Skip to main content
United States
Jump To
Support
Register or Log In
Support
Register or Log In
Instructors
Browse Products
Getting Started
Students
Browse Products
Getting Started
Return to Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law 4e, Student Resources
Chapter 4 Scenario questions
Interaction of actus reus and mens rea
Quiz Content
*
not completed
.
Aminah has come to see you for legal advice. The offence with which she has been charged is one which, in your opinion, contains some strict liability elements.
Can you safely presume that this offence is one of strict liability?
Yes – the inclusion of strict liability makes the position clear.
correct
incorrect
No – it is necessary to check the legislation and precedent.
correct
incorrect
Yes – because there are some strict liability elements present.
correct
incorrect
No – the court will have to decide.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Dermot is accused of committing ABH against Kevin.
Dermot explains to you that he was actually trying to break a vase, but missed, and hit Kevin in error.
Will the doctrine of transferred malice apply?
No - because Dermot did not mean to do any harm.
correct
incorrect
Yes - because Dermot missed the vase, but still hurt Kevin.
correct
incorrect
No - because, unlike a vase, Kevin is not a piece of property.
correct
incorrect
Yes - because Dermot had criminal intent.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Rita was arguing with David, and threw a brick at him, intending to seriously harm him. The brick knocked David unconscious, and he fell to the ground. Mistakenly believing him to be dead, Rita dragged David indoors. During this, David's head hit the doorstep, and this impact caused his death.
What would your advice be as to a murder charge, on the facts?
That a murder charge is unlikely, due to lack of
mens rea.
correct
incorrect
That a murder charge is possible, but could not be made out.
correct
incorrect
That a murder charge is unlikely, due to lack of contemporaneity.
correct
incorrect
That a murder charge is possible, and could be made out.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Guylin works on a construction (building) site, and put left a heavy iron bar in a dangerous position, from where it could easily have fallen.
He went for his lunch break, knowing that the bar was in a dangerous position, and aware that Sarah would be undertaking a site visit there during his lunch break. Sarah was hit by the falling bar and died.
What would your advice be on manslaughter, on these facts?
Guylin could be charged, because of omissions liability.
correct
incorrect
Guylin could not be charged, because it was an accident.
correct
incorrect
Guylin could be charged, because he has been careless.
correct
incorrect
Guylin could not be charged, because of a lack of coincidence.
correct
incorrect
Previous Question
Submit Quiz
Next Question
Reset
Exit Quiz
Review all Questions
Submit Quiz
Are you sure?
You have some unanswered questions. Do you really want to submit?
Back to top
Printed from , all rights reserved. © Oxford University Press, 2024
Select your Country