What's tested in SQE1 Criminal Practice?

Criminal Practice (FLK2) covers the procedure of a criminal case: advice and safeguards at the police station under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the right to silence and adverse inferences, bail, the allocation of either-way offences and the classification of offences, procedure in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court, key evidential rules (such as confessions, bad character and hearsay), sentencing, and appeals.

A woman is charged with shoplifting. She appears before the magistrates' court and the prosecution discloses CCTV footage showing the theft. The woman's solicitor immediately identifies that she has a strong alibi, supported by documentary evidence placing her 200 miles away at the time. The solicitor wishes to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence at the earliest possible opportunity. What is the correct procedure for the solicitor to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence in the magistrates' court?

Make a submission of no case to answer under the principles in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 at the close of the prosecution case at trial

Apply for pre-trial dismissal under Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is available in summary proceedings at any time before trial

Make a submission of no case to answer under the principles in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 at the close of the prosecution case at trial

Apply under CrimPR Part 8 for the charge to be withdrawn before the first hearing on the basis of insufficient evidence

Apply immediately for a stay of proceedings as an abuse of process on the ground that there is no evidential basis for the charge

Apply under s 6 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 before the trial begins, once the prosecution has served its evidence

A woman is arrested on suspicion of theft at 10:00 on Monday and is brought to the police station. The custody officer authorises her detention at 10:30. It is now 22:00 on Tuesday and the police have not charged her. They wish to continue detaining her for further questioning. No superintendent has reviewed or authorised continued detention at any point. What is the woman's current detention status?

Her detention is unlawful: the initial 24-hour period (running from 10:30 Monday when detention was authorised) expired at 10:30 Tuesday, and no superintendent has authorised an extension under s 42 PACE 1984

Her detention remains lawful: under s 41 PACE 1984 the maximum period before charge is 36 hours from the time of arrest, and that period has not yet expired

Her detention is unlawful: once the custody officer's initial authorisation expires after 6 hours, a superintendent must conduct the first review and has failed to do so

Her detention is lawful: a superintendent may still retrospectively authorise continued detention under s 42 PACE 1984 provided it is done before the 36-hour point

Her detention is unlawful: after 24 hours a magistrates' court warrant of further detention is required under s 43 PACE 1984

A man is interviewed under caution at a police station regarding an alleged assault. He has declined legal advice. During the interview, he makes no comment to all questions. At trial, he raises self-defence for the first time. The prosecution wishes to invite the court to draw an adverse inference. What is the appropriate basis for the court to draw an adverse inference?

Section 34 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant failed to mention a fact he later relied upon in his defence

Section 36 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant failed to account for his presence at the scene

Section 35 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant remained silent throughout the police interview

No adverse inference may be drawn as the defendant did not have legal advice at the interview

Section 37 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant gave no explanation for objects found on his person

A defendant appears before a magistrates' court charged with common assault contrary to s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. She indicates a not guilty plea. The legal adviser then begins to explain the allocation procedure, informing the defendant that she may elect Crown Court trial. The defendant states she wishes to elect Crown Court trial. What must the magistrates' court do?

Proceed to summary trial, because common assault is a summary-only offence and there is no right of election to the Crown Court

Send the case to the Crown Court forthwith, because the defendant has validly elected trial on indictment

Proceed to summary trial, because common assault is a summary-only offence and there is no right of election to the Crown Court

Commit the defendant to the Crown Court for trial and fix a preliminary hearing date, following her election

Warn the defendant about the potential costs consequences of electing Crown Court trial and invite her to reconsider before accepting the election

Conduct a mode of trial hearing to determine whether the Crown Court or the magistrates' court is more suitable, taking into account the defendant's indication

A man is convicted of burglary in the Crown Court. He has three previous convictions for domestic burglary, all committed as an adult. The current offence is also a domestic burglary, making it his fourth domestic burglary conviction in total. The judge is considering sentence. The defendant's counsel argues there are particular circumstances relating to the offence and the offender that would make the mandatory minimum sentence unjust. What is the mandatory minimum sentence the judge must impose unless satisfied it would be unjust to do so?

Three years' imprisonment, because this is at least the defendant's third conviction for domestic burglary and s 314 Sentencing Act 2020 applies

Five years' imprisonment, because the defendant has four domestic burglary convictions and the minimum increases with each further conviction

Two years' imprisonment, because that is the minimum custodial term for repeat property offenders under the Sentencing Act 2020

Seven years' imprisonment, because repeat domestic burglary is treated as a serious specified offence attracting an extended sentence

There is no mandatory minimum; the judge has full discretion and the Sentencing Council guideline starting point for domestic burglary is the only relevant benchmark

SQE1 · FLK2 · Free samples

Criminal Practice — free SQE1 sample questions

77 free, worked single-best-answer questions for Criminal Practice, shown in the official SRA SBAQ format with the correct answer and a cited rationale. Drill the full bank in timed practice once you’ve worked through these.

Question 1
A woman is charged with shoplifting. She appears before the magistrates' court and the prosecution discloses CCTV footage showing the theft. The woman's solicitor immediately identifies that she has a strong alibi, supported by documentary evidence placing her 200 miles away at the time. The solicitor wishes to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence at the earliest possible opportunity. What is the correct procedure for the solicitor to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence in the magistrates' court?
- A.Apply for pre-trial dismissal under Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is available in summary proceedings at any time before trial
- B.Make a submission of no case to answer under the principles in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 at the close of the prosecution case at trial✓ correct
- C.Apply under CrimPR Part 8 for the charge to be withdrawn before the first hearing on the basis of insufficient evidence
- D.Apply immediately for a stay of proceedings as an abuse of process on the ground that there is no evidential basis for the charge
- E.Apply under s 6 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 before the trial begins, once the prosecution has served its evidence
Why B is correct
**Correct answer: B** **Why B is correct:** In summary proceedings before the magistrates' court, there is **no pre-trial procedure for dismissal of charges** equivalent to that available in the Crown Court. The only procedural mechanism by which the defence can challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence is a **submission of no case to answer made at the close of the prosecution case at trial**, governed by the principles in ***R v Galbraith* [1981] 1 WLR 1039**. The magistrates must withdraw the case from themselves (acquit) if no reasonable tribunal properly directed could convict on the evidence as it stands. This remains the correct and only available challenge to evidential sufficiency in summary proceedings. **Why the other options are wrong:** - **A** is wrong. Pre-trial dismissal under **Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998** applies only to **indictable-only offences** sent to the **Crown Court** under s 51 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It has no application to summary proceedings in the magistrates' court. Shoplifting (theft) is a triable either-way offence and, where retained in the magistrates' court, Schedule 3 dismissal is not available. - **C** is wrong. CrimPR Part 8 governs initial details of the prosecution case and does not provide any mechanism for withdrawing or dismissing a charge on evidential grounds before trial. - **D** is wrong. A stay for **abuse of process** addresses procedural unfairness, manipulation of process, or prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial (see *R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex parte Bennett* [1994] 1 AC 42; *Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1990)* [1992] QB 630). It is not a mechanism for challenging the bare sufficiency of evidence and would not succeed on the facts described. - **E** is wrong. **Section 6 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980** concerns the **committal of indictable offences** to the Crown Court and has no application here. It does not provide a pre-trial mechanism for dismissing a charge in summary proceedings on evidential grounds; moreover, old-style committals under s 6 were abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. **Practical note:** Although the solicitor may write to the CPS inviting discontinuance under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, this is not a formal court procedure and confers no right to dismissal. The only court remedy available at the summary trial stage is the *Galbraith* submission at the close of the prosecution case.
Question 2
A woman is arrested on suspicion of theft at 10:00 on Monday and is brought to the police station. The custody officer authorises her detention at 10:30. It is now 22:00 on Tuesday and the police have not charged her. They wish to continue detaining her for further questioning. No superintendent has reviewed or authorised continued detention at any point. What is the woman's current detention status?
- A.Her detention is unlawful: the initial 24-hour period (running from 10:30 Monday when detention was authorised) expired at 10:30 Tuesday, and no superintendent has authorised an extension under s 42 PACE 1984✓ correct
- B.Her detention remains lawful: under s 41 PACE 1984 the maximum period before charge is 36 hours from the time of arrest, and that period has not yet expired
- C.Her detention is unlawful: once the custody officer's initial authorisation expires after 6 hours, a superintendent must conduct the first review and has failed to do so
- D.Her detention is lawful: a superintendent may still retrospectively authorise continued detention under s 42 PACE 1984 provided it is done before the 36-hour point
- E.Her detention is unlawful: after 24 hours a magistrates' court warrant of further detention is required under s 43 PACE 1984
Why A is correct
**Correct answer: A** **Relevant law: PACE 1984, ss 41–43** **Section 41 PACE 1984** provides that a person may not be detained without charge for longer than **24 hours** from the *relevant time*. For a person arrested in England or Wales and taken to a designated station, the relevant time is the time of arrival at the first station to which they are taken (s 41(2)(d)). Here the woman arrived at approximately 10:00 Monday, so her 24-hour period expired at approximately **10:00–10:30 Tuesday**. **Section 42 PACE 1984** allows a superintendent (or above) to authorise continued detention **beyond 24 hours and up to a maximum of 36 hours** from the relevant time, but only if: - the offence is an indictable offence; - the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously; and - the authorisation is given **before** the 24-hour period expires (or as soon as practicable thereafter if the suspect is being questioned when the period expires: s 42(4)). By 22:00 Tuesday — approximately **35.5 hours** after arrival — no superintendent authorisation has been obtained. The 24-hour lawful limit has therefore long passed without the required s 42 authorisation, rendering continued detention **unlawful**. **Why the other options are wrong:** - **B** is wrong: 36 hours is the *maximum* ceiling reachable only after a valid s 42 superintendent authorisation. It is not an automatic entitlement running from arrest. - **C** is wrong: the 6-hour and 15-hour periods relate to *review* obligations under s 40 PACE (conducted by an inspector), not to the lawfulness of the detention itself. Failure to review does not automatically render detention unlawful, though it is a breach of PACE. - **D** is wrong: s 42 authorisation must be prospective and given *before* (or at the point) the 24-hour period expires; there is no retrospective power to cure an already-unlawful detention under s 42. - **E** is wrong: a magistrates' court warrant of further detention under **s 43 PACE 1984** is only available after a valid s 42 extension has been granted and where continued detention beyond 36 hours is sought. It is not triggered at the 24-hour point.
Question 3
A man is interviewed under caution at a police station regarding an alleged assault. He has declined legal advice. During the interview, he makes no comment to all questions. At trial, he raises self-defence for the first time. The prosecution wishes to invite the court to draw an adverse inference. What is the appropriate basis for the court to draw an adverse inference?
- A.Section 34 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant failed to mention a fact he later relied upon in his defence✓ correct
- B.Section 36 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant failed to account for his presence at the scene
- C.Section 35 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant remained silent throughout the police interview
- D.No adverse inference may be drawn as the defendant did not have legal advice at the interview
- E.Section 37 CJPOA 1994, as the defendant gave no explanation for objects found on his person
Why A is correct
Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits adverse inferences where a defendant fails to mention facts during questioning that are later relied upon in defence, provided it would have been reasonable to mention them. Self-defence is such a fact. Option D is a strong distractor: while *R v Condron* [1997] 1 WLR 827 held that juries should consider whether silence was reasonable (including absence of legal advice), adverse inferences may still be drawn if the court finds it was reasonable to have mentioned the fact despite lack of a solicitor.
Question 4
A defendant appears before a magistrates' court charged with common assault contrary to s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. She indicates a not guilty plea. The legal adviser then begins to explain the allocation procedure, informing the defendant that she may elect Crown Court trial. The defendant states she wishes to elect Crown Court trial. What must the magistrates' court do?
- A.Send the case to the Crown Court forthwith, because the defendant has validly elected trial on indictment
- B.Proceed to summary trial, because common assault is a summary-only offence and there is no right of election to the Crown Court✓ correct
- C.Commit the defendant to the Crown Court for trial and fix a preliminary hearing date, following her election
- D.Warn the defendant about the potential costs consequences of electing Crown Court trial and invite her to reconsider before accepting the election
- E.Conduct a mode of trial hearing to determine whether the Crown Court or the magistrates' court is more suitable, taking into account the defendant's indication
Why B is correct
**Common assault (s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988) is a summary-only offence**, carrying a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine. Summary-only offences **must** be tried in the magistrates' court: there is no statutory right for a defendant to elect Crown Court trial. The allocation procedure under **ss 17A–20 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980)** — including the defendant's right to elect Crown Court trial — applies **only to either-way offences**. Because common assault is not an either-way offence, the legal adviser in the scenario is wrong to initiate an allocation procedure, and the defendant's purported 'election' is a nullity. **Option A** is the strongest distractor but is wrong: no valid election has been made and there is no power to send a summary-only matter to the Crown Court on that basis. **Option C** is wrong: committal for trial (now replaced by sending under s 51 Crime and Disorder Act 1998) is equally unavailable for summary-only offences. **Option D** is wrong: the costs-warning procedure (under the 'Goodyear' jurisdiction or Practice Direction provisions) relates to guilty-plea indications in either-way cases, not to elections in summary-only cases. **Option E** is wrong: a mode of trial / allocation hearing is only conducted for either-way offences. The court must therefore simply proceed to **summary trial** in the magistrates' court, disregarding the procedurally invalid attempt to elect Crown Court trial.
Question 5
A man is convicted of burglary in the Crown Court. He has three previous convictions for domestic burglary, all committed as an adult. The current offence is also a domestic burglary, making it his fourth domestic burglary conviction in total. The judge is considering sentence. The defendant's counsel argues there are particular circumstances relating to the offence and the offender that would make the mandatory minimum sentence unjust. What is the mandatory minimum sentence the judge must impose unless satisfied it would be unjust to do so?
- A.Three years' imprisonment, because this is at least the defendant's third conviction for domestic burglary and s 314 Sentencing Act 2020 applies✓ correct
- B.Five years' imprisonment, because the defendant has four domestic burglary convictions and the minimum increases with each further conviction
- C.Two years' imprisonment, because that is the minimum custodial term for repeat property offenders under the Sentencing Act 2020
- D.Seven years' imprisonment, because repeat domestic burglary is treated as a serious specified offence attracting an extended sentence
- E.There is no mandatory minimum; the judge has full discretion and the Sentencing Council guideline starting point for domestic burglary is the only relevant benchmark
Why A is correct
**Section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020** (which re-enacted s 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) provides that where an offender is convicted of a **third or subsequent domestic burglary** and was 18 or over at the time of each of the two previous qualifying offences, the court **must** impose a custodial sentence of **at least three years** unless it is of the opinion that there are **particular circumstances** which relate to any of the offences or to the offender and which would make it **unjust** to do so in all the circumstances. The defendant here has **three prior** domestic burglary convictions and is now convicted of a **fourth**: the provision is therefore clearly engaged. The mandatory minimum is **three years' imprisonment** regardless of whether this is the third, fourth or any subsequent qualifying conviction — the figure does not escalate with each further offence. - **B** is wrong: the statute fixes the minimum at three years; it does not increase with the number of convictions beyond the third. - **C** is wrong: there is no two-year mandatory minimum for repeat property offenders in the Sentencing Act 2020. - **D** is wrong: seven years has no statutory basis in this context (seven years appears in s 312 SA 2020 for a third Class A drug-trafficking offence, not burglary). - **E** is wrong: s 314 SA 2020 expressly removes full sentencing discretion by imposing a mandatory minimum subject only to the 'unjust' exception.

Practice Criminal Practice MCQs Criminal Practice revision hub Unlock the full question bank