What does the SQE1 Criminal Liability section actually test?

Actus reus, mens rea, and defences. The SRA assessment specification breaks Criminal Liability into 11 topics, each examined through single-best-answer (SBA) questions in the FLK2 paper.

Is Criminal Liability part of FLK1 or FLK2?

Criminal Liability sits in FLK2. Both FLK2 papers are 180 single-best-answer questions in two 2h 5m sittings on the same day.

How many topics are in Criminal Liability?

11. Our notes, flashcards, and question bank are mapped one-to-one against the SRA's CRL specification so nothing is missed.

How long should I spend on Criminal Liability?

Most candidates allocate roughly 33–55 hours across notes, flashcards, and timed practice. The exact split depends on your background — re-sitters can usually focus on weak topics rather than re-reading.

What is the best way to revise Criminal Liability?

Active recall beats re-reading. Read the notes once, then practise SBA questions in mixed order, then revisit weak topics. Our weak-area tracker surfaces the topics where your accuracy is below 70%.

Can I practise Criminal Liability questions without paying?

Yes. The free readiness quiz includes a sample from every subject, and free accounts can access sample questions across all subjects. The full CRL question bank is unlocked with a one-time lifetime purchase and is covered by the 14-day money-back guarantee.

CRLFLK2 · 11 topics

SQE1 Criminal Liability.

Actus reus, mens rea, and defences.

Get full CRL access Get a free study plan

All 11 topics in Criminal Liability

SRA-aligned

01
Principles of Criminal Liability
Actus reus, mens rea, causation, omissions, and the fundamental building blocks of criminal liability
Free
02
Common Assault and Battery
Common assault, battery, section 47 OAPA 1861, and consent as a defence
03
Section 20 and Section 18 OAPA 1861
Unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
04
Murder
Actus reus and mens rea of murder, mandatory life sentence, and reform proposals
05
Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter (loss of control, diminished responsibility) and involuntary manslaughter (unlawful act, gross negligence)
06
Theft
The elements of theft under section 1 Theft Act 1968 — appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, and intention to permanently deprive
07
Robbery, Burglary and Related Theft Offences
Robbery (s.8), burglary (s.9), aggravated vehicle-taking (s.12A), and handling stolen goods (s.22)
08
Fraud
Fraud by false representation, abuse of position, and failing to disclose under the Fraud Act 2006
09
Criminal Damage
Simple criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage, and arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971
10
General Defences
Self-defence, defence of another, and intoxicication
11
Parties to Crime and Inchoate Offences
Principal offenders, accomplices, and the inchoate offence of attempt

Try before you buy

3 sample CRL questions

Real SBA questions from the Criminal Liability bank, with the full explanation. The paid bank covers all 11 topics and difficulty levels.

A man is tried in the Crown Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm after a fight outside a bar. He admits punching the other man but says he did so only because the other man had come at him with a broken bottle. Two witnesses support his account and the prosecution disputes it. Before the jury retires, the judge directs them that, the punch being admitted, it is for the man to satisfy them on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self-defence.

Is the judge's direction to the jury on the burden of proof correct?

No, because the man need only raise self-defence; the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Correct
No, because a defendant in a criminal trial never bears any burden at all in relation to a defence.
Yes, because a defendant who relies on a defence must establish it on the balance of probabilities.
Yes, because the prosecution's burden is discharged once it proves that the man deliberately struck the other man.
Yes, because self-defence is a common law defence, and a reverse burden applies only to statutory defences.

Why: The correct answer is A. Woolmington v DPP [1935] lays down the golden thread of English criminal law: it is for the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt. Self-defence is a common law defence, so the man carries only an evidential burden, namely enough evidence to put the issue before the jury, which the witnesses supply. The prosecution must then satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defence. Directing the jury that he must prove the defence on the balance of probabilities reverses that burden and is a misdirection. B is incorrect because it reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reason: the man does bear the evidential burden of raising the defence, and insanity and some statutory defences place a legal burden on a defendant. C is incorrect because the balance of probabilities standard applies only to the recognised exceptions, chiefly insanity and express statutory reverse burdens, and not to self-defence. D is incorrect because proving the punch does not discharge the prosecution's burden; once self-defence is live, disproving it is part of what has to be proved. E is incorrect because the distinction drawn is false: insanity is a common law defence which does carry a legal burden, and self-defence would attract none even if it were statutory.

A man is replacing a light fitting in a shop when he touches a live wire and receives a severe electric shock. His arm jerks violently backwards and the screwdriver in his hand cuts the face of a woman who is holding the foot of his ladder. The cut needs stitches. Medical evidence is that the shock caused an uncontrollable muscular spasm and that he had no control over the movement of his arm. He is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Is the man criminally liable for the injury caused by the movement of his arm?

Yes, because he chose to work on a live fitting with a woman standing directly beneath him.
No, because the movement of his arm was not willed, and liability requires a voluntary act. Correct
No, because the shock left him with no memory of the incident, so he lacked the mental element.
Yes, because the injury flowed directly from his own act of taking hold of the screwdriver.
No, because a person who acts under an uncontrollable impulse is entitled to be acquitted of any charge.

Why: The correct answer is B. The actus reus of an offence must be a voluntary act: the defendant must have consciously willed the movement that produced the prohibited result. A muscular spasm caused by an electric shock is not a willed movement, so on this medical evidence there is no act capable of founding liability and the charge must fail. The same reasoning applies to reflexes, convulsions and acts done while unconscious, and it reflects the principle that the criminal law punishes blameworthy choices. A is incorrect because he is charged with the harm done by the spasm, not with an earlier decision to work on a live fitting; any careless act of that kind would have to be charged and proved on its own terms. C is incorrect because amnesia is not the point: losing one's memory of an event neither proves nor disproves loss of control at the time, and here it is the absence of control that matters. D is incorrect because the relevant act is the involuntary movement of the arm, not the earlier voluntary act of picking up the screwdriver. E is incorrect because irresistible impulse is no defence in English law; a defendant who acts on an urge he finds hard to resist is still willing the movement.

A man wants his business partner dead. Knowing the partner takes a heart tablet with his coffee each morning, he replaces the tablets with identical capsules containing a lethal dose of a slow-acting poison. The partner swallows one on his way to work. Twenty minutes later, and before the poison has had any effect at all, he is killed instantly when a lorry mounts the pavement and strikes him. Medical evidence is that the capsule played no part in the death, but that it would have killed him by that evening.

Of what offence, if any, is the man most likely to be convicted?

Murder, because he acted with the intention to kill and his partner is in fact dead.
Attempted murder, because the capsule played no part in the death, so he did not cause it. Correct
Murder, because both the substituted capsule and the road collision were operating and substantial causes of his death.
Attempted murder, because the collision was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
Manslaughter, because replacing the tablets was an unlawful and dangerous act which was followed by death.

Why: The correct answer is B. Causation must be proved before any result crime is made out. The factual test asks whether, but for the defendant's act, the victim would have died as and when he did. Here he would have, because the lorry killed him instantly and the capsule had had no effect at all. R v White [1910], where the victim died of a heart attack before the poison in her drink could work, is directly in point: the defendant escaped murder but was convicted of attempted murder, which is the position here, since he did his intended act with intent to kill. A is incorrect because an intention to kill, however clear, is not enough on its own; without causation there is no unlawful killing for the intention to attach to. C is incorrect because the capsule was not a cause of death at all, let alone an operating and substantial one; nothing turns on how lethal it was once the evidence shows it played no part. D is incorrect because it gives the right verdict for the wrong reason: an intervening act breaks a chain of causation that exists, whereas here the man never became a factual cause in the first place. E is incorrect because unlawful act manslaughter also requires that the unlawful act caused the death, and this one did not.

Unlock the full CRL bank14-day money-back · one-time payment

Free study plan

Revising Criminal Liability? Start with a plan.

Tell us your exam date and we’ll email you a week-by-week schedule that gives Criminal Liability the time it needs — alongside the other FLK2 subjects.

Common questions

Criminal Liability FAQs

14-day money-back guarantee

Ready to start preparing?

One-time payment. Pick the plan that fits your timeline. Start with the free readiness quiz.

Free readiness quiz View pricing