FREE! Click here to Join FunTrivia. Thousands of games, quizzes, and lots more!

English Criminal Law Trivia Quiz

It is a principle of English law that "Ignorance of the law is no defence". How well do you know the laws by which you are governed? This quiz is the law as at the year 2002, but beware, because the law is constantly changing.

A multiple-choice quiz by rialto88. Estimated time: 6 mins.

Author
rialto88

Time
6 mins

Type
Multiple Choice

Quiz #
129,667

Updated
Dec 03 21

# Qns
10

Difficulty
Difficult

Avg Score
5 / 10

Plays
1193

One at a Time - Single Page - Timed Game

Question 1 of 10

1. Is it possible to commit an act of criminal assault by using words alone?

Yes

NEXT>

Question 2 of 10

2. In English law are there offences of 'strict liability' ('absolute offences') where the defendant need not know that he has committed an offence at the time of the offence, and has therefore no guilty mind at all in relation to the offence? Hint

rarely

not at all

often

only in some crimes against the police themselves

NEXT>

Question 3 of 10

3. There is a defence of "automatism" in English law. Which of the following would best describe the basis of an attempt to raise this defence? Hint

An impulsive response

Provocation

Self defence

A defendant unable to control his acts, whilst not being legally insane

NEXT>

Question 4 of 10

4. English common law defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought. The death must occur within a year and a day of the defendant's actions."
Is this definition correct?

Yes

NEXT>

Question 5 of 10

5. Which of the following best describes the state of mind of a person found guilty of murder? Hint

Intention to murder, or reckless whether the victim would die

Intention to murder, or negligent that the victim would die

Intention to murder, or grossly negligent concerning the victim's death

Intention to murder, or virtually certain that the victim would die

NEXT>

Question 6 of 10

6. Where is the concept of theft and similar offences described in our law? Hint

In common law

In the Theft Acts 1972 and 1975

In the Protection of Property Act 1835

In the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978

NEXT>

Question 7 of 10

7. Theft is defined as "a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another". Is this the correct definition?

Yes

NEXT>

Question 8 of 10

8. I eat a meal in a restaurant and then walk out without paying. Under what law will the police charge me? Hint

Theft Act,1968

Restaurant and Servces Act,, 1975

Common Law

Theft Act,1978

NEXT>

Question 9 of 10

9. Which Act is used to stop one person "hacking" into information held on another person's computer? Hint

Hackers' Act,, 2000

Computer Misuse Act,1990

Hackers' Act, 1977

Computer Misuse Act, 2000

NEXT>

Question 10 of 10

10. A state of mind of "recklessness" is often used to prove many crimes in English law. Is this test of the defendant's mind: Hint

objective?

"objective" or "subjective" depending on the crime charged?

subjective?

it is up to the jury ( or magistrate(s))to decide whether to impose an "objective" or "subjective" test?

(Optional) Create a Free FunTrivia ID to save the points you are about to earn:

Select a User ID:

Choose a Password:

Your Email:

Quiz Answer Key and Fun Facts

1. Is it possible to commit an act of criminal assault by using words alone?

Answer: Yes

Assault in criminal law may comprise actions, or words and actions, or just words alone. In fact, the House of Lords decided in two cases (Ireland, Burstow (1997)) that silent telephone calls, that is where no words were spoken, may result in a conviction for assault.

Answer: rarely

Rarely is a crime possible where the defendant has no "mens rea" (Latin for "guilty mind") in respect of at least part of the "actus reus" (the Latin for the "acts" that create the offence). However there are some such offences and in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) a person was convicted of being found drunk on the highway.

He had been taken there against his will by the police who had found him drunk in a hospital! The case was an appeal decision, but the law is constantly changing and an enlightened House of Lords might reach a different conclusion in the future. Better examples of purely 'strict liability' cases would involve some areas of the law relating to the sales of food, or cases relating to pollution.

Another example would be driving without insurance while genuinely believing that one is insured.

3. There is a defence of "automatism" in English law. Which of the following would best describe the basis of an attempt to raise this defence?

Answer: A defendant unable to control his acts, whilst not being legally insane

Answer: No

The use of "malice aforethought" in the definition is not now appropriate. Also, the "year and a day rule" was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and Day Rule) Act, 1996. However, special permission is needed to prosecute if 3 years have elapsed, or another offence (relating to the incident) has led to a conviction of the accused.

5. Which of the following best describes the state of mind of a person found guilty of murder?

Answer: Intention to murder, or virtually certain that the victim would die

There must be direct, or oblique intent to kill the victim. The concept of "being virtually certain" comes from Lord Lane CJ in Nedrick (1986) and supplemented by the House of Lords in Woollin (1998). There must be an intent or an oblique intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm and the test of intention is subjective.

6. Where is the concept of theft and similar offences described in our law?

Answer: In the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978

The 1978 Act adds offences relating mainly to deception. The 1835 Act doesn't exist.

7. Theft is defined as "a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another". Is this the correct definition?

Answer: No

You need to add to this definition "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Please see the case of Marshall, Coombes and Eren (1998) relating to the resale of underground train tickets and see also the wording of Section 1(1) of the Theft Act, 1968.

The defendants in the aforementioned case were guilty of theft under the Act by selling the tickets regardless of the rights of the owner (the transport providers).

8. I eat a meal in a restaurant and then walk out without paying. Under what law will the police charge me?

Answer: Theft Act,1978

Although no deception need be involved the Theft Act, 1978 (Section 3(1)) creates an offence of "Making off without payment"

9. Which Act is used to stop one person "hacking" into information held on another person's computer?

Answer: Computer Misuse Act,1990

Just a specific intent is required (at the time of using the hacker's computer) and there is no need to show damage, access or that any information was obtained, in order to gain a conviction.

10. A state of mind of "recklessness" is often used to prove many crimes in English law. Is this test of the defendant's mind:

Answer: "objective" or "subjective" depending on the crime charged?

The "subjective" test comes from the case of Cunningham (1957) and the "objective" test comes from the case of Caldwell (1981). The "subjective" test seems to apply where the word "maliciously" is referred to in the Act of Parliament. The "objective" test seems to be used in other cases where the Act just refers to "reckless" intent and also this test applies to offences of criminal damage.
If you have managed to survive this quiz, then why not try my other quiz on the law of defamation. Good luck.

Source: Author rialto88

This quiz was reviewed by FunTrivia editor bloomsby before going online.
Any errors found in FunTrivia content are routinely corrected through our feedback system.