Chapter 3 Scenario questions - Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law 4e, Student Resources

. Joaquin comes to see you for advice, having been accused of robbery. He provides you with the case facts, and wants to be advised of the case against him, and whether he has committed a crime.
What are the most basic elements to be evaluated to do so?

The question to the D as to whether they actually did it.

The actus reus, mens rea, and any defences on the facts.

The contents of all aspects of the evidence in the case.

The actus reus, mens rea, and any witnesses D can provide.

. Meng is accused of possession of a stun gun (Taser). This is a strict liability offence. You are representing Meng.
How would you explain strict liability to your client?

That he will definitely be found guilty, as there is no hope at all.

That Meng should say that he had forgotten he had the item.

That, as long as Meng knew he had the stun gun, he is likely to be found guilty – as the reason why will not be considered.

That Meng's reason for possession will be considered in court.

. Ieuan has been arrested for GBH, having punched a man repeatedly, after standing outside the man's house, shouting that he was going to "rough him up hard." Ieuan says he was just saying to sound scary.
What would your advice be on the mens rea, on these facts?

That the threats are not relevant as they were said in anger.

That the threats are likely to be evidence of oblique intention.

That the threats are not relevant as they were not truly meant.

That the threats are likely to be evidence of direct intention.

. Femi is accused of murder, having thrown a heavy object at her husband, causing a head injury from which he later died.
What would your advice be on intention, on these facts?

If the jury thought that Femi subjectively, herself, realised that her actions were virtually certain to kill (or cause GBH), they are entitled to find her guilty – but do not have to do so.

If the jury thought that Femi objectively should have realised that her actions were virtually certain to kill (or cause GBH), they must find her guilty.

If the jury thought that Femi subjectively should have realised that her actions were virtually certain to kill (or cause GBH), they must find her guilty.

If the jury thought that Femi objectively should have realised that her actions were careless, and caused death, they must find her guilty.