Law and Morality Concepts Quiz

A moral principle that suggests the core function of law is to protect the public good, specifically ensuring safety and order within society. It argues that law should only intervene in private lives when necessary to uphold this fundamental purpose.

The idea that criminal law should only be used to prevent harm caused to others. This principle highlights the importance of minimizing unnecessary legal intervention and focusing on actions with significant negative impacts.

Refers to the ability of individuals to make their own choices and act autonomously. It suggests that criminal law should recognize individuals as capable of independent agency, respecting their choices and holding them accountable for their actions.

A principle that emphasizes the need for consistency between the elements of a crime, the defendant's actions, and their intended outcome. Essentially, individuals should be held accountable for what they do and what they intend to do, not for unforeseen consequences.

A fundamental principle of criminal law that requires laws to be clearly defined and accessible. This principle ensures that individuals understand what actions are prohibited and can avoid breaking the law.

An approach that emphasizes the role of law in upholding public morality, suggesting that certain actions, even if not harmful, should be criminalized if they are deemed immoral by society.

A legal principle that justifies the use of law to prevent acts considered harmful to society, even if they don't inflict direct harm on individuals.

An approach that emphasizes the importance of balancing legal intervention with individual autonomy, suggesting that the law should only intervene when necessary to prevent serious harm.

In criminal law, the chain of causation refers to the direct link between an act and its consequence. When medical intervention breaks this chain, the original act is no longer considered the primary cause of death.

Third parties, such as medical professionals, who intervene in a situation where a person is injured are generally considered to have broken the chain of causation, as long as their actions are informed and within their scope of practice.

Initially, medical interventions, even if negligent, were considered protected from criminal responsibility. The original act (e.g., stabbing) was held to be the cause of death, regardless of the quality of medical care.

The Jordan case (1956) marked a shift in the law. The court ruled that if medical treatment is grossly negligent and directly leads to death, the original injury is not considered the cause of death.

The Williams v R case (1957) emphasized that while medical negligence can be dealt with in civil courts, it doesn't necessarily make the original act irrelevant for criminal liability.

The Smith v R case (1959) reinforced the idea that medical treatment, even if not perfect, doesn't fully absolve the initial offender of criminal liability unless it was grossly negligent.

Normal treatment refers to medical care that is standard and expected in a given situation. If a doctor deviates from this and causes death, that deviation may be considered grossly negligent and break the chain of causation.

Cases like Jordan and Smith highlight the importance of distinguishing between normal medical care and grossly negligent treatment. The latter can lead to a shift in responsibility to the medical professional, breaking the chain of causation.

A legal assumption that a court must accept as true, even without direct evidence.

A legal assumption that a court may accept as true based on the evidence presented.

A legal principle where a company is held responsible for the actions of its employees, even if they didn't directly authorize the actions.

The responsibility of an individual for their own actions, regardless of whether they caused or permitted others to commit an offence.

The principle that a person cannot be held criminally liable for the actions of others, unless they specifically caused or permitted those actions to occur.

The legal doctrine that a person's actions can be considered unlawful if they are done with the intent to cause a specific outcome, even if the outcome doesn't actually occur.

The physical act of committing a crime.

Presumptions are legal assumptions used in evidence to guide the court in making a decision.

The accused must provide a reasonable explanation to escape a presumption of guilt. This applies when strong evidence suggests they committed a crime, and they need to rebut this presumption.

When someone is found in possession of recently stolen goods, the courts assume they're involved in the theft unless they prove otherwise.

If someone is the last person seen with a victim before their death, they must explain their involvement in the circumstances leading to the death.

Not knowing the law is generally not a valid defense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Penal code states that ignorance of the law is not an excuse unless the law explicitly requires knowledge of the law as an element of the crime.

The accused must prove that they had a legal permit when transporting maize.

If the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for their actions, the court can convict them based on the presumption of guilt.

If the facts of a case strongly hint at guilt, and the accused provides no explanation, the court can convict them.

When two or more people agree to commit a crime, but the crime itself is not carried out.

Occurs when someone takes steps to commit a crime but doesn't actually complete it, even if the intent was present.

Inciting someone to commit a crime involves encouraging or persuading them to do it, even if they don't ultimately follow through.

In the case of incitement, the prosecution must prove that the accused intended the crime incited to happen and also predicted the consequences of their actions.

A person who attempts to commit a crime but doesn't complete it is considered criminally liable, even if they didn't succeed, as long as they intended the crime.

The Criminal Code states that a person is considered to be attempting a crime if they begin to put their plan into action and manifest their intention through an overt act, even if they don't actually commit the crime.

Under the Criminal Code, anyone who attempts to commit a crime faces punishment, typically half the maximum sentence for the completed crime.

The question of whether someone can be held accountable as an accomplice to an attempted crime is a complex one, based on the case of DPP v. Armstrong (2000).

An accused person suffering from an insane delusion is treated as responsible as if the delusional facts were real. They can be considered justified in actions that would be reasonable if their delusion was true.

In England, this interpreted to include everyday illnesses like diabetes, suggesting this rule is too broad.

This occurs when the accused successfully proves insanity, but the prosecution proves they committed the act.

The accused is detained indefinitely, subject to the President's discretion.

This includes a range of conditions like amnesia, bipolar disorder, dementia, and PTSD.

It's a common law rule, not specifically covered by the Penal Code.

This rule is a legal defense in situations where the accused acted based on a delusion that wasn't real.

The accused must prove insanity with a 'balance of probabilities', then the prosecution must disprove it 'beyond reasonable doubt'.