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)