Eight exam-style questions for the National Investigators’ Exam. Free, no sign-up, about ten minutes. You’ll get your score, every right answer with the reasoning, and a score card to share.
Burglary, blackmail & handling
Mr and Mrs OKAFOR go on holiday and leave a key with their neighbour, Hayley DOYLE, so that she can let herself in each morning to feed their cat in the kitchen. On the third morning she lets herself in at 0800 and feeds the cat. She then sees £200 in cash on the kitchen worktop, decides to take it and puts it in her pocket. She tells officers, ‘I didn’t go in for that. I only thought of it when I saw the money.’ Officers accept this.
Fraud & proceeds of crime
Ross WHITBY, 48, sets up a dating app profile saying he is 35, single and a hospital surgeon. He is unemployed and married. Hannah COLE, 33, matches with him and they meet four times. Ross pays for every meal, and he has never asked Hannah for money or anything else. His messages to a friend show he lied “so she’d go out with me”. When Hannah finds out the truth she is distressed and reports him to the police for fraud.
Homicide
Lee HARPER, 31, believes Dean WALSH has been selling drugs to his younger brother. At 2300 he waits outside Dean’s flat with a claw hammer. When Dean comes out, Lee hits him repeatedly on the legs and body, saying: “You won’t be walking anywhere for months.” One blow ruptures Dean’s spleen and he dies in hospital the next morning. In interview Lee says: “I never wanted him dead. I just wanted to break his legs so he’d stay away from my brother.”
Rape & sexual assault
In an alleyway at 0115, Lee BARTON pins Chantelle MORGAN against a wall. Making crude sexual comments about what he wants her to do to him, he forces two fingers into her mouth and moves them in and out. A passer-by intervenes and Lee runs off. He is identified and arrested later that day.
Misuse of drugs
Joanne PRYCE finds three tablets in her 16-year-old son’s jacket pocket as he gets ready for a party. He admits they are ecstasy. To stop him taking them, she takes the tablets from him and, within a couple of minutes, flushes them down the toilet. Her son later tells a school liaison officer what happened, and the officer considers whether Joanne has committed possession of a Class A drug.
Interviews
Lewis CARTER, 41, is detained for a series of thefts of catalytic converters. His interview starts at 1400, shortly after he has eaten lunch. By 1555 the interviewers are still working through a large bundle of CCTV stills. There is no risk of harm to anyone or of loss of or damage to property, and a break would not delay his release or otherwise prejudice the investigation.
Theft & robbery
Tom HARGREAVES has asked his neighbour, Colin WARD, several times to sell him the vintage motorcycle kept in Colin’s garage. Each time Colin has said it is not for sale at any price. While Colin is on holiday, Tom uses the garage key Colin left with him for emergencies, wheels the motorcycle away and posts an envelope containing £7,000 through Colin’s door. The motorcycle is worth about £5,000. Tom tells officers: “He’s better off. I paid well over the odds.”
Assaults & aggravated offences
At 2330 a group chases Owen BARKER along an alleyway. When he falls, Jake SIMMONS kicks him once in the head. BARKER loses consciousness for a few seconds and remembers nothing until a passer-by helps him up. He has no visible mark and refuses to go to hospital. In interview SIMMONS admits the kick but says, “He was fine. There isn’t a scratch on him.”
Your score · NIE (detective)
0/8
Eight questions is a taste, not a verdict. The real exam is 80 questions in 2 hours; our full mocks in that format give you a readiness score that means something.
01 · Burglary, blackmail & handling ·
Which offence has Hayley committed?
Right answer: C. Theft only, because she entered within her permission and did not then intend to steal.
C is right. Both forms of burglary require the defendant to enter as a trespasser (Theft Act 1968, s.9(1)(a) and (b)), and the trespass must exist at the moment of entry (R v Collins (1973)). Hayley went in with the OKAFORS’ permission, for the purpose they gave it, and decided to steal only once she was inside. She was not a trespasser when she entered, so neither form of burglary is made out. Taking the cash is theft (s.1).
A is wrong: s.9(1)(b) requires the person to have entered as a trespasser. A dishonest decision formed later does not turn a lawful entry into a trespass.
B is wrong: in R v Jones and Smith (1976) the defendants entered intending to steal, so they went in beyond the permission given. Hayley had no such intent when she entered.
D is wrong: a key-holder can be a trespasser. Had Hayley gone in intending to steal, she would have entered in excess of her permission (R v Jones and Smith (1976)).
02 · Fraud & proceeds of crime ·
Which element of fraud by false representation cannot be proved?
Right answer: C. An intention to make a gain or cause a loss in money or other property.
C is right. Fraud by false representation needs an intention, by making the false representation, to make a gain or to cause loss or expose another to a risk of loss (Fraud Act 2006, s.2(1)(b)). “Gain” and “loss” extend only to gain or loss in money or other property (s.5(2)(a)). Ross wanted a relationship. He neither sought nor intended to obtain money or property, and he intended Hannah no financial loss. His conduct is hurtful, but it is not fraud.
A is wrong: a representation may be express or implied and made in any form, including on a website or app (s.2(4) and (5)). It was also read by Hannah.
B is wrong: his age, marital status and job are statements of fact. They were untrue and he knew it (s.2(2)).
D is wrong: s.5(2)(a) confines “loss” to money or other property. Distress or hurt feelings are not a loss for the purposes of fraud.
03 · Homicide ·
Which offence has Lee committed in respect of Dean’s death?
Right answer: B. Murder, because he intended to cause Dean really serious harm when he struck him.
B is right. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers (1957)), and grievous bodily harm means really serious harm (DPP v Smith (1961)). The Homicide Act 1957, s.1 abolished ‘constructive malice’ (killing in the course of another offence) but kept implied malice, so an intention to cause really serious harm is still enough. Lee set out to break Dean’s legs with a hammer. That is an intention to cause really serious harm, and his blows caused the death, so it is murder even though he did not want Dean to die.
A is wrong: an intention to kill is not needed. Foresight of death as a virtual certainty (R v Woollin (1998)) matters only where the result was not the defendant’s purpose; here really serious harm was his purpose.
C is wrong: Dean died, and Lee had the mental element for murder. Death itself need not be intended or foreseen where there is an intention to cause really serious harm.
D is wrong: breaking someone’s legs with a hammer is really serious harm, and an intention to cause it is implied malice aforethought.
04 · Rape & sexual assault ·
Which offence does forcing his fingers into Chantelle’s mouth disclose?
Right answer: C. Sexual assault, because touching includes penetration and it was sexual.
C is right. Sexual assault is committed where A intentionally touches another person, the touching is sexual, B does not consent and A does not reasonably believe B consents (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.3). Touching includes touching with any part of the body and “in particular includes touching amounting to penetration” (s.79(8)). Under s.78(b), putting fingers into someone’s mouth may by its nature be sexual, and Lee’s crude sexual comments make it sexual in the circumstances.
A is wrong: rape requires penetration with the defendant’s penis (s.1). The mouth is covered by rape only for penile penetration.
B is wrong: assault by penetration (s.2) covers only the vagina and anus. Penetration of the mouth with a finger or object falls under s.3.
D is wrong: there is no rule that this cannot be sexual. A reasonable person would consider it sexual given what he said.
05 · Misuse of drugs ·
Does Joanne have a defence to possession of a controlled drug?
Right answer: A. Yes: she took them to stop an offence and destroyed them as soon as possible afterwards.
A is right. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(4)(a), it is a defence to possession under s.5(2) for the accused to prove that, knowing or suspecting it to be a controlled drug, she took possession of it to prevent another from committing or continuing to commit an offence in connection with it, and that as soon as possible afterwards she took all such steps as were reasonably open to her to destroy it or to deliver it into the custody of a person lawfully entitled to take custody of it. Joanne took the tablets to stop her son having and taking them, and destroyed them within minutes.
B is wrong: s.5(4)(a) allows destruction or delivery to a lawful custodian. Delivery is the only route under s.5(4)(b), which covers taking possession for the purpose of handing the drug in.
C is wrong: s.5(4) draws no distinction between classes. It applies to any controlled drug.
D is wrong: s.28 is about not knowing, suspecting or having reason to suspect a fact the prosecution must prove. Joanne knew the tablets were ecstasy, so s.28 does not help her; s.5(4) is the defence that fits. Not intending to use the drug is not in itself a defence.
06 · Interviews ·
What does PACE Code C require at about this point?
Right answer: A. A short refreshment break, which should normally last at least 15 minutes.
A is right. Breaks from interviewing should be made at recognised meal times or at other times that take account of when the interviewee last had a meal, and short refreshment breaks must be provided at approximately two-hour intervals (PACE Code C (2023), para 12.8). Shorter breaks after two hours should normally last at least 15 minutes; meal breaks should normally last at least 45 minutes (Note 12B). The interviewer may delay a break only if there are reasonable grounds to believe it would involve a risk of harm to people or serious loss of or damage to property, unnecessarily delay release or otherwise prejudice the investigation. None applies here. Any decision to delay a break must be recorded with reasons in the interview record (para 12.12), and a longer break should then be given (Note 12B).
B is wrong: Lewis has just eaten, so a meal break is not due; 45 minutes is the normal length of a meal break.
C is wrong: Code C sets no four-hour rule; refreshment breaks are due at about two-hour intervals.
D is wrong: breaks are required by the Code; they do not depend on a request.
07 · Theft & robbery ·
How does Tom’s payment affect whether he was dishonest?
Right answer: C. It does not stop the taking being dishonest; dishonesty is decided by the Ivey test.
C is right. An appropriation may be dishonest even though the person is willing to pay for the property (Theft Act 1968, s.2(2)). None of the s.2(1) beliefs helps Tom: he claims no legal right, he knows who the owner is, and he cannot believe Colin would consent when Colin has refused many times. Dishonesty is therefore decided by the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), which applies in criminal cases (R v Barton and Booth (2020)): what did Tom actually know or believe about the facts, and was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
A is wrong: under s.2(2) paying, or even overpaying, does not of itself make a taking honest. An owner is entitled to refuse to sell.
B is wrong: a belief in consent under s.2(1)(b) must actually be held, and Tom knew Colin would not sell at any price.
D is wrong: the refusal is strong evidence, but there is no rule of law that it makes a taking dishonest. The payment is also evidence the jury may weigh when applying the Ivey test.
08 · Assaults & aggravated offences ·
Which offence do the consequences of the kick support?
Right answer: A. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as a brief loss of consciousness is bodily harm.
A is right. Actual bodily harm is any hurt or injury that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort and is more than transient and trifling (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.47). In T v DPP (2003) the victim was kicked and lost consciousness momentarily. The court held that this was actual bodily harm: losing consciousness, even briefly, is an injurious impairment of the victim’s senses and is not trifling. A visible injury is not needed.
B is wrong: harm is excluded only if it is trifling, and losing consciousness is not trifling even if it is brief.
C is wrong: grievous bodily harm means really serious harm (DPP v Smith (1961)). A few seconds of unconsciousness with no other injury is not automatically that.
D is wrong: no medical evidence of brain injury is needed; the loss of consciousness is itself the harm.
Detective plan
Hundreds more questions like these, full timed mocks in the 80 questions in 2 hours format, a readiness score and a study plan round your shifts. From £16.99 a month.
More free mocks