Eight exam-style questions for the NPPF legal 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.
Theft & related offences
At 0200 Mo AHMED forces the rear window of a warehouse office with a long flat-bladed screwdriver he brought for that purpose. Inside he takes two laptops, and he is arrested as he climbs out. He says he brought the screwdriver only to open the window and would never have used it on anyone. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, and he did not threaten anyone with it.
Detention & treatment
Victor LEWANDOWSKI, 38, is detained for aggravated burglary. At 1030 a superintendent authorised a delay in his access to legal advice, on reasonable grounds that the solicitor he asked for would pass on a message alerting his co-accused, who had not been arrested. At 1415 the co-accused is arrested and brought into the same custody suite. Victor’s next review is due at 1630.
Stop & search
PC Jordan OKAFOR stops a hatchback being driven by Kieran WALSH, 19, and searches the car under PACE, s.1 for stolen power tools. He does not search Kieran himself. Nothing is found. PC OKAFOR makes a record of the vehicle search on the spot, and Kieran says he does not want a copy. Six weeks later Kieran’s mother, Sandra WALSH, who is the registered owner of the car and was not present, comes to the front counter and asks for a copy of the record of the search of her car.
Drink, drugs & driving
At 2200 PC REID, in uniform and in his second year of service, stops a car after it weaves across the road. The driver, Emily CLARKE, smells of cannabis and her pupils are dilated. PC REID has no drug test device with him. He has watched colleagues carry out preliminary impairment tests and wants to carry one out himself at the roadside. He has not been approved by his chief officer to carry out these tests.
Public order, processions & sport
A designated sporting event is due to kick off at 1500 at a designated sports ground. At 1330 Shane DOYLE, 31, arrives at a turnstile very drunk, slurring and unsteady. Stewards refuse him entry and call PC BELLO. Shane has no alcohol with him and has not been disorderly. He argues that he has done nothing wrong because he never got into the ground.
Mental health powers
Ricky DALE is detained in hospital under s.3 Mental Health Act 1983. He is granted leave of absence until 1800 on Sunday but does not go back. On Sunday night he turns up at his brother Lee’s flat, saying his leave has been extended. On Monday morning the hospital phones Lee and tells him Ricky is absent without leave. When police officers call an hour later looking for Ricky, Lee hides him in a back bedroom and tells them he has not seen him, so that Ricky will not be taken back.
Assaults & aggravated offences
At 1730 at a bus stop, Leon FAIRWEATHER, 19, walks up behind Grace OBI, 22, who is looking at her phone, and slaps her hard on the back of the head. She did not see or hear him coming. She has a red mark that fades within the hour. Leon admits it. A student officer drafts the charge: “assaulted and battered Grace OBI, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”
Disclosure
Leon GRANT is tried in the Crown Court for wounding. Within time he gave a defence statement setting out self-defence and a witness notice naming two witnesses. Halfway through the defence case, his counsel calls a third witness, Sophie TRAN, who says she saw the complainant attack Leon first. Sophie was not named in the witness notice and no amended notice was given. Prosecution counsel wants to comment on this to the jury.
Your score · Sergeant & inspector
0/8
Eight questions is a taste, not a verdict. The real exam is 150 questions in 3 hours; our full mocks in that format give you a readiness score that means something.
01 · Theft & related offences ·
Has Mo committed aggravated burglary?
Right answer: D. No, because it was not made, adapted or intended for causing injury.
D is right. Aggravated burglary is committing a burglary while having with you a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence or explosive (Theft Act 1968, s.10(1)). A weapon of offence is any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use (s.10(1)(b)). A screwdriver is not made or adapted for causing injury, and Mo meant to use it only to force the window. So this is burglary, not aggravated burglary. Carrying the screwdriver on the way to the warehouse may also be going equipped (s.25).
A is wrong: what an article could do is not the test. It must be made or adapted for injuring or incapacitating, or intended for that use.
B is wrong: s.10 has no ‘bladed or pointed article’ category; that wording belongs to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.139.
C is wrong: s.10 applies to any burglary, of a dwelling or of any other building.
02 · Detention & treatment ·
What must happen now about Victor’s legal advice?
Right answer: C. Victor must be asked as soon as practicable if he wants legal advice, and his reply recorded.
C is right. Once the reason for authorising the delay ceases to exist, there may be no further delay (PACE s.58(11)). The rights may be delayed only for as long as the grounds exist; if they cease within the 36 hours, the detainee must, as soon as practicable, be asked if they want to exercise either right, the custody record noted and action taken under the relevant section of the Code (Code C Annex B para 6). His reply must be recorded and he must be asked to endorse the record about whether he wants legal advice now (Annex B para 14). If he does, the custody officer must act without delay to secure it (para 6.5).
A is wrong: nothing allows the delay to run on to the next review once the grounds have gone.
B is wrong: 36 hours from the relevant time is the outer limit (s.58(5)), not a period the delay may run for regardless of the grounds.
D is wrong: Annex B para 6 puts the duty on the police to ask him; it is not left to him to ask again.
03 · Stop & search ·
Is Sandra entitled to a copy of the record?
Right answer: A. Yes. The owner of a searched vehicle is entitled to a copy if she asks within 3 months.
A is right. Where a record of a vehicle search has been made, the owner of the vehicle, or the person who was in charge of it when it was searched, is entitled to a copy if they ask before the end of 3 months beginning with the date of the search (PACE, s.3(8) and (9)). Sandra is the owner and asked after six weeks, so she is entitled to a copy. Code A, para 3.8(e) deals with telling the person in charge about the right to a copy; the owner’s right comes straight from the Act.
B is wrong: s.3(8) gives the right to the owner as well as to the person in charge. Owners are often not present when their car is searched.
C is wrong: Kieran’s decision not to take a copy at the scene does not affect the owner’s separate entitlement. The record exists and she asked in time.
D is wrong: the Act does not make the owner’s right depend on anyone else’s consent.
04 · Drink, drugs & driving ·
Who may administer a preliminary impairment test to CLARKE?
Right answer: B. Only a constable approved for the purpose by the chief officer.
B is right. A constable may administer a preliminary impairment test only if approved for that purpose by the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.6B(6)). In the test, the constable observes the person performing tasks the constable specifies and makes other observations of the person’s physical state (s.6B(1)). The constable must have regard to the Secretary of State’s code of practice (s.6B(5)), which may cover approval and training (s.6B(7)). PC REID must call an approved officer.
A is wrong: uniform and regard to the code are not enough. Approval by the chief officer is a separate condition in s.6B(6).
C is wrong: the Act sets no rank. Approval, not rank, decides who may give the test.
D is wrong: the test is administered by a constable (s.6B(1)). Health care professionals have a role at the evidential stage, for example taking blood (s.11(4)), not in this test.
05 · Public order, processions & sport ·
Has Shane committed an offence under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985?
Right answer: D. Yes, because he was drunk while trying to enter the ground during the period of the event.
D is right. A person who is drunk in a designated sports ground during the period of a designated sporting event, or is drunk while entering or trying to enter such a ground during that period, commits an offence (s.2(2)). The period begins two hours before the start of the event (or its advertised start, if earlier) and ends one hour after it ends (s.9(4)). For a 1500 kick-off it began at 1300. A constable may enter any part of the ground during the period to enforce the Act, and may search a person he has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing or has committed an offence under it (s.7(1) and (2)).
A is wrong: s.2(2) expressly covers being drunk while entering or trying to enter.
B is wrong: the period started at 1300, two hours before the start (s.9(4)).
C is wrong: having alcohol is a separate offence (s.2(1)); being drunk is enough under s.2(2).
06 · Mental health powers ·
Which offence is shown by Lee’s conduct when the police call?
Right answer: D. Knowingly harbouring a patient who is absent without leave, under s.128(3).
D is right. A patient liable to be detained who fails to return to hospital when his leave of absence ends is absent without leave and may be taken into custody and returned (Mental Health Act 1983, s.18(1)(b)). Anyone who knowingly harbours a patient who is absent without leave, or gives him any assistance with intent to prevent, hinder or interfere with his being taken into custody or returned to hospital, commits an offence (s.128(3)). By Monday Lee knew Ricky was absent without leave, and he hid him from the police so that he would not be returned. The offence is triable either way (s.128(4)).
A is wrong: s.128(1) covers inducing or knowingly assisting a patient to absent himself. When Ricky failed to return on Sunday, Lee had done nothing to bring that about and believed the leave had been extended. Hiding him later to stop his return is what s.128(3) covers.
B is wrong: s.128(2) concerns escape from legal custody under s.137, for example while being conveyed or held in a place of safety. Ricky was not in legal custody when he failed to return.
C is wrong: s.4 needs a relevant offence committed by the person assisted. Failing to return from leave is not a criminal offence.
07 · Assaults & aggravated offences ·
How should the charge be put?
Right answer: A. Assault by beating (battery), contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39.
A is right. Common assault and battery are two separate offences, both placed on a statutory footing by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 (DPP v Taylor; DPP v Little (1992)). A single charge alleging both is bad for duplicity. Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another, and it is charged as “assault by beating”. Grace was struck without warning, so she never apprehended force: there was a battery but no assault in the narrow sense.
B is wrong: s.39 covers two offences, and one charge must allege only one of them.
C is wrong: a battery does not need the victim to see it coming. A blow from behind is a battery without any assault.
D is wrong: DPP v Little held that common assault and battery are statutory offences contrary to s.39, not common law offences.
08 · Disclosure ·
Which statement about Sophie’s evidence and the prosecution’s response is correct?
Right answer: D. Prosecution counsel may comment only with leave, and the jury may draw proper inferences.
D is right. The accused must give the court and the prosecutor a notice saying whether he intends to call any witnesses other than himself, with their details, and must give an amended notice if he decides to call someone not included (CPIA 1996, s.6C(1), (4)). Calling a witness at trial who is not included, or not adequately identified, in a witness notice is a fault in disclosure (s.11(4)(b)). The court or any other party may then comment, and the court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper (s.11(5)), but in this case comment by another party may be made only with the leave of the court (s.11(7)). The court must have regard to whether there is any justification for the failure (s.11(9)), and no one may be convicted solely on an inference under s.11 (s.11(10)).
A is wrong: s.11 deals with the failure by comment and inference; it does not make the witness’s evidence inadmissible.
B is wrong: comment by another party on a witness notice failure needs leave, and inferences are for the jury to draw if proper, not something the judge must direct.
C is wrong: s.11(4) expressly covers failures concerning witness notices.
Sergeant & inspector plan
Hundreds more questions like these, full timed mocks in the 150 questions in 3 hours format, a readiness score and a study plan round your shifts. From £19.99 a month.
More free mocks