Other questions in this quiz

2. Which two cases confirmed the mens rea of ABH?

  • R v Chan-fook and R v DDP v Smith
  • R v Lamb and R v Constanza
  • R v Roberts and R v Savage
  • R v Roberts and R v Chan-fook

3. Which are the facts for the case of R v Roberts?

  • The defendant threw a drink over her husband's girlfriend and she accidentally cut the girls wrist.
  • The victim was sacred of the aggressive defendant and jumped out a house window.
  • The defendant gave a lift to a girl in his car and touched her clothes. Causing her to jump out the car, injuring herself.
  • The defendant made a number of unwanted phone calls to the vicitm.

4. Which case stated that, 'ABH is not limited to harm to the skin, flesh and bones of vicitm'?

  • DPP v Smith
  • R v Chan-fook
  • R v Venna
  • DPP v A

5. Which is the mens rea for ABH?

  • There is no need to intend the further harm which is caused as a result of an assault or battery.
  • To recklessly cause ABH.
  • There is need to intend the further harm which is caused as a result of an assault or batter.
  • Intention to cause ABH.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »