A Level Law Cases (Criminal Law) AQA Test
Questions With Solved Solutions.
Pittwood (1902) - Answer Crime of Omission
Contractual Duty
Dytham (1979) - Answer Misconduct in a Public Office
Act to protect the victim
Emergency Services only
Miller (1983) - Answer Duty to minimise harmful effects of the fire
Criminal Damage
Stone & Dobinson (1977) - Answer Duty of care
White (1910) - Answer 'But for' test
Smith (1959) - Answer Chain of events (not broken)
Jordan (1956) - Answer Palpably wrong medical treatment
Chain of events (broken)
Cheshire (1991) - Answer Rare medical conditions/complications can break the chain of events (only
when the original injury is no longer having an effect)
Roberts (1971) - Answer Reasonable acts from the victim don't break the chain of events
Williams (1992) - Answer Unreasonable acts from the victim break the chain of events
Novus Actus Interveiniens
, Blaue (1975) - Answer Thin Skull rule
Take your victim as you find them
Doesn't break the chain of events
Holland (1860's) - Answer Refusal of medical treatment does not break the chain of events
Malcherek & Steel (1981) - Answer Turning off life support does not equal palpably wrong medical
treatment
Mitchell (1983) - Answer Transferred Malice
Mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
Pembilton (1884) - Answer Malice can only be transferred where the consequences are similar (i.e
battery -> battery NOT battery -> criminal damage)
Mohan (1976) - Answer Direct intent
Intending to cause some harm
Nedrick (1986) - Answer Established the 2 part test for oblique intent
Woollin (1998) - Answer Further established the 2 part test for oblique intent
Cunningham (1957) - Answer recklessness
DPP v Khan - Answer Setting of a trap
Fagan (1969) - Answer If the actus reus and mens rea occur at some point during one continuous act,
then they will be held to coincide
Questions With Solved Solutions.
Pittwood (1902) - Answer Crime of Omission
Contractual Duty
Dytham (1979) - Answer Misconduct in a Public Office
Act to protect the victim
Emergency Services only
Miller (1983) - Answer Duty to minimise harmful effects of the fire
Criminal Damage
Stone & Dobinson (1977) - Answer Duty of care
White (1910) - Answer 'But for' test
Smith (1959) - Answer Chain of events (not broken)
Jordan (1956) - Answer Palpably wrong medical treatment
Chain of events (broken)
Cheshire (1991) - Answer Rare medical conditions/complications can break the chain of events (only
when the original injury is no longer having an effect)
Roberts (1971) - Answer Reasonable acts from the victim don't break the chain of events
Williams (1992) - Answer Unreasonable acts from the victim break the chain of events
Novus Actus Interveiniens
, Blaue (1975) - Answer Thin Skull rule
Take your victim as you find them
Doesn't break the chain of events
Holland (1860's) - Answer Refusal of medical treatment does not break the chain of events
Malcherek & Steel (1981) - Answer Turning off life support does not equal palpably wrong medical
treatment
Mitchell (1983) - Answer Transferred Malice
Mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
Pembilton (1884) - Answer Malice can only be transferred where the consequences are similar (i.e
battery -> battery NOT battery -> criminal damage)
Mohan (1976) - Answer Direct intent
Intending to cause some harm
Nedrick (1986) - Answer Established the 2 part test for oblique intent
Woollin (1998) - Answer Further established the 2 part test for oblique intent
Cunningham (1957) - Answer recklessness
DPP v Khan - Answer Setting of a trap
Fagan (1969) - Answer If the actus reus and mens rea occur at some point during one continuous act,
then they will be held to coincide
