Eight exam-style questions for your student officer law exams. Free, no sign-up, about ten minutes. You’ll get your score, every right answer with the reasoning, and a score card to share.
Drugs
At 2050, PC EVANS lawfully searches Connor HALL, 23, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.23(2) near a bus station. She finds 20 small wraps of white powder, all the same size, a set of digital scales and £640 in mixed notes. The powder is later confirmed as cocaine. Without being asked anything, Connor says: “I was going to sell them at a party later. I haven’t sold any yet.”
Stop & search
At 1600 PC Sana AHMED is chatting to Josh BENNETT, 17, in a park during a community patrol. There is no information about Josh, and nothing in his behaviour gives her any reason to suspect he is carrying anything unlawful. As they talk about recent thefts nearby, Josh says, “Search me if you like, I’ve got nothing on me.”
Assaults & violence
Craig DUNNE is owed £500 by Mo RAHMAN. Craig sends Mo a text message: “You’re a dead man. Next time I see you, I’ll kill you.” Mo shows PC LEWIS the message but says he is not worried: “Craig’s all talk.” In interview Craig says: “I was never going to kill him. I wanted him to think I meant it, so he’d pay me back.”
Criminal damage
You are revising simple criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1(1), before a knowledge check.
Procedure, disposals & case files
PC Mia EDWARDS takes a typed witness statement on a tablet from Olu ADEBAYO, who saw a fight outside a nightclub. The statement includes the declaration that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he knows he could be prosecuted if he wilfully states anything false. Olu reads it and says it is accurate, but he leaves in a hurry before signing it. A copy is later served on the defence, who do not object to it within the time allowed.
Theft & robbery
You are revising the offence of theft before a knowledge check. Theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968, s.1(1).
Public order
At 2010 PC TURNER is called to a terraced house. Through the front window she sees Kieran ASHBY, 35, in the living room with his partner, Leanne BROOKS. He is shouting and smashing Leanne’s laptop and phone on the floor while she stands watching, crying. He does not touch or threaten Leanne herself. The street outside is quiet and no neighbours have come out.
Attempts & homicide
You are revising the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 with your tutor, PC Ola ADEBAYO. She describes four suspects. In each case the suspect has done an act that is more than merely preparatory, intending to commit the offence described.
Your score · Student officer
0/8
Eight questions is a taste, not a verdict. The real exam is 40-question knowledge checks; our full mocks in that format give you a readiness score that means something.
01 · Drugs ·
Which offence does the evidence best support?
Right answer: C. Possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply it to another (s.5(3)).
C is right. It is an offence to have a controlled drug in your possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply it to another in breach of s.4(1) (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(3)). Connor possesses the cocaine, and his own words, the identical wraps, the scales and the cash all point to an intention to sell it. No sale needs to have taken place.
A is wrong: Connor does possess the cocaine, but the evidence of his intent to supply it makes s.5(3) the offence that fits. A charge of simple possession would ignore that intent.
B is wrong: supply needs the drug to pass to another person. Packing drugs for sale is evidence of intent to supply, not a supply.
D is wrong: an offer has to be made to someone. Connor has not offered drugs to anyone yet; he only intends to sell them.
02 · Stop & search ·
What should PC AHMED do?
Right answer: D. Not search him, as consent cannot replace a power to search.
D is right. An officer must not search a person, even with their consent, where no power to search applies (PACE Code A (2023) para 1.5). Even if someone is prepared to be searched, they may be searched only where the legal power exists, and the search must follow that power and the Code. The only exception is a search of people entering sports grounds or other premises, with their consent given as a condition of entry. PC AHMED has no reasonable grounds for any power, such as PACE s.1 (s.1(3)), so she must not search Josh.
A is wrong: outside the condition-of-entry exception there is no such thing as a lawful voluntary search (para 1.5).
B is wrong: a parent’s consent does not supply a power either. Josh’s age is not the problem; the lack of a power is.
C is wrong: limiting the search does not help. Any search without a power breaches para 1.5, however light.
03 · Assaults & violence ·
Is the offence of threats to kill under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.16 made out?
Right answer: C. Yes: Craig intended Mo to fear the threat would be carried out.
C is right. Under s.16, the offence is making to another, without lawful excuse, a threat to kill that person or a third person, intending that the person threatened would fear it would be carried out. Craig admits he wanted Mo to think he meant it. That is the intent required. Wanting his money back is not a lawful excuse.
A is wrong: there is no need to intend to kill. The intent is that the victim would fear the threat would be carried out.
B is wrong: the test is what Craig intended, not how Mo reacted. The offence can be complete even if the victim is not frightened, though the victim’s reaction can be evidence of how the threat came across.
D is wrong: a threat can be made in writing, by text or by phone, as well as in person.
04 · Criminal damage ·
Which is the correct definition of simple criminal damage under s.1(1)?
Right answer: A. A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.
A is right. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1(1), a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, is guilty of an offence. Recklessness is judged on what the person was aware of: they must have been aware of a risk of damage and, in the circumstances known to them, it must have been unreasonable to take it (R v G (2003)).
B is wrong: dishonesty is an element of theft, not criminal damage. The question is whether the person acted without lawful excuse (s.5 sets out the statutory lawful excuses).
C is wrong: “whether belonging to himself or another” is the wording of s.1(2), aggravated criminal damage, which also needs intent or recklessness as to endangering life. Simple criminal damage must be to property belonging to another.
D is wrong: s.1(1) is satisfied by either intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging the property.
05 · Procedure, disposals & case files ·
Which requirement of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.9 is NOT met?
Right answer: D. The statement must purport to be signed by the person who made it.
D is right. A written statement is admissible under the Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.9 to the same extent as the maker’s oral evidence only if the conditions in s.9(2) are met. It must purport to be signed by the person who made it (s.9(2)(a)) and contain the declaration of truth (s.9(2)(b)); a copy must be served on each of the other parties before the hearing (s.9(2)(c)); and none of them may have served notice objecting within the relevant period (s.9(2)(d)). Olu did not sign, so s.9(2)(a) is not met. PC EDWARDS should go back to him and have the statement signed.
A is wrong: the statement contains the declaration that s.9(2)(b) requires.
B is wrong: a copy was served on the defence, so s.9(2)(c) is met.
C is wrong: the defence did not object within the time allowed, so s.9(2)(d) is met.
06 · Theft & robbery ·
Which words correctly complete the definition: “A person is guilty of theft if he ...”?
Right answer: C. dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
C is right. Under the Theft Act 1968, s.1(1), a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. That gives the five points to prove: dishonestly, appropriates, property, belonging to another, and with the intention of permanently depriving. Each one is explained in ss.2 to 6.
A is wrong: the Act says “appropriates”, not “takes and carries away”. Any assumption of the rights of an owner is an appropriation, including keeping or dealing with property as owner after coming by it innocently (s.3(1)). Nothing has to be moved.
B is wrong: it is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for the thief’s own benefit (s.1(2)). What the definition needs is an intention of permanently depriving.
D is wrong: an intention to deprive the owner only for a time is not enough. Borrowing counts only if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal (s.6(1)).
07 · Public order ·
Is a breach of the peace taking place?
Right answer: C. Yes: harm is being done to Leanne’s property in her presence, and a house is no bar.
C is right. R v Howell (1982) says there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person or, in his presence, to his property, or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. Smashing Leanne’s laptop and phone in front of her is harm done to her property in her presence. A breach of the peace can take place on private premises (McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (1990)), which is why PACE s.17(6) keeps the common law power to enter to deal with or prevent one. Kieran’s conduct is also criminal damage, for which he can be arrested under PACE s.24 if the necessity test is met.
A is wrong: a breach of the peace can happen in a private home. McConnell confirms it is not limited to public places.
B is wrong: Howell expressly includes harm done to a person’s property in their presence. No threat to Leanne herself is needed.
D is wrong: no member of the public outside needs to be affected. What matters is the harm, or likely harm, at the scene.
08 · Attempts & homicide ·
Which suspect can be charged with an attempt under s.1(1) of the Act?
Right answer: D. BAKER, who tried to steal a mobile phone from a table in a café.
D is right. Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 applies to any offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence, other than the offences listed in s.1(4)(a) to (d). “Indictable” includes offences triable either way (Interpretation Act 1978, Sch 1). Theft is triable either way, so BAKER can be charged with attempted theft.
A is wrong: aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or suborning the commission of an offence is excluded by s.1(4)(b).
B is wrong: conspiracy, whether at common law or under the Criminal Law Act 1977, is excluded by s.1(4)(a).
C is wrong: taking a conveyance without consent (Theft Act 1968, s.12(1)) is triable only summarily (s.12(2)), so it is not an offence to which s.1 applies. FINCH’s conduct may instead be vehicle interference (Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.9) if he interfered with the car.
The other exclusions in s.1(4) are encouraging or assisting suicide, encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, and the offences in ss.4(1) and 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (assisting offenders, and accepting or agreeing to accept consideration for not disclosing information about a relevant offence).
Student officer plan
Hundreds more questions like these, full timed mocks in the 40-question knowledge checks format, a readiness score and a study plan round your shifts. From £8.99 a month.
More free mocks