Chapter 14 Multiple choice questions

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

There is no lower age of criminal liability in English law.

The effect of s. 34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is that all children aged 10 and above are fully criminally capable.

Section 34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that if D raises his capacity as an issue, the prosecution must prove D was aware that what he was doing was seriously wrong.

The minimum age of criminal capacity in English law is 14.

Which of the following is FALSE?

Insanity is a general defence which may be pleaded to all crimes.

Insanity is a legal defence, not a description of a mental or medical condition.

Insanity is satisfied where D was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know that he was doing what was wrong.

Insanity is where D's state of mind is so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. It is wide enough to cover the mind's activities in all its aspects, not only the perception of physical acts and matters, and the ability to form a rational judgment as to whether an act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will-power to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment.

The defendant has a defect of reason for the purposes of the defence of insanity if …

He is totally deprived of the power of reasoning.

He is unable to exercise rational judgment.

He lacks will power.

He was absent minded.

Disease of mind for the purpose of the defence of insanity is…

an internal bodily cause affecting D's mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding.

an external bodily cause affecting D's mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding.

a state of mind is so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.

an internal mental disorder.

Which of the following is FALSE?

In Quick (1973) D had taken insulin but had not eaten. The Court of Appeal held that hypoglycaemia caused by the application of medication to the body is an external factor. This was, therefore, not insanity.

In Hennessey (1989) D had not taken insulin and had also not eaten. The Court of Appeal held that hyperglycaemia caused by operation of the diabetes is an internal factor. This was, therefore, a case of insanity.

In Burgess (1991) the Court of Appeal concluded that sleepwalking is due to an internal disorder and the correct defence is, therefore, insanity.

In Kemp (1957) D's arteriosclerosis was a disease of the heart, not a disease of mind.

Which of the following is a FALSE description of the operation of the defence of insanity?

The prosecution must prove D committed the actus reus.

The prosecution must prove D committed the actus reus and satisfied the mens rea.

D must prove on a balance of probabilities that he was legally (M'Naghten) insane.

D must adduce evidence from at least 2 registered medical practitioners (s. 1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991).

Insanity and automatism (that is insane automatism and non-insane automatism) are similar defences. In which way, from those listed, do they differ?

D must have had a defect of reason.

The defect of reason must have been caused by a disease of mind.

D did not form mens rea.

D did not know what he was doing.

In order to determine the effect of the defence of (non-insane) automatism, further questions need to be answered. Select the option below which is NOT a further consideration.

Whether the offence is specific intent

Whether the offence is basic intent

If the offence is basic intent, whether D was Bailey reckless in becoming an automaton

Whether D formed mens rea

If D is involuntarily intoxicated at the time of the crime, which of the following statements is TRUE?

If D is charged with a specific intent crime, he is not guilty.

If he is charged with a basic intent crime, he is guilty.

If D formed mens rea he is guilty.

If D was not 'at fault' in forming the mens rea he is not guilty.

Which is the best description of the rule governing voluntary intoxication from Majewski (1977) [ignoring for the moment the clarification of it in Richardson and Irwin]?

D is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if he did not form mens rea.

D is guilty of a crime of basic intent and the prosecution is relieved from proving mens rea.

D is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if he did not form mens rea but D is guilty of a crime of basic intent and the prosecution is relieved from proving mens rea.

Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to a crime of specific intent.

Which is the best description of the rule governing voluntary intoxication from Majewski (1977) adding the clarification of the test by the Court of Appeal in Richardson and Irwin (1999)?

D is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if he did not form mens rea.

D is guilty of a crime of basic intent and the prosecution is relieved from proving mens rea.

D is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if he did not form mens rea but D is guilty of a crime of basic intent and the prosecution is relieved from proving mens rea.

D is not guilty of a crime of specific intent if he did not form mens rea but D is guilty of a crime of basic intent unless D would not have formed the mens rea of the basic intent crime if he had been sober.

Which of the following is FALSE in respect of the self-administration of prescription medication?

Prescription medication is not a dangerous drug.

Case law is inconsistent as to the description of the defence which might apply if D had taken prescription medication.

If D knew the medication may lead to aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrollable conduct, and he nevertheless deliberately runs the risk, this will amount to recklessness so D will not have a defence to a basic intent crime.

Self-administration of prescription medication is no defence to a crime of basic intent.

Which of the following is the BEST way to describe the legal effect of a (sober) mistake?

If D makes a mistake which prevents him forming mens rea, he is not guilty because he has a defence.

If D makes a mistake which prevents him forming mens rea, he is not guilty if he can prove he has a defence.

If D makes a mistake which prevents him forming mens rea, he is not guilty provided the mistake was reasonable.

If D makes a mistake which prevents him forming mens rea, he is not guilty because the prosecution cannot prove he is guilty of the offence.

Chapter 14 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content