Loadingwiki693

Criminal Law Questions and Answers - FindLaw Any crime that is a violation of a federal criminal law passed by Congress is by definition a federal crime. This could include the murder of law enforcement You are not required by law to answer any potentially incriminating questions. This introductory prep test gives you practice on the types of questions contained in the Multistate Bar Exam with respect to Criminal Law and Procedure. It is the usual multiple-choice format with four possible answers. You are to choose the best answer of the four. Unlike the official MBE, our prep test is not timed so that you may learn the material and not push yourself in such a way that. ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX.

Huxley-Binns: Criminal Law Concentrate 4e

The Beddingham University held an annual debating competition open to all final year students. The final of the competition last year was between Dakota, a law student, and Eden, a politics student.
There was a limited range of literature available in the University library on the subject-matter of the debate, all of which went missing within hours of the debate question being released.
Eden went to the organiser of the competition, Filip, and complained about the loss of the material. Filip approached Dakota about the loss. Dakota did not respond in any way at all.
Two days later, the debate was held and Dakota won. Dakota received a prize of ?3,000 in cash.
Later that day, Dakota was caught by University security staff replacing the material relating to the debate in the library. When asked, Dakota later admitted he had taken it from the library on the day the question was released, but he had always intended to replace it once he had won, and that most of it was available on the Internet anyway.
Consider Dakota?s criminal liability, if any, for the theft of the material under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and for fraud under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Sample answer
Theft
Theft is an offence contrary to s. 1 Theft Act 1968. The actus reus consists of 3 elements; appropriation, property and belonging to another. It is an appropriation to assume a single right of the owner (Morris) i.e. to take library books, despite the consent of the library (Gomez, Hinks), and certainly where there is an unauthorised taking such as on these facts. The material is of course property under s. 4 and it clearly belongs to another under s. 5.
There are two elements to the mens rea of theft. Section 2 applies where:
(1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person, or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it, or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
This might apply if D thought he had the right in law to take the material, but that is highly unlikely. He certainly could not say he thought he had consent (presuming he had not checked the material out in the normal way, but if he had, Filip would not have needed to ask him if he had it) or thought the owner could not be found taking reasonable steps.
So to reach a conclusion we have to use the Ghosh test. The test has two elements:

• Was D dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

• Did D realise that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest?

So the question for the jury is whether D knew others would view his conduct as dishonest according to the standards other think?
If a person takes property but intends to return it, there may be no intention permanently to deprive. Section 6 of the Theft Act 1968 provides:
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Because the material still had its goodness, Lloyd would say there is no intention. On the other hand, in Fernandes the risk of loss was enough to show D intended to treat the thing as his own to dispose of.
Fraud
Fraud is an offence contrary to s. 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, but only if D has breached s. 2, 3 or 4 but none of the sections apply on these facts because D has not made a false representation, D was not under a legal duty to disclose he had the material and D is not in a position to safeguard the financial interests of E.
Feedback
The answer shows sound knowledge of theft under s. 1 Theft Act 1968 but very sparse detail is given on the Fraud Act 2006. There are examination technique issues too:

• This answer was given in an exam where students could use statute books. The student has reproduced section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 in full, which is not the best use of exam time when the key words have been considered in the paragraph beneath it where s. 2 has been concluded as inapplicable. The student has also reproduced the whole of s. 6 instead of a few of the key words from it (such as ?to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights?) and this is a tremendous waste of time. Credit cannot be given for copying from material the examiner knows you have.

• There is some very good application of the actus reus elements to the facts of the question (this is quite straightforward, but was done well) but the major issues on the facts are the two mens rea elements. These are recited from the Act (see above for comments on that) and although the Ghosh test is provided, it is not applied. Two of the s. 6 cases are mentioned, but again they are not applied. Credit has been lost by this omission.

• What can we surmise about the lack of detail on the Fraud Act 2006? The first possibility is the student simply ran out of time (and reciting ss. 2 and 6 will have wasted some of that). The second is that the student has a weaker grasp of the law governing fraud than theft . Either way, there is a possibility of a conviction under the Fraud Act 2006, so the conclusion is ill-informed. First; if a false representation may be made by silence (the Act is itself silent on that matter), section 2 may be satisfied if D is also Ghosh dishonest and his conduct was done with a view to gain (the prize money?). Secondly, s. 4 covers any defendant who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person (this could be Eden?s interests), and where he dishonestly abuses that position, and intends, by means of the abuse of that position, to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. Although the Act does not specify whether D would be viewed as being ?a position in which he is expected to safeguard? another?s interests. This sounds like it could apply to a person in a fiduciary relationship with another, or perhaps contractual, but if D is, and has ?abused? the position by taking the material, he might have committed a fraud.

Exam technique advice

Here's a great technique for answering those tough criminal law scenario questions for non-fatal offences.

Answering a scenario question in criminal law is a lot like telling a good joke: if you take too long to get to the end, no one will understand what you were trying to say - rush it and the joke won’t be funny.

- Knock, knock
- Who’s there?
- Canoe
- Canoe who?
- Canoe help me with my law work?

If that joke had gone straight from knock knock to asking for help with law work, it wouldn’t make sense and it wouldn't be funny.

You need to have the right lead-up before you can get to the punch line to get the full impact.

It’s the same with criminal scenarios - you can’t rush straight to the application before you’ve explained how you came to that conclusion.

Actus reus and mens rea

A key principle in criminal law is that a crime consists of a physical and mental element - “actus reus and mens rea”

• Actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element
• Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element

State - Explain - Apply (SEA)

In a criminal scenario you need to remember to:

1. State your actus reus
2. Explain your actus reus with a case
3. Apply your actus reus

You would then repeat these 3 steps for the mens rea before concluding whether or not your defendant is liable.

A simple scenario

Let's apply the principle of actus reus and mens rea using SEA to a really simple scenario:

1. Andy hides behind a door and waits for Bilal
2. When Andy sees Bilal, he jumps out and shouts “I’m going to get you”
3. Bilal runs away screaming

Actus reus

First, work out which is the relevant non-fatal offence and then state your actus reus

• There may have been an assault - the actus reus of assault is causing your victim to apprehend (fear) immediate unlawful physical force

Move on to explain your actus reus with a case

• Remember you’re not telling the story of the case, you’re focusing on the legal reasoning and using the case to illustrate the point you’ve just made
• The case of R v Ireland [1997] where the defendant made a series of silent phone calls illustrates that an assault can be committed without any words at all

Now you’ve set your scene you can apply your actus reus

• In our simple scenario, Andy has the actus reus because his action of jumping out and shouting caused Bilal to fear immediate unlawful force - we know this is the case because Bilal ran away screaming

Mens rea

State the mens rea of the offence

• The mens rea of assault is intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force

Explain the mens rea of the offence with a case

• The mens rea can be seen in R v Spratt [1990] which confirmed that recklessness is sufficient for the offence of assault and the defendant would at least be aware of the risk of causing another to apprehend harm

Apply the mens rea - state which level of mens rea the defendant appears to have.

• In our scenario it would appear that Andy had direct intent as seen in R v Mohan [1976] because it was his aim or purpose to scare Bilal
• We can see this in both his action (he hid behind the door) and his words “I’m going to get you”. Andy’s desire was to frighten Bilal and he clearly achieved this wish

Conclude

Finally, you need to come up with an overall conclusion - is your defendant liable or not?

Don’t forget this - you must include the conclusion! Otherwise, you’re not really answering the question.

And remember that you cannot say whether someone is guilty or not guilty - that is the job of the jury.

In our scenario you can say Andy is potentially liable for an assault on Bilal.

The best part about this technique is that once you’ve figured out your SEA, you can use exactly the same technique for non-scenario, non-fatal offence.

- Knock, knock.
- Who’s there?
- Luke.
- Luke who?
- Luke how easy those scenarios are when you’ve got a plan to follow!

Want more?

Follow us on Twitter@tutor2uLaw

Criminal Law Interview Questions And Answers

Still want more?

Subscribe to our daily digest to get fresh content delivered to your inbox each morning

Sarah Harwood

Sarah is the subject coordinator for law at an independent sixth form college in Birmingham. Before going into teaching she was a paralegal working in both immigration and criminal defence law.

• Sentencing Green Paper

  8th December 2010

• Key Statutes Regarding Article 8: The Right To Privacy

  5th March 2019

• Principles of Tort Law - A Level Law Classroom Posters

  • SKU: 07-4135-30076-03

  • Printed Edition

  • School network license

  • £12.50(+VAT)

  Principles of Tort Law - A Level Law Classroom Posters

  Principles of Tort Law - A Level Law Classroom Posters

  • SKU: 07-4135-30076-03

  • Printed Edition

  • £12.50(+VAT)

• The Offences Against the Person - A Level Law Classroom Poster Set

  • SKU: 07-4135-30080-03

  • Printed Edition

  • School network license

  • £12.50(+VAT)

  The Offences Against the Person - A Level Law Classroom Poster Set

  The Offences Against the Person - A Level Law Classroom Poster Set

  • SKU: 07-4135-30080-03

  • Printed Edition

  • £12.50(+VAT)

Advertise your vacancies with tutor2u

Much cheaper & more effective than TES or the Guardian. Reach the audience you really want to apply for your teaching vacancy by posting directly to our website and related social media audiences.

Criminal Law Test Questions

Advertise your teaching jobs with tutor2u