QUESTION 2

What is required for a person to be found guilty of a crime?

• • A) Actus reus and mens rea

• B) Actus reus only

• C) Mens rea only

• D) A confession

What phrase describes the principle that an act alone does not make one guilty unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind ?

• A) Res ipsa loquitur

• B) Acta Exteriora Indicant Interiora Secreta

• C) Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

• D) Mens Rea Facit Legem

Which of the following is an example of mens rea ?

• • A) Voluntarily striking another person

• B) Failing to pay a bill

• C) Having the intention to commit a crime

• • D) Being unable to attend a court hearing

What does the 'but for' test determine in criminal cases ?

• A) The level of negligence

• B) Factual causation of the injury or death

• C) The financial damages owed

• D) The legal justification for an act

What case demonstrates that an intervening medical error can break the chain of causation ?

• A) R v Smith

• B) Lee Kim Leng v R

• C) Thabo Meli v R

• D) R v Jordan

Which section of the Penal Code addresses a situation where a person acts under a mistake of fact, believing they are bound by law ?

• A) Section 76

• B) Section 79

• C) Section 300(a)

• D) Section 304A

What are the three elements required to establish criminal liability?

• • A) Actus reus, Mens rea, Causation

• • B) Actus reus, Omission, Motive

• • C) Motive, Mens rea, Causation

• • D) Intention, Actus reus, Defense

Which case is used to illustrate that liability can arise from failing to fulfill a duty due to a special relationship or contract?

• • A) R v Miller (1983)

• • B) R v Pittwood (1902)

• • C) Lee Sai Yan v PP (1980)

• • D) PP v Ayavoo (1966)

What does Section 76 of the Penal Code state about the defense of mistake?

• • A) A person is guilty if they act without intent.

• • B) A person is not guilty if they act in good faith due to a factual mistake, believing they are legally required to do so.

• • C) A person can claim ignorance of the law as a defense.

• • D) A person is liable for an act done under duress.

In the case of Thabo Meli v. R (1954), what legal principle was highlighted?

• • A) Causation can be broken by the victim's refusal of medical treatment.

• • B) The series of acts constituting one transaction can establish liability even if the initial act did not directly cause death.

• • C) An omission to act is always criminally liable.

• D) Mistakes of law can be a valid defense