1. Strict Liability - Revision Questions
Define strict liability.
Give an example of a common law strict liability offence.
What is the difference between strict liability and absolute liability?
An example of a case involving absolute liability is _________________
What presumption is made when interpreting statutes?
The 4 factors are laid out in _______________________________
These are factors are:
1. Quasi-criminal offences of a regulatory nature e.g. ______________
2. Matters of social concern e.g. ______________________________
3. The wording of the Act e.g.________________________________
4. The size of the penalty e.g. ________________________________
Does it provide social benefits or injustice? For each case think of how a
prosecution could benefit society or lead to injustice.
For Against

2. Actus Reus test
Section A
In R v Lowe [1973] it was confirmed that there was a general rule that there
was no liability for a failure to act. In the table below list the 5 exceptions
to this general rule and alongside give an example e.g. case or Act. (not
including R v Lowe)
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
Section B
match the following cases with the legal principles:
a. R v Khan & Khan 1998 v. The actions of the victim may break the chain of
causation if they are beyond ‘a range of reasonable
responses’
b. Fagan v MPC 1969 w. Assaults can be committed by omission
c. DPP v Santana- x. Absolute liability occurs where the def. does not
have to have acted voluntarily.
Bermudez 2003
d. R v Williams 1992 y. An assault is a continuing act
e. R v Larsonneur 1933 z. Whether a person is under a duty to act is a
question of fact for the jury to decide
a. 11.
B 12
C 13
D 14
E 15

3. Section C
Glossary – define the following terms:
Actus reus 16.
Mens rea 17.
Chain of 18.
causation
Novus actus 19.
interveniens
De minimis 20.
Section D
R v White 1910 21.
R v Pagett 1983 22.
23. You take your victim as you find him (egg
shell skull rule)
24. The actions of the victim may break the
chain of causation if they are considered
‘daft’
25. Medical negligence will only break the
chain of causation if the defendant’s act
is insignificant

4. Mental Element Test
Glossary
1. the mental element of a crime
Direct intent 2.
Oblique intent 3.
Conditional 4.
intent
Transferred 5.
malice
Subjective 6.
recklessness
True of false
There are currently 2 tests for recklessness 7.
R v Latimer[1886] illustrates how the actus 8.
reus and mens rea do not always have to occur
at the same time.
The mens rea for one offence can always be 9.
transferred to any offence D commits
The continuing act theory is known as a ‘legal 10.
fiction’

5. Match the case
11. If D knows something is ‘highly probable’ this is
sufficient to amount to intention
12. Guidelines for a jury to infer intent are the greater
the probability is that that consequence was
foreseen the greater the probability is that that
consequence was also intended
13. Recklessness is where a def. does an act which
creates an obvious risk and when he does an act has
not given any thought to it or has but goes ahead
with it anyway
14. The Nedrick direction is only required where the
simple direction is insufficient
15. In deciding whether a consequence was intended
the jury should consider was death or really serious
injury in a murder cases … a natural consequence of
the defendant’s act?
R v Caldwell 1982
R v Hancock & Shankland 1986
R v Hyam 1975
R v Moloney 1985
R v Wright 2000
Case table
Insert the case name or principle(1 mark) and year (1 mark)
16. The actus reus and mens rea have to coincide in
time unless there is a continuing act
17. Intention can be inferred when the resultwas a
virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s
actions and that the defendant appreciated that
R v Woollin____ 18.
19. Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly and
it is necessary that D foresaw the risk
20. Subjective recklessness is the appropriate test
for all crimes requiring recklessness as the mens
rea
Secion C – Glossary

6. Complete the table:
Term Definition
19. Actus reus
20. Burden of proof
21. Causation
22. Chain of causation
23. Mens rea
24. novus actus
interveniens
25. Omission
26. prima facie
27. Standard of proof

7. Voluntary Manslaughter Test
1. Which Act provides for the offence of voluntary manslaughter?
2. What is the legal consequence if one of the sections of the Act
is satisfied?
3. Outline the 3 main sections of the Act (10m)
S
S
S
True /False
4. According to Weller 2003 the objective test is now whether D should
reasonably have controlled himself. T/F
5. The effect of Camplin 1978 was to make the objective test tougher by
not allowing any characteristics. T/F
6. The objective test was softened in Morhall 1995 by allowing undesirable
characteristics to be taken into account. T/F

8. Fill in the legal principle for the following cases:
7.
R v Ahluwalia
[1992]
8.
R v Byrne [1960]
R v Doughty [1986] 9.
Rv Dietschmann 10.
2003
R v Duffy [1949] 11.
R v Humphreys 12.
1995
R v Ibrams & 13.
Gregory 1981
R v Pearson 1992 14.
R v Seers (1984) 15.
R v Smith [2000] 16.

9. Involuntary Manslaughter - test
1. The offences (7 marks)
The offence Definition
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
(UAM)
Gross Negligence
Manslaughter (GNM)
True or false
2.Involuntary manslaughter shares the same actus reus as murder but does not have
any mens rea. t/f
3. Another term for gross negligence manslaughter is constructive manslaughter.
t/f
4. Only GNM can be committed by an omission. t/f
5. For UAM the unlawful act must not be one that would be lawful if it were not for the
manner in which it was done t/f
6. For UAM the unlawful act may be a strict liability offence t/f
Multiple Choice
7. In drugs cases which of the following are unlawful acts which cause death?
a. Self injection
b. Assisting in self injection
c. Injecting someone else
d. Providing someone else drugs for them to inject
i) a, b & c ii) b& c iii) a, c & d iv) b, c & d

10. Match the case
a) Adomako 1995
b) R v Ball (1989)
c) Goodfellow 1986
d) R v Litchfield 1997
e) Watson 1989
8. The unlawful act does not have to be directed at anyone,
in fact it can be aimed at property
9. Gross negligence is where having regard to the risk of
death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so
bad in all the circumstances as to amount in (the jury’s)
judgment to a criminal act or omission
10. If the sober and reasonable person would be aware of Vs
frailty then that would be sufficient to make the
unlawful act dangerous.
11 In answering the objective test - a reasonable man would
not make a mistake about the amount of danger involved.
12 This case illustrated the absurdity of leaving a question
of law to the jury to decide
Case table
Complete the missing sections:
Lamb 1967 13
Mitchell 1983 14
Church 1966 15
DPP v Newberrv and 16
Jones 1977
17 The risk of harm refers to physical harm; fear and
apprehension are not sufficient even if they induce a heart
attack.
18 You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
your neighbour …persons who are so closely and directly
affected by my actions that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected.”
Bateman 1925 19

11. Non fatal Offences Test
True/false
1. For an assault, ‘immediate’ has been given a narrow/strict interpretation
2. The mens rea for assault is objective recklessness
3. A battery has to be hostile – this means done with malice
4. S20 may be committed if there is gbh or a very serious wound
5. To satisfy the mens rea for GBH s18/20 there must be intent
Definitions
6. Define assault
7. Define actual bodily harm
8. What is a wound?
9. Define grievous bodily harm.
10. Define occasioning
Legislation and Cases
11. Which Act which deals with most of the offences against the person?
12. What is the main difference between s18 and s20?
13. A case illustrating that words can negate or cancel out an assault is
14. There will not be an assault if the ‘victim’ was not aware that violence would be
inflicted. A case illustrating this is
15. A case illustrating the fact that a battery might be direct or indirect is
16. What legal principle do Roberts 1971 & Marjoram 2000 illustrate?
17. In which case did the CA hold that psychiatric injury could be sufficient for abh
provided there was medical evidence?
18. What was the main difference between Ireland and Burstow 1997, the 2 appeals which
were heard together in the HL?
19. In what way did the HL clarify the meaning of ‘inflicting’ in s20 in Burstow 1997?

12. 20. Give a case illustrating your answer to question 1
Theft
Multiple choice
1. The Theft Act a. 1861
b. 1968
c. 1978
Complete the gaps
2. complete the following sections (key words only required)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
True/False
3. appropriation has to amount to an adverse interference true/false
4. blood and body parts can be ‘property’ True/false
5. picking wild plants and flowers can never be theft true/false
6. A reasonable belief that the owner would have consented to D taking the property
would not be theft true/ false

13. case table
Appropriation occurs at the time of any assumption of the
rights of the owner.
(1971) Appropriation can occur with the consent of the owner
(1993) Appropriation can occur with the consent of the owner
Receiving gifts can amount to appropriation even without
any deception or duress
R v Turner [1971]
If d takes advantage of his employment to make extra
money for himself this will not normally be classed as
money belonging to his employer.
If a person receives money for a particular purpose it will
be classed as still belonging to another
Part payment of money such as a deposit to a business
will not be classed as property belonging to another
AGs Ref (no1 of
1983) 1985
Property will not be classed as belonging to another
where there is no legal obligation to return it to him
There will not be dishonesty where there is an honest
belief that property taken has been abandoned
R v Ghosh [1982] The test for dishonesty is
DPP v Lavender
1994
borrowing property will not amount to an intention to
permently deprive unless returned in such a state that all
its virtue and goodness is gone

14. Insanity & Automatism
Definitions
1. Define Insanity (4marks)
2. Which case does this definition come from?
3. What is ‘The continuing danger theory’?
4. define automatism.
True/false
5. Hypoglycaemia – low bsl – caused by taking too much insulin or taking
insulin and not eating afterwards true/false
6. A person found guilty of insanity will either be sentenced to detention in
a secure centre or one of a variety of other measures T/F
7. Whereas diminished responsibility may be temporary, insanity is a more
permanent condition T/F
8. Complete the following table using the diabetes cases to illustrate the
external internal factor dichotomy: [3 marks]
Case Brief facts Defence
R v Hennessy
(1989)
Quick (1973)

16. Case Table
Clarke (1972)
Lord Denning said: any mental disorder which has
manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is
a ‘disease of the mind’.
Windle (1952)
A disassociative state caused by a traumatic event
could be classed as automatism
Arteriosclerosis and other organic problems may be
classed as a disease of the mind
Sullivan [1984]
Sleepwalking may be a disease of the mind
In Canada, sleepwalking is classed as automatism
The court gave us the hypothetical example of
automatism as being attacked by a swarm of bees
Attorney-
General’s
Reference (N0. 2
of 1992).
R v Sandie Smith
(1982)
Sneezing may be classed as automatism

17. Intoxication test
1. Which case gives us the basic/specific intent distinction?
2. What were the facts of Lipman?
3. What principle does it illustrate?
4. Involuntary Intoxication will always be a defence to all crimes true/false?
5. AG for NI v Gallagher [1963] illustrates what principle?
6. In which case was it first stated that if someone was incapable of forming the
necessary intent for a crime then a defence of intoxication would be allowed?
7. Which of the following are specific intent crimes (delete basic)
Murder,
Involuntary Manslaughter,
S18 GBH with intent,
S20 GBH,
S47 abh,
criminal damage, S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
Aggravated Criminal Damage, s1(2)
Theft
Burglary
rape.
8. R v Hardie 1985 – what were the facts?
9. and principle?
10. In which case was it stated that for involuntary intoxication a drugged intent is
still intent?

18. Self defence and mistake test
Definitions
1. What is public defence?
2. What is private defence?
3. Give a definition of common law self defence
Multiple Choice
4. Which Act provides the public defence?
a. S3 Criminal Law Act 1967
b. S1 Self Defence Act 1981
c. S2(1) Criminal Justice Act 1976
5. A mistaken belief in the need for self defence may be a valid defence only if
a. It is honestly held
b. It is reasonably held
c. It is honestly and reasonably held
Match the case
6 ‘(A) person would not be guilty of an assault unless the force
used was excessive, and in judging whether the force used
was excessive the jury had to take account of the
circumstances as [D] believed them to be.’
7 A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his
assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot;
circumstance may justify a pre-emptive strike
8 ‘a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact
measure of his necessary defensive action’.
9 ‘It may be that a strong case can be made for an alteration of
the law … but that is a matter for legislation and not judicial
decision’
a. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)
(1977)
b. Beckford [1988]
c. Owino [1996]
d. Palmer (1971)

19. Revill v 10.
Newberry1996
AG Ref. (no 2 of 11.
1983)
12. A person is no longer prevented from using the
defence by not taking steps to avoid the attack
13 It has recently been argued that psychiatric
evidence that caused D to perceive a much
greater danger as relevant when a jury was
deciding reasonable force.
R v Clegg [1995] 14
16 It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken
as to the need for force provided that the
mistake was honestly believed.
17 if the mistake was induced by intoxication then
the mistake has to be ignored in relation to the
defence.