Skip to content
Back to quiz
6. What does the case of Woollin tell us?
- There is oblique intention when the defendant takes an unjustified risk.
- The end result must be a virtual certainty of the defendant's actions, and the defendant must foresee this for their to be oblique intention.
- The defendant must appreciate that the end result was a possibility.
7. The definition of murder is:
- The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being with malice aforethought, express or implied
- Killing with intention to cause at least GBH
- The unlawful killing of any creature with malice aforethought.
8. Name a case where there is a duty because of a relationship.
- Pittwood (1902)
- Miller (1983)
- Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
- Stone and Dobinson (1977)
9. What do you need to prove Legal Causation?
- The defendant's conduct was more than a 'minimal' cause of the consequence.
- The consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendant's conduct.
- The defendant did not intentionally cause the end result.
10. When is an omission sufficient for the actus reus?
- When you feel morally obliged to.
- When there is a duty to act.
- When someone is in danger.
11. Which of the following is not required to satisfy causation?
- Intention to cause the end result.
- The legal cause
- There was no intervening act
- The Factual cause
12. Which case is an example of when the chain of causation was broken?
- Cheshire (1991)
- Jordan (1956)
- Smith (1959)
13. Name a case of oblique intention.
- Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
- Latimer (1886)
- Roberts (1971)
14. Name the case of transferred malice.
- White (1910)
- Mitchell (1983)
- Thabo Meli v R
15. What must you prove for the mens rea of murder
- Intention to cause serious harm
- Intention to kill
- Intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm
- Intention to cause some harm
16. When is the chain of causation broken?
- When the act is so independent of the defendant's conduct and sufficiently serious enough.
- When the defendant did not have intention to cause the end result
- When the defendant fails to act.
17. What does the case of Attorney-General's Reference ( No 3 of 1994) (1997) show?
- The child has to have an existence independent of the mother for it to be considered 'a reasonable creature in being'
- Aborting a child is illegal.
- A baby is never considered a reasonable creature in being.
18. When does the Victim's own act break the chain of causation?
- When the defendant defends oneself.
- When the victim acts in an unreasonable way.
- When the victim acts in a foreseeable way.
19. Give an example of a case when the victim reacted in an unreasonable way and broke the chain of causation.
- Smith (1959)
- Williams (1992)
- Roberts (1971)