Criminal law | Questions with 100% Verified Answers | Latest
Update 2026/2027
Question: What are the sources of criminal law?
Answer: • Acts of Parliament, e.g. Theft Act 1968
• Judges, e.g. Shaw v DPP (1962)
• Judicial precedent, e.g. R v R (1991)
Question: What are actus reus and mens rea?
Answer: • Actus reus - physical element of the crime (act/omission)
• Mens rea - the mental element of the crime, intent
Question: What is burden of proof? Standard of proof? Reverse onus?
Answer: 1) The prosecution must prove that defendant is guilty
2) The extent to which the burden of proof must be made: beyond a reasonable doubt
('99 per cent test')
3) Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant (e.g. insanity)
Question: What if the defendant has no control over their actions? Give the case example and what it has
established.
Answer: 1) Involuntary act - the defendant has not committed the actus reus
2) R v Hill v Baxter (1958) - no real evidence of the driver being an automaton
3) Involuntary acts are losing control of the vehicle while being stung by a swarm of
bees, being struck on the head by a stone or having a heart attack while driving
Question: What is a state of affair? Give case example.
Answer: 1) Instance in which the defendant has been convicted even though the act was not
desired by the defendant, but through actions against their will
2) R v Larsonneur (1933) - French woman, ordered to leave the UK, got deported back.
She was arrested and charged with illegal immigration
Question: What are the 6 situations where an omission can give rise to liability in criminal law? Give examples
where possible.
Answer: • An Act of Parliament makes it an offence, e.g. Road Traffic Act 1988
• A contractual duty: R v Pittwood (1902): guilty of manslaughter because of railway-
crossing keeper's failure to close the gate
• Special relationship: R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918): the child's father and his mistress
failed to feed the child so it died -> guilty of murder
• A duty toward victim has been taken voluntarily: R v Stone and Dobinson (1977):
defendants were convicted of manslaughter as they owed a duty of care to Stone's elderly sister
• Consequence of the accused's official position: R v Dytham (1979): the police officer
was guilty of willfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty
• Defendant has set in motion a chain of events: R v Miller (1983): guilty of arson as
squatter has not attempted to put the fire out
Question: What is the factual causation? Give case example.
Answer: • The consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendant's conduct
• R v Pagett (1983): pregnant woman would not have died 'but for' the defendant using
her as a shield in the shoot-out
,Question: What is considered in the legal causation?
Answer: • The thin skull rule (defendant is liable for any implications associated with victim's special
characteristics; take victim as you find them)
• The chain of causation (more than minimal contribution)
Question: What is the 'thin skull' rule? Give case examples.
Answer: The 'thin-skull rule': the defendant must take the victim as he/she finds them; the defendant is liable
for more serious injury if the victim has something unusual about their physical/mental state which makes
them more vulnerable R v Blaue (1975): blood transfusion was against the victim's religion; the defendant was
guilty for her death (stabbed her)
Question: What can the chain of causation be broken by? Give cases.
Answer: 1) Novus actus interveniens (an intervening act)
2) • Medical treatment - R v Jordan (1956): the stab wound was not the significant cause
but doctors' misconduct in antibiotics prescription
• An act of a third party - R v Rafferty (2007): the final act of drowning the victim was new
• Victim's own act - R v Roberts (1992): the defendant was liable for the girl's injuries as she
was trying to escape from sexual advances
Question: Who are exempted from criminal prosecution?
Answer: • Children <10
• Insane people -> will be detained in a hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983
• Involuntary acts (e.g. R v Mitchell 1983, the act of punching was involuntary)
• Absence of the required mental state
• Self-defence
• Duress
Question: What are the two types of intention?
Answer: • Direct - defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence (e.g. R v Mohan
1975 - direct intention to scare/injure the police officer)
• Oblique/indirect - the consequences were not virtually certain (e.g. R v Woollin 1998 -
the defendant lost his temper and threw his 3-month-old son towards his pram which was against the wall just
over a metre away, the baby died. The court ruled that the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the
defendant must realise this)
Question: What is recklessness? Case example.
Answer: 1) Where the defendant realised the risk, but decided to take it
2) R v Cunningham (1957) - defendant was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of
gas escaping into the adjacent house
Question: What is the concept of strict liability? Case example.
Answer: 1) It is required to prove the actus reus only
2) Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. (the pharmacist was convicted
of supplying drugs without a genuine prescription)
Question: Can the defendant be convicted if they are totally blameless? Case example.
Answer: 1) Yes
2) Callow v Tillstone (1900): the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for
sale (the vet examined differently)
, Question: What is due diligence? Case example.
Answer: 1) The defendant has done all that was within their power not to commit an offence
2) Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) - convicted of selling liquor to drunk person
Question: What is transferred malice? Give 2 case examples.
Answer: 1) R v Latimer (1886): hit the other woman, transferred malice
2) R v Pembliton (1874): different mens rea for the two offences (fighting and breaking the
window)
Question: What was the Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)? R v Church (1965)?
Answer: 1) Once Fagan knew the car was on the police officer's foot, he had the required mens
rea
2) Manslaughter (threw the victim into the river, presuming she was dead)
Question: What are the 4 elements of murder? Explain them. Who and when first introduced them? What
offence is it?
Answer: 1) • The defendant killed - act/omission was the cause of the death. E.g. R v Gibbins and
Proctor (1918)
• A reasonable creature in being - a person must be killed
• Under the King's Peace - killing an enemy in the course of war is not murder
• The killing was unlawful - no defence (self-defence, defence of another, prevention of
crime)
2) Lord Coke, 17th century
3) Common law offence
Question: Killing a foetus? Brain-dead person?
Answer: 1) • Not a murder
• Attorney-General's reference (1997): if foetus is injured and the child is born alive but
dies afterwards as a result of the injuries, this can be the actus reus for murder/manslaughter
2) Doctors are allowed to switch off life-support machines without being liable for
murder or manslaughter
Question: What is the difference between express malice aforethought and implied malice aforethought? Give
case example.
Answer: 1) • Express malice aforethought - the intention to kill
• Implied malice aforethought - the intention to cause grievous bodily harm
2) R v Vickers (1957): murder. where a defendant intends to inflict grievous bodily harm
and the victim dies = implied malice aforethought
Question: Contemporaneity rule? Cases?
Answer: • Both the actus reus and the mens rea must be present at the same time
• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Comissioner (1968) - mens rea started before the actus
reus occured
Question: What is voluntary manslaughter?
Answer: The defendant satisfies the actus reus and mens rea of murder, however, the defendant suffers from:
• the loss of control (s 54 of the Coroners Justice Act 2009)
• diminished responsibility - s 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, s 52 of the Coroners Justice Act
2009
Update 2026/2027
Question: What are the sources of criminal law?
Answer: • Acts of Parliament, e.g. Theft Act 1968
• Judges, e.g. Shaw v DPP (1962)
• Judicial precedent, e.g. R v R (1991)
Question: What are actus reus and mens rea?
Answer: • Actus reus - physical element of the crime (act/omission)
• Mens rea - the mental element of the crime, intent
Question: What is burden of proof? Standard of proof? Reverse onus?
Answer: 1) The prosecution must prove that defendant is guilty
2) The extent to which the burden of proof must be made: beyond a reasonable doubt
('99 per cent test')
3) Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant (e.g. insanity)
Question: What if the defendant has no control over their actions? Give the case example and what it has
established.
Answer: 1) Involuntary act - the defendant has not committed the actus reus
2) R v Hill v Baxter (1958) - no real evidence of the driver being an automaton
3) Involuntary acts are losing control of the vehicle while being stung by a swarm of
bees, being struck on the head by a stone or having a heart attack while driving
Question: What is a state of affair? Give case example.
Answer: 1) Instance in which the defendant has been convicted even though the act was not
desired by the defendant, but through actions against their will
2) R v Larsonneur (1933) - French woman, ordered to leave the UK, got deported back.
She was arrested and charged with illegal immigration
Question: What are the 6 situations where an omission can give rise to liability in criminal law? Give examples
where possible.
Answer: • An Act of Parliament makes it an offence, e.g. Road Traffic Act 1988
• A contractual duty: R v Pittwood (1902): guilty of manslaughter because of railway-
crossing keeper's failure to close the gate
• Special relationship: R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918): the child's father and his mistress
failed to feed the child so it died -> guilty of murder
• A duty toward victim has been taken voluntarily: R v Stone and Dobinson (1977):
defendants were convicted of manslaughter as they owed a duty of care to Stone's elderly sister
• Consequence of the accused's official position: R v Dytham (1979): the police officer
was guilty of willfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty
• Defendant has set in motion a chain of events: R v Miller (1983): guilty of arson as
squatter has not attempted to put the fire out
Question: What is the factual causation? Give case example.
Answer: • The consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendant's conduct
• R v Pagett (1983): pregnant woman would not have died 'but for' the defendant using
her as a shield in the shoot-out
,Question: What is considered in the legal causation?
Answer: • The thin skull rule (defendant is liable for any implications associated with victim's special
characteristics; take victim as you find them)
• The chain of causation (more than minimal contribution)
Question: What is the 'thin skull' rule? Give case examples.
Answer: The 'thin-skull rule': the defendant must take the victim as he/she finds them; the defendant is liable
for more serious injury if the victim has something unusual about their physical/mental state which makes
them more vulnerable R v Blaue (1975): blood transfusion was against the victim's religion; the defendant was
guilty for her death (stabbed her)
Question: What can the chain of causation be broken by? Give cases.
Answer: 1) Novus actus interveniens (an intervening act)
2) • Medical treatment - R v Jordan (1956): the stab wound was not the significant cause
but doctors' misconduct in antibiotics prescription
• An act of a third party - R v Rafferty (2007): the final act of drowning the victim was new
• Victim's own act - R v Roberts (1992): the defendant was liable for the girl's injuries as she
was trying to escape from sexual advances
Question: Who are exempted from criminal prosecution?
Answer: • Children <10
• Insane people -> will be detained in a hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983
• Involuntary acts (e.g. R v Mitchell 1983, the act of punching was involuntary)
• Absence of the required mental state
• Self-defence
• Duress
Question: What are the two types of intention?
Answer: • Direct - defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence (e.g. R v Mohan
1975 - direct intention to scare/injure the police officer)
• Oblique/indirect - the consequences were not virtually certain (e.g. R v Woollin 1998 -
the defendant lost his temper and threw his 3-month-old son towards his pram which was against the wall just
over a metre away, the baby died. The court ruled that the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the
defendant must realise this)
Question: What is recklessness? Case example.
Answer: 1) Where the defendant realised the risk, but decided to take it
2) R v Cunningham (1957) - defendant was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of
gas escaping into the adjacent house
Question: What is the concept of strict liability? Case example.
Answer: 1) It is required to prove the actus reus only
2) Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. (the pharmacist was convicted
of supplying drugs without a genuine prescription)
Question: Can the defendant be convicted if they are totally blameless? Case example.
Answer: 1) Yes
2) Callow v Tillstone (1900): the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for
sale (the vet examined differently)
, Question: What is due diligence? Case example.
Answer: 1) The defendant has done all that was within their power not to commit an offence
2) Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) - convicted of selling liquor to drunk person
Question: What is transferred malice? Give 2 case examples.
Answer: 1) R v Latimer (1886): hit the other woman, transferred malice
2) R v Pembliton (1874): different mens rea for the two offences (fighting and breaking the
window)
Question: What was the Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)? R v Church (1965)?
Answer: 1) Once Fagan knew the car was on the police officer's foot, he had the required mens
rea
2) Manslaughter (threw the victim into the river, presuming she was dead)
Question: What are the 4 elements of murder? Explain them. Who and when first introduced them? What
offence is it?
Answer: 1) • The defendant killed - act/omission was the cause of the death. E.g. R v Gibbins and
Proctor (1918)
• A reasonable creature in being - a person must be killed
• Under the King's Peace - killing an enemy in the course of war is not murder
• The killing was unlawful - no defence (self-defence, defence of another, prevention of
crime)
2) Lord Coke, 17th century
3) Common law offence
Question: Killing a foetus? Brain-dead person?
Answer: 1) • Not a murder
• Attorney-General's reference (1997): if foetus is injured and the child is born alive but
dies afterwards as a result of the injuries, this can be the actus reus for murder/manslaughter
2) Doctors are allowed to switch off life-support machines without being liable for
murder or manslaughter
Question: What is the difference between express malice aforethought and implied malice aforethought? Give
case example.
Answer: 1) • Express malice aforethought - the intention to kill
• Implied malice aforethought - the intention to cause grievous bodily harm
2) R v Vickers (1957): murder. where a defendant intends to inflict grievous bodily harm
and the victim dies = implied malice aforethought
Question: Contemporaneity rule? Cases?
Answer: • Both the actus reus and the mens rea must be present at the same time
• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Comissioner (1968) - mens rea started before the actus
reus occured
Question: What is voluntary manslaughter?
Answer: The defendant satisfies the actus reus and mens rea of murder, however, the defendant suffers from:
• the loss of control (s 54 of the Coroners Justice Act 2009)
• diminished responsibility - s 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, s 52 of the Coroners Justice Act
2009
