Chapter 13 Multiple choice questions

true

false

What do we mean by a defence 'properly so-called' (ie, as opposed to a denial of offending)?

a. A reason why D has not completed one or more essential elements of the offence charged

b. A claim that the sentence imposed by a judge is too high

c. A set of exculpatory rules that D appeals to after it is found that she has completed the offence charged

d. A claim that another person committed the offence charged

The insanity rules will apply even where D has not committed an offence if...

a. ... she was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason

b. ... she was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason, and this led her not to understand the nature or quality of her acts

c. ... she was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason, and this led to irrational behaviour

d. ... she was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason, and this led to a condition that the medical world would label as insanity

If the insanity rules are satisfied, what verdict will this result in?

a. Guilty

b. Not guilty

c. Guilty by reason of insanity

d. Not guilty by reason of insanity

Do prior-fault rules apply to insanity? Eg, if D satisfied the insanity rules when causing harm at T2 because she intentionally failed to take her medication at T1, could this prior-fault be used to construct liability?

a. No, although their application is theoretically possible

b. Yes, and the prior-fault rules work in the same way as intoxication

c. Yes, and the prior-fault rules work in the same way as prior-fault automatism

d. Yes, but the prior-fault rules for insanity only apply to Ds suffering from drug addiction

Which of the following statements about the insanity rules are NOT true?

a. The definition of insanity is not based on a medical test

b. Sleepwalking can amount to insanity

c. The insanity rules are now codified within the Mental Capacity Act 2005

d. Whether a diabetic coma is treated as insanity depends on whether the coma was induced by a lack of insulin or a failure to eat properly after taking insulin

What is the leading case on insanity as a denial of offending?

a. Sullivan [1984] 1 AC 156

b. DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443

c. Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125

d. Coley [2013] EWCA Crim 223

What is a 'denial of offending' as defined within the textbook?

a. A reason why D has not completed one or more essential elements of the offence charged

b. A set of exculpatory rules that D appeals to after it is found that she has completed the offence charged

c. A claim that the sentence imposed by a judge is too high

d. A partial defence to murder

Can D rely on an intoxicated mistake for the purposes of a criminal defence?

a. Yes, always

b. No, never

c. Yes, although not if the mistake is also unreasonable

d. No, although there seems to be an exception for statutory defences

When do the intoxication rules become relevant for discussion and application to problem facts?

a. Whenever D is intoxicated

b. Whenever D lacks mens rea due to intoxication

c. Whenever there is mention of drink or drugs

d. Whenever D claims that she did not commit an offence

Why is it important to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication?

a. It is important at the sentencing stage

b. Involuntary intoxication means that D did not make a voluntary choice to become intoxicated (no blameworthy choice), so D will only be liable if the harms she caused were particularly serious

c. It is not important

d. Involuntary intoxication means that D did not make a voluntary choice to become intoxicated (no blameworthy choice) and so there is no basis for finding liability in the absence of mens rea

Can the intoxication rules serve as a substitute for a lack of voluntary movement?

a. No

b. Yes

c. Yes, but only for specific intent offences

d. Yes, but only for the least serious offences

Why is it important to distinguish between specific and basic intent offences when applying the prior-fault intoxication rules?

a. The intoxication rules will not apply to specific intent offences, and in such cases no mens rea will always mean no liability

b. It is not important

c. It is important because the intoxication rules will only impact the sentencing of strict liability offences

d. The intoxication rules will not apply to basic intent offences, and so no mens rea will always mean no liability

Automatism is a claim that...

a. ... D did not intend the result element of an offence

b. ... D lacked rational control of her body at the time of the potential offence

c. ... D lacked all voluntary control of her body at the time of the potential offence

d. ... D was not morally responsible for the harms caused

Where D successfully raises automatism, which offences will be undermined?

a. All offences, including so-call strict or absolute liability offences

b. All offences, except so-call strict or absolute liability offences

c. Only specific intent offences

d. Only basic intent offences

Which of the following is an important case on the meaning of sane automatism?

a. DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443

b. Coley [2013] EWCA Crim 223

c. M'Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200

d. Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125

Where is automatism defined?

a. At common law

b. In the Homicide Act 1957

c. In the Criminal Law Act 1977

d. In the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Where D's automatic state was caused by her own prior-fault, what is the legal outcome?

a. D may be liable for any strict liability offence, with her lack of voluntariness substituted for by her prior fault. However, her prior-fault will not replace any other missing mens rea, and so D cannot be liable for any other type of offence

b. D may be liable for any offence charged despite a lack of voluntariness

c. Nothing changes. D lacks voluntariness and so is not guilty of any crime

d. Despite lacking voluntariness (and potentially other mens rea requirements) D may nevertheless be guilty of a basic intent offence

What happens where D's prior-fault leads to a loss of capacity such that D lacks mens rea for an offence, but is not wholly involuntary in her movements?

a. D will be liable, but only if her conduct caused significant harms

b. D will be liable, as her prior-fault will still be able to substitute for the missing mens rea (basic intent offence only)

c. D will not be liable for the offence

d. D will be liable, as her prior-fault will still be able to substitute for the missing mens rea (basic or specific intent offence)

Quiz Content

Select a Topic