Criminal law quiz

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What must the prosecution establish for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Actus Reus was committed. (correct)

The community's perception of the crime.

The charges are purely circumstantial.

The defendant's financial status.

What does the defense primarily aim to challenge in a criminal case?

The conduct of law enforcement during the arrest.

The jurisdiction of the court.

Public opinion about the case.

Whether the Actus Reus or Mens Rea was established. (correct)

Which of the following components is NOT part of the Actus Reus?

Result.

Circumstance.

Mens Rea. (correct)

Conduct.

In most cases, what must be proven alongside Actus Reus for liability?

Mens Rea. Signup and view all the answers

What is an example of a Statutory/Offence-Specific Duty?

Providing a breath test when required by law. Signup and view all the answers

What type of duty applies when a parent fails to provide care?

Familial Duty. Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is an example of an Assumption of Responsibility?

Voluntarily taking in a stray pet. Signup and view all the answers

Which scenario would likely NOT lead to liability for omission to act?

Ignoring a request for assistance from a stranger. Signup and view all the answers

What does a novus actus interveniens need to be in order to break the chain of causation?

Unforeseeable and independent Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'actus reus' refer to in the context of criminal law?

The physical act or omission leading to a crime Signup and view all the answers

Why was Empress Cars held liable in the given case?

The pollution was due to their failure to secure the tank Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is NOT a type of mens rea?

Innocence Signup and view all the answers

Which type of event is classified as an act of God in breaking the chain of causation?

Acts of Nature Signup and view all the answers

What characterizes a successful intervening act?

It must be independent of D's actions Signup and view all the answers

What is required to establish causation in criminal law?

Demonstration of factual and legal causation Signup and view all the answers

In a criminal case, what does 'beyond a reasonable doubt' signify?

A high standard of proof implying certainty Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary requirement for a chain of causation to remain intact?

D's actions must lead directly to the result Signup and view all the answers

What complicates the application of causation principles in legal cases?

Subjectivity in determining foreseeability Signup and view all the answers

Which scenario best illustrates the concept of recklessness in mens rea?

A driver speeding to reach an important meeting Signup and view all the answers

What does the 'but for' test determine in the context of factual causation?

If the harm would have occurred without the defendant's actions Signup and view all the answers

The concept of chain of causation primarily refers to what?

The connection between a defendant's actions and the outcome Signup and view all the answers

Which example best represents an omission that could lead to criminal liability?

A caregiver failing to feed a dependent child Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following components is NOT part of the elements of criminal conviction?

Intent to plead Signup and view all the answers

What principle determines if a third party's actions are foreseeable in establishing liability?

Voluntariness Signup and view all the answers

In which case did a child’s intervention not break the chain of causation despite being an independent act?

R v Michael Signup and view all the answers

What must occur for a doctor's actions to break the chain of causation?

The treatment must be 'palpably wrong'. Signup and view all the answers

What is a significant factor in liability when assessing a doctor’s intervention?

Severity of initial injury Signup and view all the answers

Which scenario exemplifies a case where the original injury was still significant despite flawed medical treatment?

R v Smith Signup and view all the answers

Which factor would NOT likely lead to breaking the chain of causation by a non-medical third party?

Immediate reaction to a threat Signup and view all the answers

What must be demonstrated for a medical professional's actions to be deemed 'palpably wrong'?

Actions must be clearly misguided. Signup and view all the answers

In R v Pagett, what crucial factor contributed to the causation finding?

The use of a human shield. Signup and view all the answers

What must an act do to potentially break the chain of causation?

Be significant and unforeseeable Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following scenarios could demonstrate D's intervention breaking the causal chain?

D injures V, and V is later struck by lightning Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary criterion for determining if V's actions maintain the chain of causation?

Foreseeability of V's reaction Signup and view all the answers

In R v Gowans [2003], why did the court find that the infection did not break the chain of causation?

The infection was foreseeable with severe injury Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following natural events is likely to be deemed as foreseeable?

A high tide occurring during a full moon Signup and view all the answers

Which aspect of V's actions can affect whether the chain of causation remains intact?

The voluntariness of V's response Signup and view all the answers

What factor is considered when determining if an intervening natural event breaks the chain of causation?

If the event was foreseeable Signup and view all the answers

In R v Roberts [1971], why were V's actions considered to not break the chain of causation?

V's actions were deemed voluntary and foreseeable Signup and view all the answers

What is considered recklessness according to the court's ruling?

Having a fleeting awareness of a risk and disregarding it. Signup and view all the answers

What does the objective test in the Ghosh case assess?

If the defendant's conduct was deemed dishonest by reasonable people. Signup and view all the answers

In Ivey v Genting Casinos, what is part of the new test for dishonesty?

Determining the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief about the facts. Signup and view all the answers

What was one criticism of the Ghosh test?

It allowed defendants with skewed moral views to evade liability. Signup and view all the answers

What was the legal issue in R v Ghosh?

Assessing whether a medical professional can claim fees for unperformed procedures. Signup and view all the answers

What did the two-part test established in Ghosh require?

Both an objective assessment and a subjective realization from the defendant. Signup and view all the answers

What was Dr. Ghosh's defense in his case?

He believed he was entitled to the money he claimed. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Criminal Law Overview

Criminal law defines unacceptable behaviour and outlines consequences for violations.
It aims to deter and prevent crime.
Procedural law governs legal processes, while substantive law defines specific offences and punishments.
Criminology studies crime causes.
Evidence law governs admissible evidence in court.

Criminal law identifies and responds to deviant or harmful actions.
It reflects society's values and moral standards.
Criminal law involves state intervention to address social harm.

Criminal vs. Civil Wrongs

Criminal wrongs are offences against the state or society.
Civil wrongs involve disputes between individuals seeking compensation.

Purpose: Deterrence and Prevention

Deterrence aims to prevent individuals from committing crimes through punishment.
Prevention seeks to stop crime before it happens.
There is debate over effectiveness of deterrence.

Symbolic Function

Criminal law signifies social values and sets boundaries for acceptable behaviour.
It establishes a framework for societal standards of right and wrong.

Stigmatization and Criminal Record

Criminal convictions result in negative social consequences (stigma).
Stigma can negatively affect social standing and opportunities.

Key Players in Criminal Justice System

Police: Investigate and arrest suspects.
CPS (Crown Prosecution Service): Represents the state in prosecuting alleged offenders.
Defendant: Individual accused of a crime.
Defence Counsel/Team: Represents the defendant's interests.
Jury (Crown Court): Determines guilt or innocence.
Judge/Magistrate: Oversees the trial and issues rulings.
Witnesses/Experts: Provide testimony or specialist knowledge.
Victim: Plays a role as a witness and may seek compensation.

Criminal Defences

Adults: Individuals over 18
Children/Minors: Individuals 10 and above, with specific legal considerations.

Core Principles of English Criminal Law

Presumption of Innocence: Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Burden of Proof: Prosecutions must prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, while defence has to cast doubt on the case.

Seriousness of Offences

Severity of offenses can affect how the offense is charged and punished.

Trial Outcomes

Verdicts in criminal trials are "Guilty" or "Not Guilty."

Sentencing

Courts have some flexibility, sometimes with mandatory or fixed penalties.

Principles Guiding Criminal Law

Fair Warning: Laws should be clear and easily understood (to avoid ambiguity).

Racism in Criminal Justice System

The UK criminal justice system has experienced racial disparities in treatment, including over-policing of minority communities and under-evaluation of minority victims.
This has led to racial disparities in outcomes.
Systemic racism creates lasting inequality. Various reports (e.g., the Macpherson Report) highlight these disparities.
High police budgets are seen as not resolving but perpetuating racial disparity.

Principles of Criminal Law

Fair Warning: Laws should be clear and understandable so individuals know what's prohibited.
Fair Labelling: Offenses need to accurately reflect the nature of the crime.

Abolition of Prisions

Abolitionists argue that prisons and policing inadequately address societal problems.
Abolitionists suggest creating alternative systems for dealing with criminal behaviour that seek to address the root causes of crime (e.g., poverty, lack of social services).
Abolitionists favour investments in social services, housing, and employment as approaches to dealing with crime.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The physical act or omission constituting the offense. Examples include acts like assault or theft.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The mental state or intent required to commit the offense. Types include Intention (direct or oblique), Recklessness, and Negligence.

Causation

Factual Causation: But-for test: Would the result have occurred without the defendant's actions?
Legal Causation: Are the defendant's actions the significant and operative cause of the result, and are the intervening events reasonably foreseeable?

Omission Liability

Usually not liable for failing to act unless a specific duty exists (e.g., contractual duty, assumed responsibility).
A duty to act may arise from a special relationship. (e.g., parent/child, caregiver/elderly).
A person creates a dangerous situation, there may be a duty to prevent the harm escalating.

Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens)

An intervening act may break the chain of causation.
This happens if the intervening act is unforeseeable.
A third party's voluntary act may break the causal chain if unforeseeable or independent, not reasonably foreseeable, and significant.

Mens Rea: Intention and Oblique Intention

Direct Intent: The defendant's goal is the harmful result.
Oblique Intent: The harmful result was virtually certain to follow from the defendant's actions, and they foresaw that.

Recklessness

Subjective Recklessness (Cunningham): The defendant foresaw a risk but went ahead anyway, knowing it was unreasonable considering the circumstances.
Objective Recklessness (Caldwell): A reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have foreseen the risk.
Subjective test returned in modern cases
Consider the circumstances and the risk of harm.

Dishonesty

Ghosh Test: Two-part subjective/objective test. Involves a reasonableness test in terms of societal norms and whether the defendant was aware they were acting dishonestly. In 2017 this was superseded by the objective test in Ivey

Negligence

Negligence is failing to meet a reasonable standard of care.
Key Case: Adomako (1995) - an anesthetist failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube during surgery which led to patient death.

Homicide Offences

Murder is the most serious offence involving unlawful killings.
Manslaughter is a less serious offence.
Voluntary manslaughter involve partial defences to reduce liability. (e.g. loss of control, diminished responsibility).
Involuntary manslaughter involves unintentional killings due to gross negligence. Examples include medical negligence cases.

Partial Defences to Murder

Loss of Control: Situations where the defendant acted due to a qualifying trigger, like fear of violence or something said/done, leading to a loss of self-control that is relevant and reasonable in the circumstances.
Diminished Responsibility: Defendants with unusual mental conditions that reduce their capacity for rational judgment affecting the ability to control their actions.

General Defences

Self-defence: The use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another from imminent harm.

Insanity

A legal defence available to those who were suffering from a diagnosed mental health condition at the time of the crime which makes them unable to comprehend the nature of their actions.

Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication: generally not a defence to most crimes including murder, manslaughter, and other harm offences. Intoxication might diminish responsibility/capacity but seldom a direct defence in such circumstances.
Involuntary intoxication: Where the defendant is involuntarily intoxicated such as following the influence of a substance (in excess, in error or as a result of a medical condition). It may be used as a defense to argue lack of intent that might otherwise have been considered as a crime.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.