Question 1

Which of the following is NOT a valid argument against strict liability?

Accepted Answer

A)   Strict liability violates the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
B)   Strict liability can result in the punishment of a defendant who has acted reasonably
C)   A defendant convicted of a strict liability offence faces punishment through the stigma of conviction of a criminal offence
D)   Strict liability offences are difficult to prove

Question 2

Which of the following most accurately describes an offence which requires proof of actus reus elements only?

Accepted Answer

A)   Corporate liability
B)   Strict liability
C)   Vicarious liability
D)   Absolute liability

Question 3

Which of the following terms most accurately describes liability imposed upon an employer for the unlawful act of his employee during the course of his employment?

Accepted Answer

A)   Vicarious liability
B)   Absolute liability
C)   Accessorial liability
D)   Corporate liability

Question 4

Which of the following cases is NOT an authority on the presumption of mens rea?

Accepted Answer

A)   Gammon (Hong Kong)  Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1985) 
B)   Sweet v Parsley (1970) 
C)   B (a minor)  v DPP (2000) 
D)   Allen v Whitehead (1930)

Question 5

Which of the following is NOT a factor required in order to displace the presumption of mens rea?

Accepted Answer

A)   A truly criminal offence
B)   Clear words in the statute
C)   Statute involves issues of social concern
D)   Liability would encourage greater vigilance A

Question 6

Which type of liability applies to offences which provide for a defence of due diligence?

Accepted Answer

A)   Accessorial liability
B)   Strict liability
C)   Corporate liability
D)   Vicarious liability B

Question 7

Which of the following cases is an authority demonstrating application of the identification doctrine?

Accepted Answer

A)   Larsonneur
B)   Gammon (Hong Kong)  Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong
C)   Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass
D)   Sweet v Parsley C

Question 8

Which of the following statements about the conviction in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)  is FALSE?

Accepted Answer

A)   It was not necessary to adduce any evidence as to the state of mind of the defendant
B)   Involuntariness was no defence
C)   How the defendant came to be on the highway was highly relevant
D)   The defendant's conviction was justified by the need to deal with the nuisance of drunken behaviour in public places

Exam 4: Strict, Vicarious, and Corporate Liability

Which of the following is NOT a valid argument against strict liability?

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following most accurately describes an offence which requires proof of actus reus elements only?

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following terms most accurately describes liability imposed upon an employer for the unlawful act of his employee during the course of his employment?

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following cases is NOT an authority on the presumption of mens rea?

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following is NOT a factor required in order to displace the presumption of mens rea?

Correct Answer
verified
A

Which type of liability applies to offences which provide for a defence of due diligence?

Correct Answer
verified
B

Which of the following cases is an authority demonstrating application of the identification doctrine?

Correct Answer
verified
C

Which of the following statements about the conviction in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) is FALSE?

Correct Answer
verified

Exam 4: Strict, Vicarious, and Corporate Liability

Which of the following is NOT a valid argument against strict liability?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following most accurately describes an offence which requires proof of actus reus elements only?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following terms most accurately describes liability imposed upon an employer for the unlawful act of his employee during the course of his employment?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following cases is NOT an authority on the presumption of mens rea?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following is NOT a factor required in order to displace the presumption of mens rea?

Correct AnswerverifiedA

Which type of liability applies to offences which provide for a defence of due diligence?

Correct AnswerverifiedB

Which of the following cases is an authority demonstrating application of the identification doctrine?

Correct AnswerverifiedC

Which of the following statements about the conviction in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) is FALSE?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified
A

Correct Answer
verified
B

Correct Answer
verified
C

Correct Answer
verified