Chapter 2 Self-test questions

What is meant by the term "actus reus"?

The guilty party.

The guilty act.

The guilty mind.

The guilty time.

Which categories of conduct can be covered by the actus reus?

Acts, and, in all circumstances, omissions.

Acts, and, in no circumstances, omissions.

Acts, and in suspicious circumstances, omissions.

Acts, and, in certain circumstances, omissions.

What is the ordinary structure of criminal liability?

actus reus + mens rea + defence.

actus reus and mens rea + no defence.

actus reus and mea culpa + no defence.

actus reus and mental certainty + no defence.

Can criminal liability exist in the absence of an actus reus?

No, because to do so would unfairly criminalise mere actions.

No, because to do so would unfairly criminalise mere pictures.

No, because to do so would unfairly criminalise mere thought.

No, because to do so would unfairly criminalise mere words.

What is meant by the term "mens rea"?

The guilty act.

The guilty mind.

The guilty men.

The guilty defendants.

Is dishonesty considered to be part of the actus reus or mens rea?

It is part of the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter.

It is part of the actus reus of theft offences and fraud.

It is part of the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter.

It is part of the mens rea of theft offences and fraud.

Is the word "sexual" used as part of an actus reus or a mens rea?

It can only be used in the context of a mens rea, as conduct must be defined as sexual (or not) based solely upon any accompanying purpose or thoughts to the activity.

It can only be used in the context of an actus reus, as conduct must be an objectively sexual act - and not normal activity, regardless of any accompanying purpose or thoughts.

It can be used in the context of both an actus reus and mens rea, as conduct can be and objectively sexual act, or an act which is sexual because of the purpose or thoughts accompanying a normal activity.

It cannot be used in the of both an actus reus and mens rea, as conduct is simply either sexual, or it is not, regardless of the thoughts or actions of the individuals concerned.

What is the mens rea of murder?

The intention to do some harm.

The intention to cause GBH.

The intention to kill.

The intention to kill or to cause GBH.

To find a Defendant criminally liable, what elements need to be proven, and to what level?

All elements of the actus reus and mens rea must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Some elements of the actus reus and mens rea must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

All elements of the actus reus and mens rea must be proven on the balance of probabilities.

Some elements of the actus reus and mens rea must be proven on the balance of probabilities.

What are the three main sub-categories of actus reus?

Consideration; Caution; Responses.

Confirmation, Clarification, Requirements.

Conduct; Circumstances; Results.

Control; Correction; Reports.

Do we require the definition of any given criminal offence to specify a conduct element?

Yes – because otherwise the law is not sufficiently certain.

No – because this makes the law overly complicated.

Yes – because we should always set out every part of a crime.

No – because result crimes do not require specific conduct.

What are the three ingredients required for imposing criminal liability based on an omission?

Recognised offence; Duty to act; Breach of duty.

Commission; Omission; Causation.

Actus reus; mens rea; Res ipsa loquitur.

Contribution; Operating cause; Negligence.

Do we require the definition of any given criminal offence to specify a circumstances element?

Yes – every criminal offence must have a circumstance element, because otherwise it is insufficiently clear for a jury whether the circumstances are such that a crime occurred.

No – because other elements of the actus reus are enough.

Yes – every criminal offence will include some manner of circumstance element, because the existence of the offence is to remedy and prevent a specific mischief or issue.

No – because we should not have to be this specific in law.

Can circumstances alone make the act of a given behaviour "criminal?"

Yes, because circumstances explain the reason for behaviour.

No, because there must be other reasons it is criminal.

Yes, because circumstances justify suspicious behaviour.

No, because we should not consider behaviour in isolation.

Is causation a separate issue from the actus reus?

Yes, because causation is a distinct, but related, question.

No, because causation cannot be considered in this context.

No, because causation is the essential link between the conduct element and result element.

Yes, because causation is a key part of the offence of murder.

What is a conduct crime?

When D performs certain types of conduct in suspicious circumstances.

When D performs certain types of conduct in excusable circumstances.

When D performs certain types of conduct in questionable circumstances.

When D performs certain types of conduct in forbidden circumstances.

What is a result crime?

When D performs certain types of conduct, in certain circumstances, and it leads to an unexpected result.

When D performs certain types of conduct, in certain circumstances, and it leads to a sudden result.

When D performs certain types of conduct, in certain circumstances, and it leads to a forbidden result.

When D performs certain types of conduct, in certain circumstances, and it leads to a surprising result.

Is there a general rule confirming which offences are recognised in law as being one that is capable of "commission by omission"?

Yes, because this allows for the law to be certain and clear.

No, because this is a matter of statutory interpretation and case law precedent.

Yes, because this is set out in the statute covering the offence.

No, because this is a matter for the trial judge in each case.

Can homicide offences be committed by omission?

Yes, because not acting when a duty exists can lead to death.

No, because of the principle of autonomy.

Yes, because we must all prevent deaths if we can do so.

No, because homicide requires D to have done a harmful act.

Is a "duty of care" different to a "duty to act"?

Yes, they are different – and a "duty of care" is relevant to omissions liability.

No, they are the same - and both are relevant to tort law.

No, they are the same - and both are relevant to criminal law.

Yes, they are different – and a "duty to act" is relevant to omissions liability.

In what specific sets of circumstances will a "duty to act" arise?

Statutory duties; Contractual duties; Familial relationships; Voluntary assumption of care; Endangerment (creation of a danger).

Commercial obligations; Equitable injunctions; Sentencing appeals; Embezzlement.

Whenever a police officer gives warnings to citizens to do so.

Whenever any crime could occur, in any circumstance.

Is there a set rule on how we distinguish what is an act, and what is an omission?

No, there is no set rule. The investigating officer decides this.

Yes, there is a set rule. Any violence is probably an act.

No, there is no set rule. It is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, there is a set rule. An omission is doing nothing.

What is the test for causation?

Causation in principle and in practice.

Causation in reality and in general.

Causation in act and in mind.

Causation in fact and in law.

What is causation in fact?

Where the result factually arose because of D's conduct.

Where the result factually arose despite D's behaviour.

Where the result factually arose despite of V's behaviour.

Where the result factually arose because of V's conduct.

What is causation in law?

Where D's conduct was a serious, harmful and significant cause.

Where D's conduct was a contributary, minor, and trivial cause.

Where D's conduct was a substantial, blameworthy, and operating cause.

Where D's conduct was an unexpected, unforeseeable, but unavoidable cause.

What question does the "but for" test ask?

What happens if D is asked to rebut the case?

But for the conduct of V, would this have happened?

If the court cannot be sure, can it reach a verdict?

Without D's conduct, would the outcome have been the same?

When will an "Act of God" break the chain of causation?

If they are unforeseen by V, and unforeseeable to the reasonable person.

If they are unforeseen by D, and unforeseeable to the reasonable person.

If they are unforeseen by V, and foreseeable to the reasonable person.

If they are unforeseen by D, and foreseeable to the reasonable person.

When will V's acts break the chain of causation?

If they are:
Completely unpredictable; Fair, just, and reasonable.

If they are:
Completely unimaginable; Foul, uninhibited, and wilful.

If they are:
Completely unforeseeable; Free, informed, and voluntary.

If they are:
Completely unfathomable; Fresh, innovative and acceptable.

When will the acts of a third party break the chain of causation?

If they are: Unforeseeable and unforeseen; Voluntary; and not of a special category.

If they are: Unusual and exceptional; Versatile, and not particular.

If they are: Unsafe and unforeseeable; Volatile; and in a special category.

If they are: Unfortunate and unprecedented; Verifiable; and in a unique category.

Select a Topic