AQA A Level Law: General Elements of Criminal Liability — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: General Elements of Liability study guide | General Elements of Liability revision notes

---

Section A

1. State what the “coincidence of actus reus and mens rea” requirement means. [2]

2. Name the four categories of actus reus recognised by the specification. [4]

Section B

3. Explain the difference between the factual and legal cause of a consequence, referring to the “but for” test. [4]

4. Distinguish between intention and subjective recklessness as forms of mens rea, and state which of the two represents the higher level of culpability. [4]

5. Explain why negligence is described as an “objective” fault element, in contrast to intention and subjective recklessness. [3]

6. A defendant intends to injure X but, missing X, instead injures Y.

(a) Name the doctrine that could make the defendant liable for the injury to Y. [1] (b) Explain how this doctrine applies to the scenario, including the condition that must be satisfied for it to succeed. [4]

7. Explain what a “strict liability” offence is, and why it is described as an exception to the general rule of criminal liability. [3]

8. A defendant fails to feed her elderly, dependent parent, who dies as a result. Explain what must be established before the defendant can be liable for an omission in this scenario. [4]

9. State four recognised sources of a duty to act in omissions liability. [4]

10. A student writes: “The defendant is guilty because he did something bad.” Explain two ways in which this statement fails to demonstrate the structure required for a full-mark criminal liability answer. [4]

---

Answers

1. It means that the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) must be present at the same time [1] — a favourite application point when the two occur at different moments [1].

2. Acts, omissions, state of affairs, and causation [1] [1] [1] [1].

3. The factual cause is established using the “but for” test — but for the defendant’s act, would the consequence have occurred? [1] [1]. The legal cause is a separate test, requiring the defendant’s conduct to be a sufficiently significant/operating cause of the consequence in law, not merely a factual link [1] [1].

4. Intention is the defendant’s aim or purpose, or foreseeing a consequence as virtually certain [1] [1]. Subjective recklessness is where the defendant personally foresaw a risk and unreasonably took it anyway [1]. Intention represents the higher level of culpability [1].

5. Negligence is judged against the standard of a reasonable person, not against the defendant’s own state of mind [1] [1] — unlike intention and subjective recklessness, which both require evidence of what the defendant themselves actually foresaw or intended, negligence asks only whether the defendant fell below an external standard [1].

6. (a) Transferred malice [1]. (b) The mens rea the defendant held towards X (intent to injure) transfers to the actual victim, Y [1], provided the harm caused to Y is the same type of harm the defendant intended for X [1]. Actus reus is satisfied because the defendant’s act caused the injury to Y [1]; the doctrine then supplies the mens rea via transfer, making the defendant liable for the offence against Y [1].

7. A strict liability offence is one that requires no proof of mens rea for at least one element of the offence [1]. It is an exception because the general rule of criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea to be proved for a defendant to be guilty [1], whereas strict liability offences can be proved through actus reus alone for that element [1].

8. It must first be established that the defendant owed a duty to act [1] — here, arising from the special relationship between parent and dependent adult child, or a voluntary assumption of responsibility for the parent’s care [1]. Only once a duty is identified can the omission (failure to act) itself satisfy actus reus [1]; mens rea and causation must then also be separately established for liability to follow [1].

9. Any four: a contractual obligation; a special relationship (e.g. parent and child); a voluntary assumption of responsibility for another person; a statutory duty [1] [1] [1] [1].

10. It fails to identify actus reus and mens rea separately [1], instead using a vague moral judgement (“something bad”) rather than the specification’s precise legal categories [1]. It also fails to show the required structure (actus reus → mens rea → any relevant doctrine → conclusion) that AQA mark schemes reward [1], and gives no legal reasoning connecting the facts to a named rule, such as a specific fault element or doctrine [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing actus reus and mens rea in vague, moral terms (“he did something wrong”) instead of the specification’s precise categories.
• Applying transferred malice without stating the condition that the harm caused must be the same type as the harm intended.
• Confusing “subjective” (about the defendant’s own state of mind) with “objective” (the reasonable-person standard used for negligence).
• In an omissions scenario, jumping straight to actus reus without first establishing that a recognised duty to act exists.
• Treating strict liability as requiring no fault at all, rather than correctly stating it removes the mens rea requirement for at least one element only.

Approaching scenario-based criminal liability questions

AQA mark schemes for criminal law scenarios consistently reward a fixed structure: identify the actus reus first (naming the specific category — act, omission, state of affairs, or causation issue), then identify the relevant fault element for mens rea, then apply any relevant doctrine (such as transferred malice or the “but for” test), and only then reach a conclusion on liability. Answers that state a conclusion first and work backwards, or that blend actus reus and mens rea together without distinguishing them, consistently lose marks even when the final conclusion reached is correct.