SQE1 Criminal Law Revision Guide: Offences, Defences, and Exam Strategy

Why Criminal Law Punches Above Its Weight on SQE1

Criminal Law is one of the six subjects assessed on the Functioning Legal Knowledge 2 (FLK2) paper, and it is among the highest-volume subjects on the entire SQE1. In a typical sitting, you can expect a substantial cluster of criminal law single-best-answer (SBA) questions spread across both mornings of FLK2. That means criminal law is a priority subject — strong performance here pulls your overall FLK2 score up, and weak performance is very difficult to rescue elsewhere.

Criminal law also tends to be the subject where candidates over-rely on intuition. Because the topics feel familiar (murder, theft, assault), candidates assume they can reason their way to the answer. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) assessment specification does not reward intuition — it rewards precise application of the actus reus, the mens rea, the correct statutory provision, and the correct defence elements. Candidates who approach criminal law as a structured analytical exercise consistently outperform those who treat it as a storytelling subject.

The good news is that criminal law is highly learnable. The offences are defined by statute or by tightly drawn case law. The defences have a finite set of elements. The leading cases are well-known and repeat across sittings. If you revise systematically and drill practice questions, criminal law becomes a scoring subject rather than a risk subject.

If you are revising contract law or tort law alongside criminal, see our sibling posts on SQE1 contract law and SQE1 tort law for the same structured approach.

The SQE1 Criminal Law Syllabus

The SRA's assessment specification sets out precisely what you must know. For SQE1, criminal law sits within FLK2 and covers the core offences and general principles of criminal liability. The syllabus can be broken down into the following areas:

A single SQE1 question can combine several of these areas. A bar-room scenario might test battery, s.47 ABH, consent, intoxication, and self-defence in a single five-option SBA. You must be able to pull the correct offence and the correct defence out of a messy factual pattern.

Start applying this syllabus with real exam-style questions using our practice questions and topic-specific drills for criminal law.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea: The Foundation

Every offence on the SQE1 is built from an actus reus (the external element) and a mens rea (the mental element), with the two elements required to coincide. Get this framework wrong and you will misanalyse every criminal question you touch.

Actus Reus

The actus reus is the conduct element of an offence. It has three possible components:

• Conduct: what the defendant did (striking, taking, entering).
• Circumstances: the surrounding facts that must exist (property "belonging to another", a dwelling).
• Consequences: the result that must follow (death, injury, damage).

Where a consequence is required, causation must be proved. The prosecution must show both factual causation (the "but for" test from R v White [1910] 2 KB 124) and legal causation (the defendant's act was a substantial and operating cause, not merely trivial). Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) break the chain only where they are truly free, voluntary, and informed — medical negligence must be "palpably wrong" before it breaks the chain (R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844).

Mens Rea

Mens rea is the mental element. The SQE1 focuses on four forms:

1. Intention. Direct intention is a defendant's aim or purpose. Oblique (indirect) intention arises where a consequence is not the defendant's aim but was a virtually certain result of their conduct and the defendant appreciated that it was virtually certain. The jury is entitled — not required — to find intention (R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 — the leading House of Lords authority, which you can read on BAILII).
2. Recklessness. The modern test is subjective: the defendant foresaw an unjustifiable risk and went on to take it (R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396; R v G [2003] UKHL 50, which abolished the older objective Caldwell test for criminal damage).
3. Negligence. A failure to meet an objective standard of care. Relevant mainly to gross negligence manslaughter.
4. Strict liability. No mens rea is required as to at least one element of the actus reus. Rare in common-law offences; more common in regulatory offences.

Coincidence and Transferred Malice

Actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. Courts apply a flexible "continuing act" analysis where needed (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 — driving onto an officer's foot and refusing to move was a continuing act of battery).

Where the defendant intends to harm one target but harms another, the doctrine of transferred malice transfers the mens rea to the actual victim (R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359). Malice does not transfer between offences of a wholly different type.

Homicide: Murder

Murder is a common-law offence carrying a mandatory life sentence. Its definition is traditional but tightly policed.

Actus reus: the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace, with causation satisfied.

Mens rea: intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664). "Grievous bodily harm" means really serious harm. Note that recklessness is not sufficient for murder — intention (direct or oblique per Woollin) is required.

SQE1 murder questions typically test:

• Whether the mens rea is intention or only recklessness (which would reduce the offence).
• Whether Woollin oblique intention applies on the facts.
• Whether a partial defence reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter arises where the defendant satisfies the full actus reus and mens rea for murder but a partial defence reduces liability. The two statutory partial defences on the SQE1 syllabus are in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009).

Loss of Control (CJA 2009, s.54)

The defendant must establish three elements:

1. A loss of self-control (need not be sudden, but there must be genuine loss — not revenge, s.54(4)).
2. A qualifying trigger under s.55: fear of serious violence from the victim; or things done or said of an extremely grave character which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged; or a combination.
3. A person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, and in the defendant's circumstances, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way.

Sexual infidelity is expressly excluded as a qualifying trigger (s.55(6)(c)), although the Court of Appeal in R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 held that it can be considered as part of the broader context where another qualifying trigger is also engaged.

Diminished Responsibility (CJA 2009, s.52, amending Homicide Act 1957 s.2)

The defendant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they were suffering from:

1. An abnormality of mental functioning;
2. Arising from a recognised medical condition;
3. Which substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control; and
4. Which provides an explanation for the killing (there must be a causal connection).

Voluntary intoxication alone is not a recognised medical condition, but alcohol dependence syndrome can be (R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593).

Comparing the Two Partial Defences

Homicide: Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the defendant unlawfully kills but lacks the mens rea for murder. Three forms appear on SQE1.

Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter

Requires:

1. An intentional unlawful act (not an omission — R v Lowe [1973] QB 702);
2. That is criminal (not merely tortious or regulatory) and dangerous, meaning any sober and reasonable person would recognise a risk of some harm (R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59; DPP v Newbury & Jones [1977] AC 500); and
3. Causes death.

The defendant need not foresee the death or any harm — the test of dangerousness is objective.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Requires the Adomako test (R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171):

1. A duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim;
2. Breach of that duty;
3. A serious and obvious risk of death (R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168);
4. The breach caused the death; and
5. The breach was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission (gross negligence — a jury question).

Reckless Manslaughter

Requires subjective recklessness as to a risk of death or serious injury. In practice it rarely appears as a standalone category on SQE1 because most scenarios are better analysed as unlawful act or gross negligence manslaughter.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

This family of offences is drawn partly from common law and partly from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861).

Assault

Assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence (Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439). Words alone can suffice (R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 — silent phone calls). Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to causing the apprehension.

Battery

Battery is the infliction of unlawful force, however slight. Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s.47 OAPA 1861)

Actus reus: assault or battery that occasions actual bodily harm. ABH is "any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort" and includes recognised psychiatric illness (R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689) — but not mere emotions.

Mens rea: the mens rea of the underlying assault or battery only — no additional mens rea as to the ABH itself (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699).

Malicious Wounding / GBH (s.20 OAPA 1861)

Actus reus: unlawful wounding (both layers of skin broken) or inflicting grievous bodily harm (really serious harm). GBH includes the reckless transmission of serious disease (R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103).

Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to causing some physical harm, not necessarily serious harm (R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421).

Wounding / GBH with Intent (s.18 OAPA 1861)

Actus reus: as for s.20 — wounding or GBH.

Mens rea: specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm (or to resist lawful apprehension). Recklessness is not sufficient (R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741). This is why s.18 is the most serious of the non-fatal offences and carries a maximum of life imprisonment.

Comparing s.47, s.20, and s.18

Consent

Consent is a defence to assault and battery. For offences above the level of battery, the general rule from R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 is that consent is not a defence unless the case falls within a recognised exception (properly conducted sports, reasonable surgery, tattooing, horseplay, and so on). Fraud vitiates consent only where it goes to the nature of the act or the identity of the person (R v Tabassum [2000] 2 Cr App R 328; R v Dica [2004]).

Sexual Offences

Sexual offences on SQE1 are governed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003). Learn the three principal offences and the definition of consent.

The Three Core Offences

Consent (s.74)

A person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Intoxication is relevant to capacity — a sufficiently drunk complainant lacks capacity to consent (R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804).

Reasonable Belief (s.1(2))

The defendant's belief in consent must be reasonable, and reasonableness is assessed having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps the defendant took to ascertain consent. A subjective honest belief is not enough.

Presumptions (ss.75 and 76)

• Section 75 creates evidential presumptions — if certain circumstances existed (e.g. the complainant was unconscious, unlawfully detained, or the defendant used violence) the complainant is presumed not to have consented unless the defendant raises evidence to the contrary.
• Section 76 creates conclusive presumptions — deception as to the nature or purpose of the act, or impersonation of a person known personally to the complainant, conclusively negates consent.

Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

The property offences are almost all statutory, governed by the Theft Act 1968.

Theft (s.1)

Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Five elements, each testable.

1. Appropriation (s.3): any assumption of the rights of an owner, including with the owner's consent (R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626; R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241).
2. Property (s.4): money and all personal property, including intangible property, but excluding land (with narrow exceptions), wild plants, and wild creatures.
3. Belonging to another (s.5): any person with possession, control, or a proprietary interest. Includes property received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way (s.5(3)).
4. Dishonesty (s.2): the Act gives three negative situations in which conduct is not dishonest (belief in legal right, belief in consent, inability to find the owner). Beyond that, the test from Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 (confirmed for criminal law in R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575) is: (i) what was the defendant's genuine knowledge and belief as to the facts, and (ii) was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The old Ghosh subjective limb is gone.
5. Intention permanently to deprive (s.6): includes treating the property as one's own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.

Robbery (s.8)

Robbery is theft plus force or the threat of force on any person, used immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. All five theft elements must be satisfied. If the theft fails (e.g. no intention to permanently deprive), there can be no robbery.

Burglary (s.9)

Two forms:

• s.9(1)(a): Entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage inside.
• s.9(1)(b): Having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser, committing or attempting to commit theft or GBH.

Note the different intent structure: s.9(1)(a) is an ulterior-intent offence at the point of entry; s.9(1)(b) attaches liability when the further offence is committed. The defendant must know or be reckless as to whether they are trespassing (R v Collins [1973] QB 100).

Aggravated burglary (s.10) adds that the defendant had with them a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, or explosive at the time of the burglary.

Fraud and Making Off Without Payment

Fraud Act 2006

The Fraud Act 2006 replaced the old deception offences with a conduct-based model. All three forms share the mens rea of dishonesty (Ivey test) and an intention to make a gain or cause a loss.

No gain or loss actually need occur — the offence is complete on the conduct with the requisite intent.

Making Off Without Payment (Theft Act 1978, s.3)

The classic "bilking" offence. Requires that the defendant:

1. Knows that payment on the spot is required or expected (e.g. restaurant meal, taxi fare);
2. Dishonestly makes off without having paid as required;
3. With intent to avoid payment of the amount due.

Criminal Damage

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) creates three principal offences.

s.1(1) — Basic Criminal Damage

Actus reus: destroying or damaging any property belonging to another. "Damage" is broad and includes temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

Mens rea: intention or (subjective) recklessness (R v G [2003] UKHL 50 — overruling Caldwell).

s.1(2) — Aggravated Criminal Damage

Destroying or damaging any property (including the defendant's own), with intent to endanger the life of another or recklessness as to whether life is endangered. The danger must flow from the damage itself, not merely from the means of causing it (R v Steer [1988] AC 111).

s.1(3) — Arson

Either of the above offences committed by fire.

Lawful Excuse (s.5)

A defendant has a lawful excuse if they believed the owner had consented or would have consented had they known the circumstances, or if they acted to protect property in immediate need of protection (s.5(2)). The belief need only be honestly held — reasonableness is irrelevant (s.5(3)).

Defences

Defences are the second half of criminal analysis. For each offence, you must consider whether a defence is available and whether its elements are satisfied.

Insanity (M'Naghten Rules)

Defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, such that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong (M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200). Internal-cause conditions (e.g. epilepsy, diabetes where caused by the diabetes itself) count as a disease of the mind. Verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity.

Automatism

A total loss of voluntary control caused by an external factor (e.g. a blow to the head, reaction to prescribed medication). Complete defence leading to acquittal. Where the trigger is internal, the defendant is routed to insanity (Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386).

Intoxication

• Voluntary intoxication is a defence only to offences of specific intent (murder, s.18 GBH, theft, burglary under s.9(1)(a)) where it negates the requisite intention. It is no defence to offences of basic intent — the voluntary intoxication itself supplies the recklessness (DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443).
• Involuntary intoxication (spiked drink, unforeseen effect of prescribed medication) can be a defence to both specific and basic intent offences if it prevents the defendant from forming the required mens rea. It is not a defence if the defendant still formed the mens rea despite the intoxication (R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355).

Self-Defence (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76)

Two questions:

1. Did the defendant genuinely believe force was necessary? A subjective test. The belief is judged on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be, even if mistaken (s.76(4)). A mistaken belief induced by voluntary intoxication does not count (s.76(5)).
2. Was the force used reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be? An objective test. The defendant is not expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any defensive action (s.76(7)). In householder cases only, disproportionate force may be reasonable provided it is not grossly disproportionate (s.76(5A)).

Duress by Threats

A threat of death or serious injury to the defendant or someone for whom they are responsible, which a reasonable person of the defendant's characteristics would have found irresistible (R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22). Duress is not available to murder, attempted murder, or some forms of treason, and is lost where the defendant voluntarily associates with violent criminals and foresees the risk of being pressured.

Duress of Circumstances

The same conditions as duress by threats, but the threat arises from the surrounding circumstances rather than a demand (e.g. driving while disqualified to escape immediate danger). Developed in R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225 and R v Conway [1989] QB 290.

Necessity

Extremely narrow. Not available where duress of circumstances is not made out. The classic denial is R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (shipwrecked sailors killing a cabin boy to survive — not a defence). Genuine necessity survives in exceptional cases such as Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001] Fam 147.

Consent

A defence to assault and battery and, within narrow public-policy exceptions, to higher offences. The limits are set by R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 — consensual sadomasochistic injury is not within any recognised exception and consent is no defence.

Inchoate Offences

Inchoate offences punish preparatory conduct. Three forms appear on SQE1.

Attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981)

Actus reus: an act more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence (s.1(1)). Mens rea: intention to commit the full offence (even for offences where recklessness would suffice for the completed offence — attempted murder requires intention to kill, not GBH).

Impossibility is generally no defence: the defendant can still be convicted where the intended crime was factually impossible (R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1 — importing what was believed to be controlled drugs but turned out to be vegetable matter).

Conspiracy (Criminal Law Act 1977, s.1)

An agreement between two or more persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if carried out, will necessarily amount to the commission of any offence by one or more of the parties. Mens rea: intention that the agreement be carried out and the offence committed.

Encouraging or Assisting (Serious Crime Act 2007, ss.44–46)

Three forms:

• s.44: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting an offence, with intent.
• s.45: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting an offence, believing it will be committed.
• s.46: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more of a number of offences, believing that one or more will be committed.

Accessorial Liability (Participation)

A principal is the person who commits the actus reus. An accessory is a person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of the offence (Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8).

The landmark Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 corrected the law on joint enterprise. Foresight of what the principal might do is evidence of intent, but it is not itself a substitute for intent. The accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal to commit the offence, with knowledge of the essential facts. Pre-Jogee, mere foresight of possible commission was sufficient — that approach is now rejected.

An accessory can withdraw from the enterprise, but the withdrawal must be timely and effective — unequivocal communication to the principal is usually required (R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212).

10 SQE1 Criminal Law Exam Techniques

1. Identify the Offence First, Then the Defence

Always start by mapping the facts to a specific offence. Only once you have identified the charge should you consider whether a defence is engaged. Candidates who start with the defence often end up misclassifying the offence.

2. Separate Actus Reus from Mens Rea on Every Question

Force yourself to write (mentally or on scrap paper) the AR and MR for each offence the facts could support. Many SBA questions are decided by a subtle mens rea point — for example, distinguishing s.20 (recklessness as to some harm) from s.18 (intention to cause GBH).

3. Check Coincidence

If the mens rea existed at a different time from the actus reus, the offence is not made out — unless a continuing-act analysis (Fagan) applies.

4. Work Through Defences Systematically

For every scenario involving force or property, run the checklist: self-defence, consent, duress, intoxication, automatism, insanity. Most distractor options in SBA questions exploit a candidate's tendency to stop at the first plausible defence.

5. Do Not Confuse Direct and Oblique Intention

Oblique intention under Woollin requires virtual certainty of the consequence and the defendant's appreciation of that virtual certainty. Mere foresight of a high probability is not enough.

6. Apply the Ivey Dishonesty Test Correctly

After Ivey and Barton, the test is: (i) what did the defendant actually know or believe about the facts, and (ii) was the conduct dishonest by ordinary standards. There is no longer a subjective limb asking whether the defendant themselves thought their conduct dishonest.

7. Remember Jogee on Joint Enterprise

If a scenario involves two or more defendants and one does more than was anticipated, the accessory is only liable if they intended to assist or encourage the specific offence (or a wider type encompassing it). Foresight alone is not sufficient post-Jogee.

8. Treat Consent Narrowly

The Brown limits mean that consent rarely operates as a defence to offences above battery outside recognised categories. Be especially wary of consent arguments in sexual offences, where s.74 SOA 2003 and the s.75/s.76 presumptions control the analysis.

9. Watch for Inchoate or Party Liability Hidden in the Facts

A question about "what is D liable for?" may have an answer involving attempt, conspiracy, or accessorial liability even though the fact pattern describes what looks like a completed offence.

10. Read Every Option Before Answering

SQE1 is a best-answer exam, not a correct-answer exam. Two options may both be arguably right; one will be more precise, more complete, or more consistent with the statute or leading case. Eliminate before you commit.

For a broader strategy that applies across all SQE1 subjects, read our SQE1 MCQ technique and exam strategy guide.

Common SQE1 Criminal Law Mistakes

Confusing Direct and Oblique Intention

Candidates often treat foresight of likelihood as oblique intention. Woollin requires virtual certainty, not mere probability, and requires that the defendant appreciated the virtual certainty. Anything less is at most recklessness.

Misapplying the Ivey Dishonesty Test

The older Ghosh subjective second limb (did the defendant realise their conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards?) no longer applies. If an option invokes that test as the rule, it is wrong.

Forgetting Jogee on Joint Enterprise

Many pre-2016 textbook examples — where an accessory was liable for a principal's more serious act because they "foresaw" it — are now incorrect. Post-Jogee, the accessory must have intended to assist or encourage the offence.

Treating Consent Too Broadly

Candidates sometimes assume that if a complainant consented, there is no offence. Brown rejects that approach above the level of battery. Consent is only a defence within narrow public-policy exceptions.

Wrong Defence Elements

Self-defence is not simply "reasonable force". It is (i) honest belief that force was necessary plus (ii) objectively reasonable force in the circumstances as the defendant believed them. Duress requires threats of death or serious injury — lesser threats do not engage the defence.

Misclassifying s.47, s.20, and s.18

Look at the mens rea carefully. s.47 needs only the mens rea of assault/battery. s.20 needs intention or recklessness as to some harm. s.18 needs specific intent to cause GBH. Getting these wrong on a non-fatal offences question is one of the most common and most avoidable errors.

How to Structure Your Criminal Law Revision

Weeks 1–2: Build the Foundations

Work through general principles of liability, then homicide. Get your actus reus/mens rea framework bedded in before you move on to specific offences. Use our criminal law study notes to build the base.

Weeks 3–4: Specific Offences

Move through non-fatal offences, sexual offences, theft and related property offences, fraud, and criminal damage. Make your own one-page summary for each offence: AR elements, MR elements, leading case, maximum sentence, common defences.

Week 5: Defences and Inchoate/Party Liability

Defences are best learnt in one concentrated block because they cross-cut every offence. Pair this with inchoate offences and accessorial liability — the Jogee framework in particular rewards focused study.

Weeks 6–7: Practice and Weak Spots

Switch almost entirely to practice questions. Start with topic-by-topic drills, then move to mixed sets that simulate the FLK2 paper. Keep an error log: for every question you get wrong, record the offence, the element you missed, and the correct analysis.

Week 8: Full Mock Exams

Sit at least one timed mock exam that covers FLK2 as a whole. Criminal law questions will appear alongside tort, dispute resolution, land law, trusts, and other FLK2 subjects — you need to train the mental gear-change between them.

Revision Tools Summary

Full pricing details are on our pricing page.

Final Thoughts

Criminal law rewards candidates who treat it as a structured analytical subject. Define the actus reus. Define the mens rea. Check causation and coincidence. Identify and test each possible defence. Apply the Ivey test for dishonesty. Remember Woollin for oblique intention and Jogee for joint enterprise. Do not be misled by the familiar vocabulary of murder, theft, and assault — the SQE1 wants precise statutory and case-law analysis, not instinct.

If you layer this structured approach on top of disciplined practice, criminal law becomes one of the most predictable scoring subjects on SQE1. For adjacent FLK subjects, our SQE1 contract law revision guide, SQE1 tort law revision guide, and SQE1 land law revision guide give the same treatment to the other high-marking areas.

Start now with a free quick quiz, drill the offences and defences with flashcards, and work through full practice questions until the analytical steps are automatic. See the full package options on our pricing page. Good luck with your criminal law revision for SQE1 in 2026.