CILEx L3 Criminal Law — Questions and Answers
Question 1: What are the two elements that must generally be proved to establish criminal liability?
- Motive and opportunity
- Actus reus and mens rea (Correct answer)
- Causation and intention
- Conduct and consequence
Correct answer: Actus reus and mens rea
Criminal liability generally requires proof of both the actus reus (the guilty act or conduct element) and the mens rea (the guilty mind or fault element). The prosecution must prove both elements beyond reasonable doubt. Some offences are exceptions — strict liability offences require only the actus reus, with no need to prove mens rea.
Question 2: What is the mens rea for murder under English law?
- Intention to cause grievous bodily harm or intention to kill (Correct answer)
- Recklessness as to whether death would occur
- Negligence causing death
- Any unlawful act causing death
Correct answer: Intention to cause grievous bodily harm or intention to kill
The mens rea for murder is 'malice aforethought', which means either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). This was confirmed in R v Vickers [1957] and R v Cunningham [1982]. Intention to cause GBH is sufficient even if the defendant did not intend to kill — this is known as constructive malice.
Question 3: Which of the following is a partial defence to murder that reduces the conviction to voluntary manslaughter?
- Self-defence
- Duress
- Diminished responsibility (Correct answer)
- Automatism
Correct answer: Diminished responsibility
Diminished responsibility, now defined in s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (amending s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957), is a partial defence to murder that reduces the conviction to voluntary manslaughter. The defendant must show an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impaired their ability to understand their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.
Question 4: What is the legal definition of theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968?
- Taking someone's property without their knowledge
- Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (Correct answer)
- Borrowing property without permission and failing to return it
- Receiving property knowing it to be stolen
Correct answer: Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Each element is further defined in ss.2-6: dishonesty (s.2), appropriation (s.3), property (s.4), belonging to another (s.5), and intention to permanently deprive (s.6).
Question 5: Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, what must the prosecution prove for a charge of attempt?
- That the defendant thought about committing the offence
- That the defendant did an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence with the intent to commit it (Correct answer)
- That the defendant made preparations to commit the offence
- That the defendant agreed with another person to commit the offence
Correct answer: That the defendant did an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence with the intent to commit it
Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 provides that a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if, with intent to commit the offence, they do an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The distinction between preparatory acts and acts that go beyond mere preparation is a question of fact for the jury (R v Gullefer [1990]).
Question 6: What is the effect of establishing the defence of self-defence in criminal law?
- The sentence is reduced
- The defendant is acquitted completely (Correct answer)
- The charge is reduced to a lesser offence
- The defendant receives a conditional discharge
Correct answer: The defendant is acquitted completely
Self-defence (including defence of another) is a complete defence under both common law and s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. If successfully established, the defendant is acquitted entirely. The defendant must show they honestly believed force was necessary and that the degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be.
CILEx L3 Criminal Law
What are the two elements that must generally be proved to establish criminal liability?