Other questions in this quiz

2. What happened in the case of Gemmel & Richards (2004)?

  • Boys aged 11&12 set alight some paper and threw it in a bin - not guilty as not aware of the risk
  • Boys aged 11&12 set alight some paper and injured an elderly passer by - Guilty foreseeable risk
  • Boys ages 15&16 set alight some paper and threw it in a bin - guilty as it was a foreseeable risk

3. Does there have to be an Unlawful act to use SRM?

  • No
  • Yes

4. What must the act be, to be classed under subjective recklessness?

  • Objectively dangerous
  • Subjectively dangerous
  • Just dangerous

5. What are the two parts to the Subjective Recklessness test outlined by Cunningham?

  • Intends to injure, Realises risk and proceeds
  • Intents to murder, Doesn't know there is a risk
  • Intents to cause GBH, Does know there is a risk

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »