Chapter 7 Multiple choice questions

. If a defendant is charged with murder and the jury finds that between his intentional act and the victim's death medical negligence broke the chain of causation, which of the following is TRUE?

D may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

D may be convicted of murder.

D must be acquitted.

D may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

. Which of the following is FALSE?

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought.

The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause serious harm.

The mens rea for murder is satisfied on proof that serious harm or death was a virtual certainty and the defendant foresaw it as such.

The mens rea for murder is satisfied only on proof that the defendant intended to kill or cause life threatening injuries.

. Which of the following is the defence of diminished responsibility under s. 2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s. 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

A person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition, substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of D's conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control, where the abnormality provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

D was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

A person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from a disease of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition, substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of D's conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control, where the abnormality provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

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.

. Which was the correct definition of abnormality of mind from Byrne (1960)?

An internal disorder which impaired D's mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding.

A state of mind 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.

Arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury.

Battered Women Syndrome.

. For the defence of diminished responsibility to succeed (under s. 2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended), D must prove which of the following? There was a substantial impairment in his ability to:

Understand the nature of his conduct

Form rational judgment

Exercise self-control

Any one of the above

. To which crimes is loss of control an effective defence

Any offence

Any crime of violence

Murder or manslaughter

Murder

. Which of the following is the new partial defence of loss of self-control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control, the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.

Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control, the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and a reasonable person would have done the same as D did.

It does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden.

. Which of the following statements best represents the law as decided in Clinton (2012)?

Sexual infidelity is never relevant of the defence of loss of self-control.

Sexual infidelity is always relevant of the defence of loss of self-control.

When determining the accused's 'circumstances' for the purposes of s. 54(1)(c) of the Act, the jury may take sexual infidelity into account and may also consider sexual infidelity where it is integral to and forms an essential part of the context as a qualifying trigger.

The trial judge should take great care to exclude evidence about sexual infidelity from the case.

. Which of the following amount to a qualifying trigger?

Any racial insult

Anything said or done

Fear of serious violence

Provocative words or deeds

. Which of the following characteristics ARE admissible by s. 54 (1)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

D's age and sex.

Any characteristic of D which is one of normal tolerance and self-restraint.

Any characteristic of D which affects his general level of self-control.

(a) and (b) only.

Chapter 7 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content