Chapter 5 Multiple choice questions - Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 8e Student Resources

. The unlawful act in manslaughter consists of which of the following:

Either a criminal or a civil wrong.

Either an act or an omission.

A crime by an intentional positive act.

A crime which does not need to be specifically proved or identified in the proceedings provided the unlawful act caused death.

. D aged 14 throws a brick at a young man (V) playing cricket with his son in a park. The brick causes minor injury. Twenty minutes later, V collapses and dies from a heart attack due to physical shock. How should the judge direct the jury on unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter?

The assault caused the death therefore D is guilty.

The question of danger is to be assessed according to D's belief.

All D needs to do is to commit an intentional offence which causes shock.

D must commit an intentional unlawful act constituting a crime which (1) must objectively carry the risk of some harm and (2) must be the cause of death.

. D supplies a class A drug to V, prepares a syringe, and hands it to V for immediate injection. V injects himself. Which of the following correctly states the law?

D has committed two unlawful acts: possession of a Class A drug and administration of it under s23 OAPA 1861 both of which are inherently dangerous. He is therefore guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

V's self-injection is foreseeable and does not therefore break the chain of causation. D is guilty of manslaughter.

Both D and V were accomplices in an unlawful enterprise and therefore D is guilty of manslaughter.

D did not commit an unlawful act under s23 because he did not administer the drug or cause it to be administered or taken by V. D is not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

. The ratio of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] is as follows:

The company was guilty of a consumer offence through the delegation principle

The company was not guilty because it had exercised due diligence

The company was guilty by virtue of vicarious liability

The company was not guilty because the offence was committed by an employee and not by a senior officer who could be identified with the company

. Vicarious liability means:

That an employer will be criminally liable for all the unlawful acts of an employee

That under the delegation principle an employer will be liable for offences of SL

That under the attribution principle an employer will be liable for offences of MR and negligence

That an employer can be liable for offences committed by an employee in the course of employment where responsibility has been delegated (MR offences) or where the act of the employee can be attributed to the employer (SL offences.)

. The P & O Ferries case decided the following:

The company was not guilty because it was impossible for a company to be convicted of manslaughter

The company was guilty under the aggregation principle

The company was not guilty because it had not been grossly negligent

The company was not guilty by virtue of the identification principle and the Caldwell test which applied to manslaughter at that time

. The Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007 provides the following:

Corporate manslaughter will be committed where death was caused by activities managed or organised amounting to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care

The activity does not need to be managed or organized by a senior manager

A relevant duty will be breached if there is organisational neglect

In deciding whether a duty has been breached, organizational policy or company culture will be ignored