Chapter 2 Multiple choice questions

. A throws her baby on the floor causing injury. She is charged with an offence on the baby. Which of the following most accurately represents a plea of lack of voluntariness (there may be more than one right answer)?

A only dropped the baby because X grabbed both of her arms and so she did not act voluntarily.

A did not act voluntarily because X told her to do it and she did not want to injure the baby.

Y did not act voluntarily because she was coerced into injuring.

A blanked out when X threatened to stab her unless she dropped the baby.

. D hits V intending to harm her mildly and knocks her unconscious. Thinking that V is dead, D throws her into a river. V is still alive at that point but later drowns. D has committed the AR of manslaughter because:

The first act, an assault, was the act which killed.

The last act (i.e.: drowning) was accompanied by MR.

What occurred was really one series of acts or a continuing act.

Drowning was the medical cause of death.

. A stranger hammers on your front door one night seeking help because her husband in the street is threatening violence against her. You do nothing because you do not want to get involved. She is then assaulted by him. Are you criminally to blame?

Yes, because there is a moral duty to assist people in danger.

Yes, because the injury could easily have been prevented by a phone call to the police.

Yes, because violence against women will only be stopped if society takes a stand against abusers.

No. There is no duty upon us to intervene or to rescue strangers.

. The ratio of Stone & Dobinson is as follows:

Ds were guilty of gross negligence manslaughter because they neglected Fanny.

Ds were guilty of manslaughter because they failed to ensure Fanny's health and welfare.

Ds were grossly negligent towards Fanny.

Ds were in breach of a duty of care which they voluntarily assumed by making efforts to care for Fanny. They were also under a duty by virtue of the relationship between her and Mr. Stone.

. V spent the weekend with D whom she had just met, during which she took an overdose of tablets. D arranged for her to be taken to another flat where she died. D's liability is that of:

Nothing, because V was not his blood relative and therefore D had no legal duty towards her.

Nothing, because V was not part of D's household and therefore D had no duty towards her.

Gross negligence manslaughter because D had been grossly negligent.

Gross negligence manslaughter if D was under a duty of care by assumption of responsibility.

. The ratio of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] is which of the following:

That doctors may withdraw life support treatment from a patient who can no longer breathe unaided or whose heart has stopped beating.

Allowing a patient to die where s/he has no hope of recovery is an omission and provided the decision taken is in the best interests of the patient the legal duty to maintain life no longer exists.

That doctors may end the life of a patient in a persistent vegetative state by lethal injection.

That doctors may not withdraw life support treatment from a patient whose brainstem is still alive because it would be a breach of duty and hence murder.

. A defendant who commits a crime is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of that act, but the chain of causation will be broken by:

An intervening act by a co-defendant acting in concert with D.

An intervening act which is voluntary and independent of D's original act e.g.: self-injection in a drug supply case.

Medical negligence

Actions of the victim

. The ratio of Pagett [1983] is which of the following:

That the act of taking V hostage was a necessary condition for her death (or a causa sine qua non) and thus Pagett was guilty of manslaughter?

That the police officers had broken the chain of causation because they had acted unreasonably and thus Pagett was not guilty of manslaughter.

That in order to constitute a novus actus interveniens, a third-party intervention had to be voluntary, i.e.: free, deliberate and informed, e.g.: not a reasonable act in self-preservation or an act done in performance of a legal duty.

That causation is always a question of law.

. In medical cases, which of the following causation rules will apply?

The immediate medical cause of resulting harm will be regarded as the legal cause.

D's act does not need to be the sole cause provided it contributed significantly to the result or was a substantial and operating cause

The fact that V dies because of negligent medical treatment for an initial injury will excuse D of responsibility for death because it is voluntary and unforeseeable.

Before medical negligence will break the chain of causation it must be abnormal and independent which is a question of law.

. D injures V's leg, and a surgeon advises amputation. V rejects the advice and dies.

D is not the legal cause of death because V's decision was independent and not reasonably foreseeable.

V's decision was a matter of chance, and it would be unfair to blame D for her death on the basis of bad luck.

D is not the legal cause of death because this is an example of a 'victim escape' case in relation to which V's decision must be reasonable.

It is the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them.

Quiz Content