+1 (208) 254-6996 [email protected]
  

THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

SPRING 2021 EXAMINATIONS

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Criminal Law 3
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT VERIFICATION SHEET

FACULTY: Humanities and Liberal Studies

PROGRAMME: Associate Degree

COURSE: Criminal Law

CODE: Law 2212

YEAR GROUP: 2

LECTURER: Tamika Grant

COURSEWORK # ___3___

UNIT(S): __Multiple__ OBJECTIVE(s)_____Multiple_____ PERCENTAGE (20%):

Date administered:

Due date:

MODE OF ASSESSMENT (please tick): TEST ☐ PROJECT ☒ OTHER ☐______________

Assessment Details (Please input coursework here. Note: If it is a test, please attach at the end of this document):

Lecturer’s Signature: _____________________ Date: 14/05/21

Answer all questions in this section. Each question in worth 1 mark. Please read each

and answer every question carefully

1. Which of the following is NOT an element of criminal liability? (a) Mens rea (b) Defence

(c) Motive (d) Actus reus

2. Most prosecutions are BROUGHT by whom? (a) The complainant. (b) The Serious Fraud Office. (c) Local Authorities.

(d) Director of Public Prosecutions

3. Who bears the BURDEN OF PROOF in criminal proceedings?

(a) The complainant. (b) The Serious Fraud Office. (c) Local Authorities.

(d) The Crown Prosecution Service.

4. What is an EVIDENTIAL BURDEN?

(a) It is a type of proof burden.

(b) It is a burden to adduce evidence to make an issue ‘live’ in a case. (c) It means the defendant has to prove the defence of insanity. (d) It means that whenever the burden of proof is reversed to the defendant, he has to

prove the defence on a balance of probabilities.

5. Which of the following is FALSE?

The actus reus of an offence consists of:

(a) The guilty act.

(b) The omission to act. (c) The guilty mind. (d) A state of affairs.

6. Which of the following options best expresses why the Court of Appeal upheld the

conviction in R v EVANS [2009] 1 WLR 1999?

(a) The defendant created or contributed to a state of affairs which placed the victim’s life

in danger.

(b) The defendant was not legally required to take reasonable steps to save the victim’s

life. (c) The defendant as a human being was under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to save

the victim’s life.

(d) The defendant had a legal duty created by her relationship to the deceased to take action.

7. The essence of the House of Lords’ decision in R v KENNEDY [2008] is?

(a) Where the victim’s act is unreasonable, unforeseeable or daft, it breaks the chain of

causation.

(b) Where the victim is a fully informed and responsible adult, and freely and voluntarily

self-administers drugs supplied by the defendant, the defendant cannot be said to

have caused the victim’s death. (c) A victim’s refusal of medical treatment on medical grounds is always unreasonable.

(d) Where the victim is a fully informed and responsible adult, and freely and voluntarily self-administers drugs supplied by D, D has caused the victim’s death.

8. Which of the following is TRUE?

(a) It is for the defendant to prove he did not form the required mens rea of the crime for

which he is charged.

(b) Generally intention is assessed objectively by comparing the defendant’s actions to

that of the reasonable man. (c) The burden of proving the mens rea required for a crime lies on the prosecution based

on the universal principle of law that he who alleges must prove. (d) The mens rea of murder is intention.

9. Which of the following is the most accurate summary of R v WOOLLIN (1999) test?

(a) Where a defendant is charged with murder and the simple direction (that it is for the

jury to decide whether the defendant intended to kill or do serious bodily harm) is not

enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary

intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty

(barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that

the defendant appreciated that was the case, the decision being one for them to reach

on a consideration of all the evidence.

(b) Where the defendant is charged with murder and the simple direction (that it is for the

jury to decide whether the defendant intended to kill or do serious bodily harm) is not

enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary

intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a natural

consequence (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of defendants actions

and that the defendant appreciated that was the case, the decision being one for them

to reach on a consideration of all the evidence. (c) Where the defendant is charged with murder and the simple direction (that it is for the

jury to decide whether the defendant intended to kill or do serious bodily harm) is not enough, the jury should be directed that they may find that the defendant intended the

natural consequences of his act.

(d) Where a defendant is charged with murder and the simple direction (that it is for the

jury to decide whether the defendant intended to kill or do serious bodily harm) is not

enough, the jury should be directed that the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it was that the consequence was foreseen and the greater the

probability was that that consequence was also intended.

10. Which of the following statements most ACCURATELY describes the factual issues which

arose in R v CHURCH (1966)?

(a) Two men hit a third over the head, intending to kill him, but only knocked him

unconscious. Believing he was dead and, in an effort to fake an accident, they rolled

him off a cliff. The man later died of exposure at the bottom of the cliff.

(b) A man beat a woman unconscious and, in a panic and thinking she was dead, threw

her into a river. At the time she was alive but then died from drowning. (c) A man hit his wife on the chin, intending serious harm and knocking her unconscious.

While he was trying to drag her body along the street to avoid detection, he accidentally lost his grip. Her head hit the pavement, fracturing her skull and causing her death.

(d) A woman went to hit a man with her belt, but the belt accidentally rebounded and hit a third party, causing injury.

11. Which of the following is the most accurate description of subjective recklessness? The

defendant took an unjustifiable risk and:

(a) foresaw the risk and took the risk anyway.

(b) foresaw the risk so chose not to run the risk.

(c) was wicked in his conduct. (d) the risk would have been obvious to the reasonable person, where the defendant did not

foresee it.

12. Voluntary Manslaughter can be defined as:

(a) The killing of someone however malice aforethought (the mens rea of murder) is not

present, in any event, there is a specific defence, so the killing is excused and a

conviction for manslaughter, without the need for trial, is entered.

(b) The killing of someone however malice aforethought (the mens rea of murder) is present, but the accused only meant to hurt the deceased, but the jury may decide a conviction for manslaughter should be entered on the basis of loss of control.

(c) The killing of someone however malice aforethought (the mens rea of murder) is

present, but there is a specific defence that is accepted by the jury and a conviction for manslaughter is entered.

(d) The unintentional killing of someone with no malice aforethought being present, however there is a specific defence that is accepted by the jury and a conviction for murder is entered.

13. Which of the following best describes the doctrine of TRANSFERREED MALICE?

(a) An intention to injure one person which can be transferred to an unintended person.

(b) Whether an intention to injure a person can be transferred to unintended property

damage. (c) Whether an intention to hurt a pregnant woman can be transferred from the woman to

the unborn baby and then from the unborn baby to the child when it is born. (d) Whether a jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary

intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty

(barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants’ actions and that the defendant appreciated that was the case, the decision being one for them to reach on a consideration of all the evidence.

14. Which of the following best describes the facts of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-

General of Hong Kong (1985)?

(a) The defendants were involved in the construction of a building in Hong Kong. The

building collapsed and they were charged with having deviated in a material way from

the plans. There was no evidence that they realized the deviation they made was material.

(b) The defendants were involved in the construction of a building in Hong Kong. The building collapsed and they were charged with having deviated in a material way from

the plans. They realized the deviation they made was material. (c) The defendant had been convicted of managing premises where cannabis was used.

She was a teacher who had sublet a house to students. She did not know the students had been smoking cannabis.

(d) The defendant, a boy aged 15, repeatedly asked a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex

during a bus journey. He was convicted of inciting a girl under the age of 14 to commit

an act of gross indecency. The defendant said he honestly believed that the girl was

over 16.

15. The two principal types of involuntary manslaughter are constructive manslaughter and

the other is gross or criminal negligence manslaughter.

The difference between the actus reus in both offences is:

(a) one is where the defendant kills by an innocent act and the other is a gross a breach of

a duty that leads to death.

(b) one is where the defendant kills by an unlawful and obviously dangerous act and the other is a gross a breach of a duty that leads to death.

(c) one is where the defendant kills by an unlawful and obviously dangerous act and the other is an accident at work that involved no negligence on anyone’s part.

(d) one is where the defendant kills by a purposeful act and the other is a minor breach of

duty that leads to death.

16. The law of murder is set out in common law. A murder conviction carries a mandatory life

sentence. The judge passing sentence cannot pass a lesser sentence no matter how

mitigating the circumstances might be. There however exist partial defenses to murder

which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum

sentence of life but still allows the judge discretion on sentencing.

The LEGAL DEFINITION of murder is:

a. ‘the lawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with gross negligence”. b. ‘the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought’. c. ‘the lawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with reasonable excuse”.

d. None of the above, the legal definition of murder changes and evolves with every killing.

17. What does an INCHOATE crime refer to? (a) An incomplete crime. (b) A conspiracy to commit a crime.

(c) That the defendant was intoxicated during the commission of a crime. (d) It means to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of a crime.

18. In which of the following cases did the jury find that the defendant had done an act which was MORE THAN MERELEY PREPARATORY to the commission of the offence?

(a) R v Jones (1990)

(b) R v Gullefer (1990) (c) R v Geddes (1996)

(d) R v Campbell (1991)

19. Which of the following is NOT an element of the offence of unlawful act manslaughter?

(a) The Defendant must have foreseen the victims’ death.

(b) The defendants deliberate act caused the victims death. (c) The defendants deliberate act was dangerous.

(d) The defendants deliberate act is a criminal offence.

20. Disease of mind for the purpose of the defence of INSANITY is?

(a) An internal bodily cause affecting the defendants’ mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding.

(b) An external bodily cause affecting the defendants’ mental faculties of reason, memory,

and understanding.

(c) A state of mind is so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.

(d) An internal mental disorder.

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP