AQA A-Level Law 3.2 Criminal law overview quiz quiz

Whether the defendant's act was a substantial and operating cause of the prohibited end result

Whether the harm that actually occurred was reasonably foreseeable to a sensible bystander

The 'but for' test, asking whether the result would have occurred but for the defendant's act

Whether the defendant actually intended the result that in the end came about

R v Cunningham

R v G

R v Mowatt

R v Woollin

Only where the defendant was under a duty to act

Whenever someone is harmed nearby

Never, as criminal law only punishes positive acts

Only in homicide cases

Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm

Only the mens rea of the underlying assault or battery

Intention to cause grievous bodily harm

Negligence as to causing harm

Section 18 requires the victim to suffer an actual wound that breaks the skin, whereas section 20 can be committed without any wound being caused to the victim at all

Section 18 applies only where the victim suffers a recognised psychiatric injury, while section 20 is restricted to cases involving purely physical harm to the body

Section 18 requires specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm, while section 20 needs only intention or recklessness as to some harm

Section 20 is the more serious of the two offences and carries the heavier maximum sentence of life imprisonment on conviction

Deliberate premeditation and careful planning of the killing over a period of time

Recklessness as to whether the defendant's conduct would cause the death of the victim

Gross negligence by the defendant that falls far below the standard expected and causes death

Intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm

Diminished responsibility

Loss of control following a qualifying trigger

Automatism caused by an external factor

Insanity under the M'Naghten rules

The two-stage subjective and objective test laid down in the old case of R v Ghosh

The objective test in Ivey v Genting Casinos

The reasonable person test set out in Caparo Industries v Dickman

The Woolmington presumption that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution

The use of a weapon by the defendant to carry out and complete the taking of property

Entry into a building or part of a building as a trespasser before any property is taken

The use or threat of force on any person in order to steal

An intention by the defendant to deprive the owner of the property permanently

All criminal offences, whether of basic or specific intent, without any restriction

Basic intent offences only, because getting drunk is not itself a reckless course of conduct

No criminal offences at all, since voluntary intoxication can never excuse a defendant

Specific intent offences, where it negates the mens rea