court of Appeal
allowed Ds' appeals against convictions for manslaughter. They were drug
dealers and had not summoned assistance for V, a drug user, when she had
fallen into a coma. The Court of Appeal said that to impose a duty in such
circumstances would add to the categories of recognised duties of care.
Quiz :Ruffell [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 53 - Answer :D and V had each self-injected
with drugs. When V showed signs of overdose, D first tried to revive him and
, then left V outside his house. D telephoned V's mother asking her to collect her
son. V later died of hypothermia and opiate intoxication. D owed V a duty of
care; he had assumed the duty when he tried to revive him, and breached it
when he left him outside in the cold.
Quiz :Evans [2009] 1 WLR 1999 - Answer :D gave her sister heroin. The sister
self-administered it. The Court of Appeal held that a duty arose when D
realised her sister had overdosed and did not summon medical help. Lord
Judge CJ held: when a person has created or contributed to the creation of a
state of affairs which he knows, or ought reasonably to know, has become life
threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking reasonable steps to
save the other's life will normally arise.
Quiz :Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978 - Answer :D, a squatter, fell asleep smoking a
cigarette. When he woke up, he realised a fire had started, but did not
extinguish it or summon help. The House of Lords held that even where the
original conduct was inadvertent, when D subsequently became aware of the
danger he had caused, he was under a duty to prevent or reduce the risk by his
own efforts, or if necessary by summoning the fire brigade.
Quiz :DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - Answer :Battery by
omission This case extended the Miller principle to include the situation where
the original conduct was advertent and there was a reasonably foreseeable risk
of injury to another. D failed to inform a uniformed officer searching D's
pockets that there were exposed hypodermic syringes in those pockets.
Quiz :Dytham (1979) 69 Cr App R 387 - Answer :Public office A uniformed
police officer stood and watched a man being beaten and kicked to death in
the gutter from only 30 yards away. The officer made no move to intervene or
summon assistance. He was convicted of the common law offence of
misconduct of an officer.
Quiz :Causation steps - Answer :1. chain of causation between act and result;
2. factual chain must also exist in law; 3.not broken by an intervention.
Quiz :White [1910] 2 KB 124 - Answer :D had put cyanide in his mother's
drink, but she died of unrelated heart failure and no cyanide was found in her
body. D had not caused her death, so he could not be convicted of murder.
Fails "but for" test
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller HELLENAH. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
85169 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now