Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Past Paper MCQ - MCQ questions for criminal law

MCQ questions for criminal law
Course

Criminal law (LAWS 2014)

941 Documents
Students shared 941 documents in this course
Academic year: 2022/2023
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Recommended for you

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Related Studylists

Criminal law

Preview text

Question 1 X is constantly plagued by thoughts of committing crimes. He keeps a journal in which he writes down his criminal desires. Can X be held criminally liable for this conduct? a) Yes. Any slight manifestation of conduct including the utterance of words is sufficient to hold X liable. b) No. Mere thoughts are not punishable until they translate into action. There is no legally relevant conduct for the purposes of criminal liability in this example. c) Yes. The actus reus has been met by X writing down his thoughts and mens rea exists because X foresees the possibility that he could hurt someone. d) Yes. Criminal law is primarily concerned with the prevention of crime. e) No. Criminal law is not concerned with trivialities.

Question 2 On 12 January 2006, X anally penetrated a 7-year-old girl. At the time, South African law confined the definition of rape to the vaginal penetration of a female by a male. When X appears before court in respect of the charge of indecent assault because it could not be rape, the presiding officer is of the view that the definition of rape is unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes anal penetration. Can X be convicted of rape? Which one is correct? (1) As a consequence of the finding of constitutional invalidity, X can be convicted of rape. (2) Despite the finding of constitutional invalidity, X cannot be convicted of rape. (3) The new definition of rape is only applicable to someone who commits the offence after the declaration of constitutional invalidity. (4) Even after the declaration of constitutional invalidity, X can only be convicted of indecent assault.

a) All the statements are correct. b) Only statements (2), (3) and (4) are correct. c) Only statements (1), (2) and (4) is correct. d) Only statement (3) is correct. e) All the statements are incorrect

Question 3 Circumstance or “formally defined” crimes are crimes in which: a) The consequence is criminalised and not the act. b) Causation is not required because it is the conduct that is prohibited and not the consequence. c) Negligence in the form of fault is required. d) Mens Rea is always required. e) All the elements of a crime are required to be proven including causation and fault.

Question 4 An anonymous sender emails X several images of child pornography to his work email address. X intends to inform the police later that day, however, X gets caught up in his work and forgets about the images. The following day, the images are discovered by one of X’s co-workers who borrows his computer. The co-worker alerts the police and X is arrested. Will X be convicted? a) Yes. X is liable irrespective of his intention because circumstance crimes do not require mens rea. b) Yes. Possession is a circumstance crime and X will be liable because he failed to discontinue the unlawful state of affairs within a reasonable time after he became aware of it. c) No. While there is conduct on X’s part, his intention to alert the police about the matter absolves him of liability as it evidences that he did not intend to continue the state of affairs. d) No. X did not create the state of affairs and thus there is no legally relevant conduct. e) Yes. Possession of child pornography is a consequence crime and X will be liable because he failed to discontinue the unlawful state of affairs after he became aware of it.

Question 5 the test for determining whether a legal duty to act exists is predicated on: (1) The legal convictions of the community. (2) The legal convictions of the community as informed by the values in the Constitution. (3) Whether a person has raised a ground of justification. (4) Whether the person was in a protective relationship in respect of someone requiring protection.

a) None of the statements are incorrect. b) Only statement (1) is incorrect. c) Only statement (4) is incorrect. d) Only statement (3) is incorrect. e) Only statement (2) is incorrect.

Question 6 A special protective relationship is predicated on: (1) An actual relationship between the accused and the victim. (2) A relationship of dependency between the accused and the victim. (3) A situation where proximity means that the accused is the only one who is able to help the victim. (4) The rights contained in the Constitution.

a) Only statement (1) is correct. b) All statements are correct. c) All statements are incorrect.

b) Encapsulate the prevailing boni mores of society as informed by legal policy. c) Were first espoused in the majority decision of Silva’s Fishing Corporation v Maweza 1957 (2) SA 256 (A). d) Are distinct from the enquiry related to what a reasonable man would require in the situation. e) Are informed by the Constitution.

Question 10 A was assaulted at the police station by an on-duty police officer B. C who just ended his shift and is off-duty witnessed the assault but did nothing to help. On a charge of assault, is C liable? a) No. The law regards us as autonomous individuals who do not need to risk harm to ourselves in order to assist anyone else. Here, the risk of harm was danger from criminals walking on the street alone and the legal convictions of the community would not require one to risk such danger. b) Yes. C must act to help B because he is able to subject his bodily movements to his conscious will. c) Yes. C’s proximity to the assault, the fact that he was the only one in a position to help and the fact that he could do so with no risk to himself as he works at the police station all point to the fact that the legal convictions of the community would have required C to act to stop the assault. d) No. C’s prior conduct did not create any potentially dangerous situation. e) No. The legal convictions of the community would only require an on-duty police officer to assist.

Question 11 Antecedent liability or the principle of actio in libera causa means: a) That the accused could not subject his bodily movements to his own conscious will. b) That there was a time immediately before the state of automatism where prior conduct and blameworthiness coincided c) That the accused appreciated the difference between right and wrong but was not able to act in accordance with that appreciation. d) That there was a time immediately prior to the state of automatism where the accused acted involuntarily. e) That the accused was negligent and thus blameworthy.

Question 12 A suffers from epileptic fits that he knows to be triggered by the consumption of alcohol. On the day in question, A has a couple of drinks at a work function. A work colleague offers to drive A home but A is adamant that he is fine to drive. Whilst on his way home, A suffers from an epileptic fit, loses control of his vehicle and crashes into a vehicle driven by B. B dies. On a charge of culpable homicide, A is: a) Not guilty because A did not have any warning signs of the attack. b) Guilty due to the fact that intoxication can never be a defense to a crime. If an accused drinks alcohol voluntarily, he is prevented from ever relying on his intoxication as a defense to any element of the crime by virtue of section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1 of 1988. c) Guilty by operation of antecedent liability because his prior conduct of drinking created a potentially dangerous situation which he was under a legal duty to prevent.

d) Not guilty because A was not able to subject his own bodily movements to his conscious will at the time that he crashed into B. e) Guilty by operation of antecedent liability. Even though he was involuntary at the time that he crashed into B, the cause of the involuntariness was within his control because he knew that the consumption of alcohol triggered his epileptic attacks, further, proceeding to drive was negligent.

Question 13 Regarding the onus and burden of proof relating to automatism, the following is true: a) The State retains the onus of proof in respect of the element of conduct and for that reason, must disprove a state of automatism by establishing antecedent liability. b) None of the available answers are correct. c) The State retains an evidentiary burden to prove a state of automatism. d) According to the case of S v Trickett 1973 (3) SA 526 (T), the evidentiary burden of proving conduct lies with the accused. e) The accused can use antecedent liability as a mechanism to disprove the element of voluntariness.

Question 14 D plans to steal a car to pay off his brother's student loan. D has never stolen a car before and is feeling anxious. D heads to a bottle store to buy some brandy to calm his nerves and give him the courage to carry out his plan. While slightly intoxicated, D steals a car. D’s liability can be explained as follows: a) D will not be liable as he was acting in a state of sane automatism brought on by intoxication which will negate the conduct element of the crime. b) D will be liable because intoxication can never serve as a complete defence to a crime. c) D will be liable as despite his involuntariness, the State will be able to use antecedent liability (actio in libera causa) to prove legally relevant conduct. d) D will be liable because whilst slight intoxication can serve to negate fault, D’s intoxication did not prevent him from foreseeing the unlawfulness of his conduct. e) D will not be liable as his conduct is not considered unlawful due to the fact that he intended to help his brother.

Question 15 Ignoring any amendments in legislation, in theory, intoxication could negate voluntariness in the following circumstances: (1) When the intoxication renders the accused “dead drunk” (2) When the intoxication affects both the actus reus and the mens rea. (3) When the intoxication prevents the accused from subjecting his bodily movements to his conscious will. (4) When the intoxication causes the accused to not have specific intent. (5) When the intoxication prevents the accused from formulating intent.

a) Only statements (1), (2) and (3) are correct. b) Only statement (3) is correct. c) Only statement (4) is correct. d) Only statement (2) is correct. e) Only statement (1) is correct.

Question 19

X is Z’s wife. Z suffers from depression and often threatens to kill himself when upset. One morning when Z is particularly grumpy, the two of them have an altercation during which Z tells X he would kill himself on the spot if he had a gun. X produces a gun which she gives to Z who immediately shoots himself dead. What is X’s criminal liability? a) All the answers which state that X can be held criminally liable are correct. b) X can be held criminally liable for causing Z’s death because it is a criminal offence to hand someone a gun. c) X cannot be held criminally liable for causing Z’s death as Z shot himself and Z's conduct is unexpected, independent of X's conduct and also the factual cause of death. d) X can be held criminally liable for causing Z’s death on the basis of antecedent liability. e) X can be held criminally liable for causing Z’s death because she foresaw the possibility of Z killing himself and thus the suicide was not unusual or abnormal and cannot constitute a nova causa interveniens.

Question 20 As a practical joke and as a part of University initiation, A locks B in a locker for the evening. Unbeknown to A, B is an asthmatic and is afraid of confined spaces. Due to his fear, B hyperventilates, has an asthma attack and is found dead in the morning. A is charged with culpable homicide but argues that B’s asthma was really the cause of his death. A will be found: a) Both the answers which state that A is not guilty are correct. b) Guilty by operation of antecedent liability because A satisfied both prior conduct and blameworthiness. c) Not guilty because A did not intend to kill B. d) Guilty by operation of the thin-skull rule because pre-existing conditions and susceptibilities cannot be said to be sufficiently abnormal and intervening. e) Not guilty because a reasonable person would not have hyperventilated in the locker.

Was this document helpful?

Past Paper MCQ - MCQ questions for criminal law

Course: Criminal law (LAWS 2014)

941 Documents
Students shared 941 documents in this course

University: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Was this document helpful?
Question 1
X is constantly plagued by thoughts of committing crimes. He keeps a journal in which he writes down his
criminal desires. Can X be held criminally liable for this conduct?
a) Yes. Any slight manifestation of conduct including the utterance of words is sufficient to hold X liable.
b) No. Mere thoughts are not punishable until they translate into action. There is no legally relevant conduct
for the purposes of criminal liability in this example.
c) Yes. The actus reus has been met by X writing down his thoughts and mens rea exists because X foresees the
possibility that he could hurt someone.
d) Yes. Criminal law is primarily concerned with the prevention of crime.
e) No. Criminal law is not concerned with trivialities.
Question 2
On 12 January 2006, X anally penetrated a 7-year-old girl. At the time, South African law confined the
definition of rape to the vaginal penetration of a female by a male. When X appears before court in respect of
the charge of indecent assault because it could not be rape, the presiding officer is of the view that the
definition of rape is unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes anal penetration. Can X be convicted of
rape?
Which one is correct?
(1) As a consequence of the finding of constitutional invalidity, X can be convicted of rape.
(2) Despite the finding of constitutional invalidity, X cannot be convicted of rape.
(3) The new definition of rape is only applicable to someone who commits the offence after the declaration of
constitutional invalidity.
(4) Even after the declaration of constitutional invalidity, X can only be convicted of indecent assault.
a) All the statements are correct.
b) Only statements (2), (3) and (4) are correct.
c) Only statements (1), (2) and (4) is correct.
d) Only statement (3) is correct.
e) All the statements are incorrect
Question 3
Circumstance or “formally defined” crimes are crimes in which:
a) The consequence is criminalised and not the act.
b) Causation is not required because it is the conduct that is prohibited and not the consequence.
c) Negligence in the form of fault is required.
d) Mens Rea is always required.
e) All the elements of a crime are required to be proven including causation and fault.

Students also viewed

Related documents