Question 1

Which of the following is the most suitable description of indirect intent?&#10;A) Where D does not desire the consequences but they are virtually certain to occur and the defendant appreciates this&#10;B) Where D does not desire the consequences but they are highly probable to occur and the defendant appreciates this&#10;C) Where D does not desire the consequences but foresees them as possible to occur&#10;D) D's aim or purpose

Accepted Answer

Indirect intent, also known as oblique intent, occurs when the defendant does not desire the consequences but knows they are virtually certain to occur as a result of their actions.

Question 2

Which of the following currently a leading authority on indirect intent?&#10;A) Hyam v DPP&#10;B) Moloney&#10;C) Hancock and Shankland&#10;D) Woollin

Accepted Answer

The case of Woollin is currently a leading authority on indirect intent, as it clarified the test for finding indirect intent in criminal law.

Question 3

Carl plants a bomb in a public library in order to protest about redundancies. He alerts the library manager about the bomb 15 minutes before it explodes. Carl knows that there is a chance that somebody working in the basement might not be evacuated in time, but he thinks that this is unlikely. Which of the following terms best represents Carl's mens rea in respect of harming any person?

A) Indirect intent
B) Subjectively reckless
C) Direct intent
D) Objectively reckless

B

Accepted Answer

Carl's mens rea is subjectively reckless because he is aware of the risk that someone might not be evacuated in time and consciously disregards that risk.

Question 4

Which of the following is currently the leading authority on recklessness?&#10;A) R v G and Another&#10;B) Caldwell&#10;C) Woollin&#10;D) Elliott v C

Accepted Answer

R v G and Another is the leading authority on recklessness, as it overruled the previous test established in Caldwell, focusing on the defendant's actual awareness of risk.

Question 5

Which of the following statements is a FALSE representation of the mens rea of murder?&#10;A) D's aim or purpose it to kill&#10;B) Death is virtually certain to occur and D appreciates this&#10;C) GBH is highly probably to occur and D appreciates this&#10;D) D's aim or purpose is to cause GBH

Accepted Answer

Mens rea for murder requires intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Statement C is false because it suggests a lower threshold of "highly probable" rather than intent or virtual certainty.

Question 6

Which of the following statements about negligence is FALSE?&#10;A) Negligence is failing to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen&#10;B) Negligence is foreseeing a risk, but taking inadequate steps to avoid the risk, thus falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonable person&#10;C) Negligence is foreseeing a risk, but failing to take steps to avoid the risk, thus falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonable person&#10;D) Negligence is subjectively assessed.

Accepted Answer

Negligence is assessed objectively, based on what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances, not subjectively based on the individual's personal perspective.

Question 7

In which of the following authorities was the doctrine of transferred malice successfully relied upon?&#10;A) Pembliton&#10;B) Latimer&#10;C) Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994)&#10;D) Thabo Meli

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of transferred malice was successfully applied in Latimer, where the defendant's intent to harm one person was transferred when he accidentally harmed another person.

Question 8

Jack throws a stone towards a dense crowd of people intending to strike Ted but aware that he might strike another person. Unfortunately, the stone strikes Habib. Which of the following statements is not a valid reason for convicting Jack of battery in respect of Habib?

A) Because Jack failed to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen
B) Because the actus reus and mens rea coincide
C) Due to the application of the doctrine of transferred malice
D) Because Jack is reckless as to whether he inflicts force on Habib

Accepted Answer

Jack did foresee the risk of hitting someone other than Ted, so it is not valid to say he failed to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen.

Deck 3: Mens REA