0 of 10 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Information
You have already completed the Test before. Hence you can not start it again.
Test is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the Test.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this Test:
Time's up! Thank you for attempting SQE Mock Free
- Answered
- Your percentage
- Scored
- Your time
- Pass/Fail
- Pass rate 60%
Categories
-
Not categorized0
-
Criminal Law0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Correct
- Incorrect
- Review
-
Question 1 of 10
1. Question
Category: Criminal LawTim kicks Sonny, intending only to bruise him, but he unintentionally breaks his leg. Of which offense is he guilty?
Correct
The correct answer is section 20. It is only required that there be an intention (or recklessness as to causing) some harm. So an intention to bruise is sufficient. However, there was no intention to cause grievous bodily harm (i.e., really serious harm), so the section 18 offense is not committed.
Incorrect
The correct answer is section 20. It is only required that there be an intention (or recklessness as to causing) some harm. So an intention to bruise is sufficient. However, there was no intention to cause grievous bodily harm (i.e., really serious harm), so the section 18 offense is not committed.
Unattempted
The correct answer is section 20. It is only required that there be an intention (or recklessness as to causing) some harm. So an intention to bruise is sufficient. However, there was no intention to cause grievous bodily harm (i.e., really serious harm), so the section 18 offense is not committed.
-
Question 2 of 10
2. Question
Category: Criminal LawLucy has a violent struggle with Tracey, in which Lucy scratches Tracey on the face, intending to scratch her cheek and draw blood. She inadvertently catches her eye, blinding her. Is she guilty of the section 18 OAPA offense?
Correct
Really serious harm has been caused (the victim has been blinded). However, section 18 requires an intention to cause really serious harm. The maximum she could be charged with is section 20. This requires only wounding, plus an intention to cause any harm.
Incorrect
Really serious harm has been caused (the victim has been blinded). However, section 18 requires an intention to cause really serious harm. The maximum she could be charged with is section 20. This requires only wounding, plus an intention to cause any harm.
Unattempted
Really serious harm has been caused (the victim has been blinded). However, section 18 requires an intention to cause really serious harm. The maximum she could be charged with is section 20. This requires only wounding, plus an intention to cause any harm.
-
Question 3 of 10
3. Question
Category: Criminal LawA woman who is holding a laptop is walking home with her daughter when a man approaches them, points at the daughter and screams at the woman “Give me your laptop or I’ll break the girl’s neck.” His intention is to cause them both to fear that he will use the violence he threatens and then steal the laptop. The woman throws the laptop at the man who takes it, and the woman and her daughter run away. The man is later caught and charged with robbery.Is the man guilty of robbery?
Correct
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. So the force used, or fear of force caused, does not have to be directed towards the person in possession of the laptop. It can be directed towards anyone. Here, the girl is likely put in fear, and it does not matter that she is not the one holding the laptop.
Incorrect
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. So the force used, or fear of force caused, does not have to be directed towards the person in possession of the laptop. It can be directed towards anyone. Here, the girl is likely put in fear, and it does not matter that she is not the one holding the laptop.
Unattempted
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. So the force used, or fear of force caused, does not have to be directed towards the person in possession of the laptop. It can be directed towards anyone. Here, the girl is likely put in fear, and it does not matter that she is not the one holding the laptop.
-
Question 4 of 10
4. Question
Category: Criminal LawA young man is approached by another male who shouts “Give me your watch, or you’re getting stabbed”, while pointing a knife at him. In a panic, he takes off the watch and throws it to him. He misses, it lands on the train tracks and is then damaged by a passing train. He picks up the remains and runs off. The victim is unharmed and is not distressed by the events. Is the man guilty of robbery?
Correct
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The male clearly threatened the young man, the fact he was not distressed does not detract from the fact that the male attacker sought to put the young man in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Incorrect
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The male clearly threatened the young man, the fact he was not distressed does not detract from the fact that the male attacker sought to put the young man in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Unattempted
This goes back to the definition of the offense of robbery: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The male clearly threatened the young man, the fact he was not distressed does not detract from the fact that the male attacker sought to put the young man in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
-
Question 5 of 10
5. Question
Category: Criminal LawTim steals a computer from a neighbor’s home (when no one was at home). He is arrested outside the building after a burglar alarm goes off, and Tim is found to have a water pistol with him, which looked like a real gun as he had painted it black. What offense has Tim committed?
Correct
This goes back to the definition of the offense of aggravated burglary: “imitation firearm” means anything that has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not.
Incorrect
This goes back to the definition of the offense of aggravated burglary: “imitation firearm” means anything that has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not.
Unattempted
This goes back to the definition of the offense of aggravated burglary: “imitation firearm” means anything that has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not.
-
Question 6 of 10
6. Question
Category: Criminal LawJane, wishing to secure some extra money for herself, types her sister’s details into an automated loan application process online (without her sister’s knowledge) and submits it, hoping that her sister’s financial profile is stronger than hers, and will have a better chance of securing the loan. However, her sister’s credit score is also weak, and the automated loan application is instantly refused by the app. Has Jane committed the offense of fraud?
Correct
Jane effectively pretended to be her sister for the purposes of the data entered into the app. The fact it was an app, and not a human, makes no difference for the purposes of the Fraud Act 2006. The fact that no loss was caused (the loan application was refused) does not matter. The only requirement for the offense in this respect is that there was an intention to make a gain. The fact that no gain was, in fact, made is neither here nor there: she is guilty of the offense of fraud by false representation.
Incorrect
Jane effectively pretended to be her sister for the purposes of the data entered into the app. The fact it was an app, and not a human, makes no difference for the purposes of the Fraud Act 2006. The fact that no loss was caused (the loan application was refused) does not matter. The only requirement for the offense in this respect is that there was an intention to make a gain. The fact that no gain was, in fact, made is neither here nor there: she is guilty of the offense of fraud by false representation.
Unattempted
Jane effectively pretended to be her sister for the purposes of the data entered into the app. The fact it was an app, and not a human, makes no difference for the purposes of the Fraud Act 2006. The fact that no loss was caused (the loan application was refused) does not matter. The only requirement for the offense in this respect is that there was an intention to make a gain. The fact that no gain was, in fact, made is neither here nor there: she is guilty of the offense of fraud by false representation.
-
Question 7 of 10
7. Question
Category: Criminal LawA Teenager chips the paint away from a park bench, carving his initials into it with his house key. The owner notices the damage, but the park bench in question is scheduled to be repainted next week. Is the Teenager potentially guilty of criminal damage?
Correct
This is because he damaged property belonging to another. The fact that the bench was scheduled to be repainted, making the damage only temporary, is irrelevant to liability here. “Harm” can include a permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness (so it could include, for example, graffiti, even if that could subsequently be cleaned off).
Incorrect
This is because he damaged property belonging to another. The fact that the bench was scheduled to be repainted, making the damage only temporary, is irrelevant to liability here. “Harm” can include a permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness (so it could include, for example, graffiti, even if that could subsequently be cleaned off).
Unattempted
This is because he damaged property belonging to another. The fact that the bench was scheduled to be repainted, making the damage only temporary, is irrelevant to liability here. “Harm” can include a permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness (so it could include, for example, graffiti, even if that could subsequently be cleaned off).
-
Question 8 of 10
8. Question
Category: Criminal LawSally says to her ex-boyfriend, Billy, that she will break his legs next month if he does not move back in with her. Billy does not take this seriously, interpreting it as an empty threat which can be shrugged off. What analysis best describes this scenario:
Correct
The correct answer is C. No assault or battery has been committed in this scenario. Billy does not “apprehend” (i.e. believe) that immediate unlawful personal force will be used against him. Firstly, the force will not be applied immediately, but next month. Secondly, he does not take it seriously, i.e. does not believe that force will be applied.
Incorrect
The correct answer is C. No assault or battery has been committed in this scenario. Billy does not “apprehend” (i.e. believe) that immediate unlawful personal force will be used against him. Firstly, the force will not be applied immediately, but next month. Secondly, he does not take it seriously, i.e. does not believe that force will be applied.
Unattempted
The correct answer is C. No assault or battery has been committed in this scenario. Billy does not “apprehend” (i.e. believe) that immediate unlawful personal force will be used against him. Firstly, the force will not be applied immediately, but next month. Secondly, he does not take it seriously, i.e. does not believe that force will be applied.
-
Question 9 of 10
9. Question
Category: Criminal LawBen kicks Sam in the leg in anger, in a squabble over a gambling debt. Sam has no injury. How should Ben be charged?
Correct
Correct, Ben should be charged with ‘Battery’. This scenario involved more than the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. Force was actually applied. It does not matter for these purposes whether the force resulted in injury.
Incorrect
That’s incorrect. The correct answer is ‘Battery’. In this scenario, Ben’s action involved more than the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. Force was actually applied, which amounts to battery, even if no injury resulted from it.
Unattempted
That’s incorrect. The correct answer is ‘Battery’. In this scenario, Ben’s action involved more than the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. Force was actually applied, which amounts to battery, even if no injury resulted from it.
-
Question 10 of 10
10. Question
Category: Criminal LawMax punches Bob in anger in the arm. This does not cause any injury by itself. However, unexpectedly and unforeseeably, Bob falls over as a result, banging his head, causing a bruise. Max says that he did not intend to cause Bob the head injury, and did not foresee it, and this evidence is accepted by a jury. Can he be convicted of a section 47 OAPA offence?
Correct
Correct, Max can be convicted of a section 47 OAPA offence. For this offence, it is not necessary to prove that he intended to cause an injury. It only needs to be shown that he intended to assault the victim. It is also not necessary to prove that the injury was caused recklessly. It only needs to be shown that the injury was caused by the assault, whether it was intentional or reckless or not.
Incorrect
That’s incorrect. Max can be convicted of a section 47 OAPA offence. For this offence, it is not necessary to prove that he intended to cause an injury. It only needs to be shown that he intended to assault the victim. It is also not necessary to prove that the injury was caused recklessly. It only needs to be shown that the injury was caused by the assault, whether it was intentional or reckless or not.
Unattempted
That’s incorrect. Max can be convicted of a section 47 OAPA offence. For this offence, it is not necessary to prove that he intended to cause an injury. It only needs to be shown that he intended to assault the victim. It is also not necessary to prove that the injury was caused recklessly. It only needs to be shown that the injury was caused by the assault, whether it was intentional or reckless or not.