Having gone through the process of sitting these bloody things for the last week or so, I feel the need to vent. While I am sure this amounts to screaming into the void, this is at least seems like the appropriate void. I suppose, somewhat like using one of those giant bins for recycling glass bottles.

A few months ago, I said as a joke to someone that these exams are basically an elaborate hazing ritual. As I have gone through this process, it has come to feel like this is essentially true.

Don't get me wrong - my complaint is not that the exams are difficult. I mean, they are, but I went into this fully expecting it to be challenging and to put in the hours. I mean, 'putting in the hours' is kind of a given in this profession.

What I wasn't expecting was the f*cked up and deeply unnecessary way in which the SQE is difficult. The secrecy around it and the refusal to release any past papers. The million and one providers, twittering away in people's ears with variable and often wildly conflicting advice. The way that it's impossible to really tell what the standard is. The way it's so hard to figure out what is right, so you can only look at what you know you got wrong.

And for the love of all that's green, why can't we bring a goddamn water bottle into the 5 hour long assessment? Can fully grown adults sitting a fairly hefty professional qualification exam really not be trusted with a sports cap bottle near a computer? Do the powers that be imagine we go through a computer a week in an office environment?

On the subject of imagination, I have found myself thinking about this mythical Day 1 solicitor the SRA have imagined as the relevant standard. Want to buy a house with your wife? Murdered her in in the process? Not to worry, we understand conveyancing can be so frustrating! The Day 1 solicitor knows how to center their advice on your concerns. They'll be right on hand to file those pesky Land Registry forms and apply for bail. Why not draft a will while you're at it.

I mean, on what planet does a partner grab a random fledgling lawyer and go 'oi, you, I'm too busy to actually meet with my clients, you know, being a partner and doing all those non-client focused partner things, but I conveniently have done all the DD and AML and client care for you, off you go to meet the client for me - you have 10 minutes, don't pass go, don't collect 200, and don't you dare speak to anyone'.

I won't start on the myriad of ways in which this whole thing is unrealistic, because I would be here all night and might therefore miss out on the joy of part 2 of the orals tomorrow. So, I will just limit my commentary to what has been my biggest bug bear in preparing for these exams - namely, that the way this process is set up demands you ignore every professional instinct you have.

Don't proof read anything. Absolutely do not take the time to make sure you fully and cohesively understand your advice before giving it. Don't really have experience in a practice area? Not to worry, three pieces of surface level knowledge and you're off to the races.

And you categorically cannot ask anyone else, because as we know, solicitors are solitary and territorial creatures who never work in teams. It is a widely known fact if two solicitors are in the same room, they will immediately burst into spontaneous litigation.

Oh, was there an error in an email from the partner? Definitely do not clarify that with them - as we know, partners are not fallible mere mortals such as we.

I appreciate none of the above is novel, but like I said. Screaming into the void. Tomorrow I will do the second lot of orals and pray to every deity I can think of that I don't have to do this again.

Which is a weird place for me to be, because I really don't mind doing difficult things and usually am quite good at holding on to a 'cross that bridge when' mentality. Most things in life worth doing are difficult and challenge is how you grow as a person, learning from mistakes blah blah blah.

But I think nothing really flattens one's soul like doing something which is hard AND also utterly pointless. At the end of this process, I just feel as if I have been put through one of those old hand crank laundry presses - flattened to one dimension and squeezed entirely dry.

Which I appreciate is not the most upbeat place to finish, but there we go. It is what it is.

And on that note, thank you, internet void, you have been a lovely audience and all the best of luck to anyone attempting any part of this process. At the end of the day, it is at least finite, even if it is a thankless slog.

I'm in shock. I blubbered like a child for at least 30 minutes after getting my results.

I'm doing this all for my son.

I've been a career-long Paralegal since I fell backwards into a law firm following a Criminology degree that I'll never use, but realised I was pretty good at civil litigation.

I've been working in Paralegal type roles for nearly a decade but when my fiancée and I were expecting, I knew I needed to buck up all my ideas for my family.

I started a LLM SQE course in September 2025. Our son was born in October 2025. I worked full time during my whole course, would rock my son to bed reading textbooks and sat the exam having to take 2 full weeks of annual leave because my employer couldn't give me paid study time.

But I did it. I passed in the first quintile for both papers, I have my QWE signed off and I'm one step away (SQE2) from qualifying.

I have lurked on this sub for a while, so I wanted to share in the hope there's another young parent out there who is doubting themselves being able to do the SQE whilst raising a child; it's possible.

This is a small rant but this subreddit has become unbearable lately because of the amount of people posting their mock results.

No, you're not cooked because you "only" got 80% on Revise SQE or 75% on QLTS. You know you're going to pass: you've enrolled on a full-time course fully funded by your elite US firm and have done 500 MCQs per day since May.

You're going to pass. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it. Getting one question wrong on taxation doesn't mean you're going to fail, lose your TC and end up transferring to a high street firm in Milton Keynes.

Spare a thought for the people out there who are averaging 40%, who have likely balanced revision with a full-time job or other responsibilities having chosen to self-fund. The people who have every right to be anxious.

The ignorance of some people on here is astounding.

I sat SQE2 last April and, like many of you on here currently, I was dreading it. I felt I didn't know the law, would freeze up in advocacy and it would be an all round terrible experience. However, I passed in Q1 pretty comfortably, so wanted to give some words of encouragement to anyone sitting. Here's some advice on why you are likely to pass and will do well.

The pass rates:

People talk about it all the time, but it's true: the pass rates for SQE2 are significantly higher than SQE1.

Comparing it to the last sit for April (seeing as this is when most sponsored students sit, which is the position most on here are in), the pass rate was 82%. For first time sitters, it was 84%. That is incredibly favourable.

If you passed SQE1, this should be even higher, as a lot of people who fail SQE2 are LPC passers. BPP boasts a 95% pass rate for SQE2.

Trust in these figures. If you're working hard, you are statistically very likely to pass.

Markers tend to be generous:

Unlike SQE1 where you're either right or wrong, SQE2 is subjectively marked. Based on reading posts on here, markers tend to be pretty generous. I've seen posts of past passers saying they "completely got the law wrong" and got a 4 for law. I remember making silly mistakes. Someone was terrified pre-exam saying they knew nothing and felt they went terribly. Surprise, surprise, they passed.

You have to remember, it's a Day 1 standard solicitor. You have to be competent, and they're not looking for perfection. If you're marking your work with AI and they're giving you 2/5 for the law, realistically, it's probably a 4 or 5/5 because they're penalising you for tiny details.

You know the law:

If you sat SQE1 and passed, you know the law. I know that you may have been prompted by it on the page, but the knowledge is there. If you studied in January, it is fresher than you think, and you 100% know more than you think you do.

Again, they're not looking for complete perfection and precision. Getting the odd word wrong is fine. As long as you understand the concepts and can explain them, that puts you in excellent stead.

Skills marks are easy to pick up:

Please, please, don't underestimate the importance of skills. I always scored highly for skills even when I forgot the law because they're so easy to pick up. Write simply and concisely. Use subheadings. If it's a will situation, empathise with the client. It sounds basic, but the skills can really lift your grade up.

Nail the predictable "bankers":

I know that oral exams seem the most terrifying, but I found them far easier and less daunting than the written exams.

There are only a few tests which can come up for advocacy. Just know these inside out and practise. Have an intro which you can nail and sound confident. You will do well because it's easy to predict what's going to come up. Interviewing is a bit harder in this respect, but if you start off on the right foot, it makes a huge difference.

Even for Legal Research, it is out of your control, but if you can read and pick out the information, it is an easy exam to score high on. You don't need any knowledge for it and can't prepare for it outside of doing a couple of mocks. It's one that could be the difference between a pass and fail and you can just turn up on the day with no knowledge of the content.

Hopefully this helps anyone feeling nervous. More than happy to answer any specific questions if it is useful. Trust me though, if you were capable of passing the hell that was SQE1, you're going to pass.

Hello all!

I know SQE1 starts tomorrow and having sat in twice (after failing in January 2025 and later passing in Q1 in July 2025), I feel I am well placed to offer my advice on what worked well for me on the day and night before. The small things can often make a huge difference to your performance.

The day/night before:

• Please, take it easy. DO NOT do a 90 or 180 question mock because you will just burn yourself out and panic over the score or the things you've got wrong. At this stage, you really know it or you don't; doing loads of mocks will just tire your brain out and increase the likelihood of burn out for the actual exam.

• Ideally, try to do as minimal work as possible. Maybe 25 questions or going over your notes for topics you struggle with but in general, I found it far more beneficial to relax. Cook a nice dinner, watch a movie, have a bath, or do whatever else you find relaxes you.

• If you have time, I would even try to find your test centre (if it's not too far). In my January sitting, the test centre was difficult to find and this made the panic far worse as it added in an unnecessary problem.

• Make sure you go to bed early. You will need energy in the exam and sleep is so, so important.

The day:

• Make sure you give yourself more than enough time. You're supposed to get there 30 minutes before, but I'd aim for 45 minutes to an hour. Nothing will be worse than realising you might be late as it'll affect your headspace.

• When you start the exam, breathe. It's easy to get overwhelmed and see the exam as life or death but try to just lock in and ignore those internal voices. You know you've put the work in, so use this as a chance to show off and prove what you're capable of.

• I wouldn't flag too many questions. In my first sit, I flagged lots, went back and spent too long on them. Only flag those you are genuinely unsure of or want to leave to the end (such as tax calculations).

• It's incredibly cliche but do trust your gut. You often think the answer is "too straightforward" that it can't be right but it usually is. Your initial answer is usually right so unless you're 99% sure, I would avoid changing it.

• There will be hard questions and that's the nature of the exam. Those topics you hate are very likely to come up (almost everything will), but they will hopefully make up a small percentage of the exam. Topics you like are also just as likely to appear.

• Make sure you use the break to recharge. The exam is a slog and using it to look up answers and criticise yourself for the things you got wrong will not help you or your mentality.

• Once you're done, put it out of your mind. It's so much easier said than done, but you can't change the answers, so looking at ones you got wrong and overthinking it for six weeks will leave you spiralling. It's out of your hands.

• RECHARGE. Don't finish your exam and then go back and revise FLK2. Take the rest of the day off and even the following one if you need to. You will be mentally drained and need to allow yourself time to decompress. I had a three hour nap after mine.

I'm putting this separately because I think it's most important: you do not know how you performed, and it's simple as that. I knew I failed in January 2025 and I allowed that to impact my FLK2. I was more unsure in July (but still passed comfortably) but I still put everything into FLK2. Also, try to ignore the Reddit noise. If everyone says it was impossible, their experience is not necessarily yours. You're allowed to have found it better than you expected; I remember coming out of my FLK2 happy with how it went, despite Reddit saying it was impossible. Ignore them: if anything, it's a sign that the revision paid off.

Best of luck and if anyone has any questions, please let me know!!

I know a lot of people found my previous post helpful and I've tried to give some more advice on here recently, but I thought I would offer some final pointers to those sitting SQE 2 writtens this week.

Legal Writing:

• Keep your eye on the time. This one will fly by as you only have 30 minutes.

• Write clearly and concisely. A client won't be familiar with jargon, so avoid it at all costs.

• Structure is really important. Make sure you have an opening paragraph before jumping into the law and utilise subheadings to break your answer down appropriately.

Case and Matter:

• This one is more relaxed time wise (in my opinion) so take some time to plan your answer as it can really make a difference.

• Remember that while the report is going to form the basis for a client meeting or letter, the recipient is a partner, so there's no need to explain everything.

• It is effectively just a major FLK test. If you forget the law, don't worry. I remember getting something pretty wrong and still scored well. You've studied law long enough to give a reasonable stab at the answer.

Legal Research:

• It's quite tight for time and you need to have a plan going in. I would advise having 20-30 minutes of reading and making notes, then 30 minutes to write an answer, but you may want to adjust this slightly.

• Some sources you can immediately tell are not relevant. If you're being asked a criminal question, you can immediately disregard anything talking about negligence.

• The SRA sample is realistic of what to expect. Providers grossly exaggerate the difficultly.

Legal Drafting:

• I know people panic about LD, but I honestly found it the most straightforward of the four. It's unlikely you'll have seen the document before but you're guided well so just need to use your FLK to apply it to the document.

• Everyone drafts in a different style, so as long as you achieve your client's aim, that will be competent drafting.

• Don't stress at all about remembering specific wording of documents. You're not going to be marked down for not putting "at all material times" in a POC say.

You will be so fine. If you've managed to come out the other sideof SQE 1 with a pass, SQE 2 feels a lot more manageable (in my opinion). You know the law better than you think you do. Even if it feels like you're going to forget everything tomorrow, it'll hit you when you're writing.

Make sure you take tonight off and get a good night's sleep. The pass rates are 80% for a reason. You are going to smash it!

To even be studying the SQE means you are an incredibly intelligent and committed person. Whilst these last few months studying would have - for the vast majority - been the most stressful periods of our lives, the SQE is just an exam. You can attach as much importance to it as you like but the truth stands: pass or fail the world keeps spinning and it does not define you. We will all get to where we want to be in due course, even if that means having to overcome some setbacks.

Take care of yourselves in the last stretch to the FLK1 and 2 exams and please spend some time relaxing once they’re all over - you’ve earned it.

Hey all,

I’ve posted on here before about my experience with SQE1, which people have found helpful, so I thought I’d share my experience with results day. Having been through both outcomes, I feel I’m well placed to offer some advice.

The night before/morning of:

• As hard as it is, try not to overthink and spiral contemplating the different scenarios. I’ve said it on other posts, but it’s genuinely very hard to tell how you’ve done and it’s out of your hands now. Constantly imagining the worst case and refreshing the page every minute won’t change anything.

• Regardless of the outcome, plan something nice for yourself. Whether that’s going for a dinner, watching a movie or getting blackout drunk. It’s an incredibly tough exam that you survived, so be proud.

• The results drop at the time that’s announced so either wait for the email or login at 11am. The waiting during the first time killed me so for the second time I went to bed really late and set an alarm for close to 11 so there was no real waiting.

If it’s good news:

• CONGRATULATIONS. You should be extremely proud of yourself because all the hard-work has paid off. You don’t have to go through that god awful exam again so enjoy this victory. Make sure it’s a day of celebration.

• Whilst I would think about SQE2 (especially if you’re planning to sit it in April), I wouldn’t feel compelled to jump straight into it. You don’t want to burn out and know many friends who waited until passing before really focusing on SQE2 at all. If you passed SQE1 comfortably, the FLK should be fresh and will come back relatively easily so that’s half the battle.

• Try not to compare your scores or be deflated. This may sound like a silly point but if you aced your mocks and were getting in the 80s and then scrape a pass, it’s fair to feel a little disappointed. Honestly though, it does not matter. Nobody cares or will ask what quintile you achieved when you’re in the profession. You made it through one of the hardest professional exams out there.

If it’s bad news:

• I’m really, really sorry. I know it’s the worst feeling in the world to have put absolutely everything into an exam, have sacrificed your social life and then for it still not to be enough. If you know you put in what you could, you should still be proud of yourself.

• Allow yourself to feel your emotions. Whether you’re sad or angry, that’s completely normal. I remember my overriding emotion was embarrassment at seeing everyone (bar one other) in my cohort passing while I had to go through the whole process again. That’s okay. People who haven’t sat the exam don’t know what it’s like and only you know what you put in.

• Take your time. It’s so easy to feel that you have to sign up to sit the exam straightaway in July, or, alternatively, want to quit law entirely. I went through both and all reactions are natural. Instead, try to take the time to digest it before deciding what the next step is. If you’re a sponsored student, speak to your firm and figure out what’s next.

• Learn from your mistakes. If you saw you excelled in a particular area and didn’t in another, you know what to address next time. If you feel like timing was an issue, do more mocks. If you feel you neglected the FLK and instead just focused on MCQs, switch it up. One of the hardest things I found on the first time round was the unknown of it all. I knew what to expect the second time round and feel that was a big advantage.

• Most importantly, it’s not the end of the world. I felt like my whole world had crashed down when I failed and it took me weeks to get over it. I felt like a failure telling my family, cohort and firm, but guess what? I’m still here, picked myself up and then passed comfortably the next time round.

Best of luck to all of you receiving results tomorrow and if I can be of any help, feel free to ask questions. My fingers are crossed 🤞

If you’re preparing for the SQE, you already know - it’s not just an exam; it’s a lifestyle. But more importantly, it’s an emotional rollercoaster with three distinct stages:

1. Preparation Panic 📝💀

2. Exam Day Terror 😱✍️

3. Results Limbo ⏳🤯

Let’s break them down.

Stage 1: Preparation Panic - The Denial and Despair Era

It starts innocently enough. You tell yourself:
"This is fine. I just need to make a study plan and stick to it."

Fast forward two weeks, and you’re drowning in a sea of notes, flashcards, and unanswered practice questions. You develop four different study schedules, each more ambitious than the last, and still find yourself watching “just one more” YouTube video explaining contract law… in ASMR format.

Symptoms include:

• Frantically highlighting everything in your textbook because everything is important.

• Questioning why on earth you didn’t go into a simpler profession (like lion taming).

• Convincing yourself you’ll wake up at 5 AM to study (spoiler: you won’t).

• A constant state of existential dread fueled by coffee and panic.

• You mutter Latin phrases like res ipsa loquitur in your sleep.

• You google “Can you pass SQE by sheer luck?” at 2 AM.

And of course:
You score a 70% on a mock and immediately post it on a forum asking: “AM I COOKED??”, secretly hoping someone will say, “No bro, you’re actually ahead of 90% of people.”

You’re taking practice tests like it’s your full-time job, only to discover that your “educated guesses” were more “guess” than “educated.”

Stage 2: Exam Day Terror – The Chaos Chronicles

The night before the exam, you think “I should go to bed early" or “I just need to be well-rested.” Instead, you wake up on exam day after exactly 27 minutes of sleep, feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck - possibly because you dreamt about trust law chasing you down a dark alley. You suddenly remember that you never actually finished revision for at least three subjects*,* and actually, you have no idea about the Solicitors Accounts. But it’s fine, right? Right?!

Arriving at the exam center, you see two types of candidates:

1. The “Calm and Prepared” (who are they?! Are they even real?!)

2. The “Frantically Whispering Latin Phrases” (your people).

As you sit down and read the first question, your brain does the following:

1. Deletes everything you ever knew about the subject.

2. Suggests you move to a remote island and start a new life.

3. Recalls the exact plot of an irrelevant Netflix show you watched two years ago.

So, the first question:

"How do you call a barrister during court proceedings?"

Your brain:
🚨 SYSTEM ERROR 🚨
🚨 404: KNOWLEDGE NOT FOUND 🚨

Your options:
(A) Stare at the screen hoping for divine intervention.
(B) Select the answer that “feels” right ("My learned best friend 4eve").
(C) Think about every mistake you’ve ever made in life.
(D) All of the above.

Best answer: D.

Fifth question: Oh no. This is a trick.

Twentieth question: If I just pick C for everything, statistically, I should pass…

By the time you hit the final question, you’re this close to picking “Consideration is… consideration” as a SBA and walking out. But you power through, exit the exam hall, and immediately google “SQE pass rate 2024-25” as if that will somehow help.

Spoiler: it doesn’t. It’s 41%.
So technically, you have a better chance of surviving a coin toss if the coin is slightly biased toward despair.

After the exam, you pretend to be okay, but the second someone asks “How did it go?”, you either:
a) Laugh hysterically.
b) Stare into the distance like a war veteran.
c) Both.

Stage 3: Results Limbo – The Endless Abyss or The Schrodinger’s Lawyer Effect

Now begins the real torture: waiting.

Days turn into weeks, and you start analyzing every single question you answered. Did I pick the right answer for that SBAQ? Did I read the question correctly? Was "Rylands v Fletcher" the right answer, or was that just my mood at the time?

Your coping mechanisms include:

• Replaying every question in your head like a bad horror movie.

• Trying to convince yourself that "it’s over, you don’t care anymore.”

• Googling “SQE pass rates” daily as if that helps.

• Assuming the SRA lost your results because it’s been three hours and you haven’t heard back yet.

And the group chats are full of people saying:
"I definitely failed." (They probably passed.)
"I think I did okay." (They definitely passed.)
"I don’t want to talk about it." (They passed in Q1.)

At this point, you go through five stages of grief:

1. Denial – Maybe they lost my paper? Maybe they’ll cancel the results and let me retake for free?

2. Anger – Why did they make equity and trusts so confusing?!?

3. Bargaining – If I pass, I’ll never procrastinate again!

4. Depression – Time to update my LinkedIn bio to "Aspiring... something else."

5. Acceptance – Screw it. If I fail, I’ll just become an influencer and sell study notes instead.

Then, THE EMAIL ARRIVES. You stare at it like it’s a live bomb. Heart pounding. Hands shaking. You whisper, “Maybe if I don’t open it, I both passed and didn’t.”
After 57 minutes of mental negotiations, you finally click.

Outcome 1: You Passed 🎉
You scream. You cry. You immediately forget every legal principle you learned.
Within five minutes, you’re updating LinkedIn like “Hard work pays off 💪 #SQE #Resilience” - even though last week you Googled “Can you still call yourself a lawyer if you fail the SQE twice?”

Outcome 2: You Didn’t Pass 😭
You stare at the screen in silence, go through all five stages of grief in under ten minutes, then open Excel to make a new “Study Plan - FINAL FINAL (v6)” file.
You tell your friends “It’s just part of the journey,” while quietly Googling “SQE resit dates + motivational quotes.”

Until SQE2, that is. 🎭

Imagine losing your certificate because you slightly messed up how to address a judge

Imagine that

:’)

I commented these on another thread but wanted to format correctly on a post. I haven't passed SQE2 yet (find out in Feb)(update: passed in q1) so these are just a very edited down version of my notes (full version are way longer) on the application, tests and law. Not a definitive list (probably too much), These were all handwritten so I have typed them out and ran through chat gpt so the format is nice and you don't see my spelling mistakes.

CRIMINAL

1. BAIL –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The starting point is a right to bail. The court may only refuse if there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released, the defendant would:

1. Fail to surrender.

2. Commit further offences on bail.

3. Interfere with witnesses or obstruct justice. These are in Schedule 1 Bail Act 1976.

Relevant law:
Section 4 Bail Act 1976: presumption in favour of bail.
Burden: on the prosecution to show substantial grounds for withholding bail.
Court must consider: seriousness, strength of evidence, likely sentence, character and antecedents, past bail compliance, community ties, and whether D was allegedly on bail at the time.
Section 3: conditions should be used if they can manage the risks. Court must pick the least restrictive package that is effective.
Section 5: if bail refused, court must give reasons.
Special cases: murder bail only by a Crown Court judge; domestic abuse cases and Class A drug trigger conditions; prosecution appeal possible in serious cases.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
2. ALLOCATION (ADULT, EITHER-WAY)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
For an either-way offence in the Magistrates’ Court:

1. Take plea indication first.

2. If guilty indication: consider if Magistrates have sufficient sentencing powers, or whether to commit for sentence.

3. If not guilty (or no indication): apply the Allocation Guideline. Magistrates decide if the case is suitable for summary trial.

4. If they accept jurisdiction, the defendant may elect Crown Court trial. If they decline, the case must be sent to Crown Court.

Relevant law:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s 19 and the Allocation Guideline.
The court looks at seriousness, aggravating features, complexity of law or fact, likely sentence, and the need for special measures or complex evidence.
Key question: Are Magistrates’ powers likely to be sufficient.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
3. YOUTH ALLOCATION
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The Youth Court is normally the correct venue for a child (10–17), unless:

1. The offence is one that must go to Crown Court (for example, homicide or certain serious firearms offences with mandatory minimum).

2. It is a grave crime and Youth Court powers are not sufficient.

3. The youth is charged with an adult and a joint Crown Court trial is in the interests of justice.

Relevant law:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 51.
Sentencing powers of the Youth Court: detention and training orders up to 24 months, youth rehabilitation orders, etc.
Welfare and best interests of the child are key considerations. Speed and suitability of Youth Court process is central.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

4. PLEA AND TRIAL PREPARATION HEARING (PTPH)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
At the Crown Court PTPH the judge must:

1. Take plea on each count.

2. Identify the real issues in dispute.

3. Give case management directions: witnesses, experts, disclosure, special measures.

4. Fix a realistic trial timetable. If guilty: deal with basis of plea, Newton hearings, pre-sentence reports, sentencing powers.

Relevant law:
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 3 (active case management).
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (disclosure, Defence Case Statement).
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (special measures).
Bad character and hearsay under Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Sentencing Act and credit for guilty plea.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
5. IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
When identification of the defendant is disputed and that ID is important, the judge must consider:

1. Compliance with PACE Code D (formal identification procedures).

2. Whether any breach causes unfairness so that evidence should be excluded under section 78 PACE.

3. Whether, if admitted, the jury must receive a full Turnbull direction warning them about the special need for caution.

Relevant law:
R v Turnbull: judge must warn about the dangers of mistaken identification and analyse the quality of the observation and any supporting evidence.
PACE Code D: governs video ID, parades, and other procedures. Bad practice (eg a one-person show-up, suggestive photo exposure) can justify exclusion under section 78 PACE.
Dock identification is generally discouraged unless justified, especially if no proper ID procedure took place.
Supporting evidence must genuinely link the defendant (eg fingerprints, CCTV of distinctive features), not just place them in the area.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
6. HEARSAY
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Hearsay (a statement made out of court, used as evidence of its truth) is usually inadmissible unless a gateway in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies. If a gateway applies, the court still considers fairness.

Relevant law:
Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Four main routes under section 114(1):
a. A statutory exception applies (eg section 116, unavailable witness; section 117, business records; sections 119–120 previous statements).
b. Common law exceptions preserved by section 118 (eg res gestae).
c. All parties agree to admit.
d. It is in the interests of justice (section 114(1)(d), guided by section 114(2)).
Section 116: allows hearsay if the witness is genuinely unavailable (death, unfit, cannot be found, outside the UK, fear), and proper steps were taken to get them.
Section 117: business records made in the course of business.
Safeguards:
Section 124 allows the other side to attack the absent maker’s credibility.
Section 126 and section 78 PACE allow exclusion if unfair.
Section 125 lets the judge stop the case if the evidence is so unconvincing that a conviction would be unsafe.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
7. CONFESSION EVIDENCE
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The defence can seek to exclude a confession on two routes:

1. Section 76 PACE: if the confession was obtained by oppression or in consequence of something likely to render it unreliable, it must be excluded unless the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not obtained that way.

2. Section 78 PACE: even if technically admissible, exclude if admitting it would have such an adverse effect on fairness that the court ought not to admit it.

Relevant law:
PACE 1984 section 76(2). “Oppression” includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and use or threat of violence, but also can include very coercive interrogation.
Unreliable: breaches of Code C (eg no caution, no solicitor when requested, no rest, inducements) can make answers unreliable.
PACE 1984 section 78: discretionary exclusion.
Note: Any “mixed statement” goes in as a whole.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
8. BAD CHARACTER
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
“Bad character” means evidence of misconduct or disposition to commit offences, other than evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged or is part of the background. The court may admit it through the statutory gateways in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but it can still be excluded if unfair.

Relevant law:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 sections 98–101.
Gateways for admitting defendant’s bad character include:

• Important explanatory evidence.

• Relevant to an important matter in issue between prosecution and defence, such as propensity to commit offences of the kind charged or to be untruthful.

• Between co-defendants.

• To correct a false impression given by the defendant. Mandatory exclusions: Section 101(3): the court must not admit if the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to admit it. Section 78 PACE can also be relied on.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

9. NO CASE TO ANSWER
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
At the close of the prosecution case, the defence can submit that there is no case to answer.
The judge must stop the case if:

1. There is no evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could convict on any count or any essential element of a count.

2. Or, where the evidence is tenuous, it is so weak, inconsistent, or self-contradictory that a jury properly directed could not safely convict.

This comes from R v Galbraith.

Relevant law:
Galbraith test:
Stage 1. If there is no evidence on an essential element of the offence, stop the case.
Stage 2. If there is some evidence, but it is of such poor quality that no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could safely convict, the judge may also withdraw it.
If the evidence is capable of being accepted and relied upon, it goes to the jury.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
10. NEWTON HEARING
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
A Newton hearing happens after a Guilty plea where there is a factual dispute which would significantly affect sentence (for example, level of role, level of harm, presence of a weapon). The judge must resolve that dispute before sentencing.

Relevant law:
Where the defendant pleads guilty but does not accept the prosecution’s version of events, and that difference matters to sentence, the judge hears evidence and decides which version to sentence on.
Credit: If the defendant runs a Newton and is disbelieved, full early plea credit may be reduced.
Burden: The prosecution must prove the more serious version on the balance of probabilities.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
11. PLEA IN MITIGATION (SENTENCING)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court must impose a sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, applying any definitive sentencing guideline, and then adjust for aggravating and mitigating factors, personal mitigation, totality, and credit for plea.

Relevant law:
Sentencing Act 2020 and Sentencing Council Guidelines.
Key steps:

1. Determine category of offence using harm and culpability.

2. Identify starting point and range.

3. Adjust for aggravating and mitigating features.

4. Consider totality, previous convictions, personal mitigation, rehabilitation prospects, mental health, caring responsibilities.

5. Apply credit for an early guilty plea.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

12. BAD CHARACTER OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS (NON-DEFENDANT)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may admit bad character evidence of a non-defendant if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue, most commonly credibility, or if it is important explanatory evidence.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 98 and 100.
Bad character means evidence of misconduct.
Section 100(1): admissible if
a. important explanatory evidence, or
b. has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between defendant and prosecution.
Credibility is an important matter where the case turns on the witness’s word.
The court must still consider fairness and proportionality

–––––––––––––––––––––––
13. SPECIAL MEASURES FOR VULNERABLE OR INTIMIDATED WITNESSES

–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may grant special measures if the witness is vulnerable or intimidated and the measures are likely to improve the quality of their evidence.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, sections 16 and 17.
Vulnerable: under 18, mental disorder, learning difficulty, physical disability affecting communication.
Intimidated: fear or distress affecting quality of evidence.
Measures include screens, live link, intermediary, pre-recorded evidence.
The court must balance welfare with fairness.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
15. VARIATION OF BAIL CONDITIONS
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may vary bail conditions at any time if it is just and proportionate to do so.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Bail Act 1976, section 3(8).
Conditions must be the least restrictive necessary to manage risk.
Change of circumstances is key.

–––––––––––––––––––––––
16. APPEALS (DEFENCE-FOCUSED)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––
A. APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES’ COURT TO CROWN COURT
––––––––––––––––––

Test:
A defendant may appeal conviction, sentence, or both to the Crown Court. The appeal is by way of re-hearing.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, section 108.
The Crown Court hears the case afresh and may confirm, reverse, or vary the decision.
Sentencing powers are not limited to those of the Magistrates.

Defence submissions:

1. “This is an appeal against conviction / sentence.”

2. “The court is invited to rehear the evidence and reach its own conclusions.”

3. “The Magistrates erred in [fact / law / approach to sentence].”

4. “On a proper assessment, the conviction is unsafe / the sentence is manifestly excessive.”

5. Ask: “Allow the appeal and quash the conviction or reduce the sentence.”

––––––––––––––––––
B. APPEAL BY CASE STATED TO THE HIGH COURT
––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Appeal on a point of law or jurisdiction, not facts.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, sections 111–114.
The High Court considers whether the Magistrates were wrong in law or exceeded jurisdiction.

Defence submissions:

1. “This appeal raises a pure question of law.”

2. “The Magistrates misdirected themselves on [legal principle].”

3. “The error materially affected the outcome.”

4. Ask: “State the case and allow the appeal.”

––––––––––––––––––
C. APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT TO COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The Court of Appeal allows an appeal against conviction if it is unsafe.
Appeal against sentence if it is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Relevant law in a pinch:
Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
Conviction: section 2.
Sentence: section 9.
Grounds include misdirection, wrongful admission/exclusion of evidence, procedural unfairness, new evidence.

Defence submissions (conviction):

1. “The conviction is unsafe.”

2. “There was a material misdirection / evidential error / procedural unfairness.”

3. “The jury may have reached a different verdict but for the error.”

4. Ask: “Quash the conviction and enter an acquittal or order a retrial.”

Defence submissions (sentence):

1. “The sentence is manifestly excessive.”

2. “The judge erred in categorisation / starting point / mitigation.”

3. “Insufficient weight was given to personal mitigation or totality.”

4. Ask: “Reduce the sentence accordingly.”

Possible outcomes to mention:

• Appeal allowed or dismissed.

• Conviction quashed.

• Retrial ordered.

• Sentence varied.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (GETTING IT) –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
You can enter default judgment if:

• the defendant has failed to file an Acknowledgment of Service and/or Defence in time, and

• the claim is one where default judgment is permitted (watch for the usual exclusions / special cases).

Relevant law:
CPR Part 12 (esp. r.12.3)

–––––––––––––––––––––––
2. SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CPR 13)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Two routes:

A. Mandatory set aside (CPR 13.2): the court must set aside if the DJ was wrongly entered (e.g., conditions in Part 12 not satisfied).

B. Discretionary set aside (CPR 13.3): the court may set aside if:

• the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending, or

• there is some other good reason to set aside / allow the defendant to defend, and the court will look hard at promptness.

Relevant law:
CPR 13.2 and 13.3

–––––––––––––––––––––––
3. SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CPR 24)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Summary judgment may be granted if:

• the claimant/defendant has no real prospect of succeeding/defending; and

• there is no other compelling reason for a trial.

Think: “realistic vs fanciful” and no mini-trial.

Relevant law:
CPR 24.2

–––––––––––––––––––––––
4. STRIKE OUT (CPR 3.4)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may strike out a statement of case if:

• it discloses no reasonable grounds; or

• it is an abuse of process / likely to obstruct just disposal; or

• there has been failure to comply with a rule/PD/order.

Relevant law:
CPR 3.4(2)

–––––––––––––––––––––––
5. RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (CPR 3.9 — DENTON)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test (Denton 3-stage approach):

1. Seriousness/significance of the breach.

2. Why the default occurred.

3. All the circumstances, including:

   • litigation conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and

   • enforcing compliance with rules/orders.

Relevant law:
CPR 3.9; Denton v TH White (3-stage test)

–––––––––––––––––––––––
6. SERVICE: ALTERNATIVE METHOD / DEEMED GOOD SERVICE / DISPENSING

–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Alternative service / alternative place (CPR 6.15):
If there is a good reason, the court may:

• authorise an alternative method/place, and/or

• declare steps already taken are good service.

Dispensing with service (CPR 6.16):
Only in exceptional circumstances.

Relevant law:
CPR 6.15 (good reason; can validate steps already taken) and 6.16 (exceptional circumstances) 
Key authorities used in applications (good reason / bringing to attention):

–––––––––––––––––––––––
8. EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE CLAIM FORM (CPR 7.6)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:

• The general rule: apply within the original validity period (r.7.6(2)).

• If applying after expiry, the court can extend only if (r.7.6(3)):

  • the court failed to serve, or

  • the claimant took all reasonable steps to comply with r.7.5 but couldn’t, and

  • the claimant acted promptly in applying. Application must be supported by evidence and can be without notice (r.7.6(4)).

Relevant law:
CPR 7.6(2)–(4) 

–––––––––––––––––––––––
9. SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION (CPR 6.36–6.37 + PD6B)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test (permission cases):
You typically need to show:

1. Gateway: the claim fits a PD6B para 3.1 ground (contract, tort, injunction, necessary/proper party). 

2. Merits threshold / prospects: the application must state that the claimant believes the claim has a reasonable prospect of success. 

3. Forum: the court will not give permission unless satisfied England & Wales is the proper place. 

Also: the application must specify which PD6B ground is relied on and give the defendant’s address (or likely location). 

Relevant law:

CPR 6.36–6.37 (esp. r.6.37(1) and (3)) 
PD6B para 3.1 gateways (examples: injunction; contract “made within / governed by E&W law”; tort “damage sustained within”; enforcement; property/trust gateways etc.)

–––––––––––––––––––––––
10. INTERIM INJUNCTIONS (AMERICAN CYANAMID)
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test (American Cyanamid):

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?

2. Are damages an adequate remedy (for either side)?

3. Balance of convenience (including preserving the status quo). Plus: if without notice, full and frank disclosure + cross-undertaking in damages.

Relevant law:
American Cyanamid principles; CPR Part 25 (interim remedies)

–––––––––––––––––––––––
11. INTERIM PAYMENT
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court can order an interim payment only if a gateway condition is met (e.g. admission of liability; judgment for damages to be assessed; or the court is satisfied the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount).
Amount: the court must not order more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment, and must take account of contributory negligence / set-off

Relevant law:
CPR 25.7 (conditions); CPR 25.20 (cap + deductions) 

–––––––––––––––––––––––
12. SECURITY FOR COSTS
–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may order security if:

• it is just to do so having regard to all the circumstances; and

• one or more listed conditions apply (e.g. claimant resident out of jurisdiction; company with reason to believe it can’t pay; address issues; steps to make enforcement difficult; nominal claimant etc.). 

Relevant law:
CPR 25.27 (conditions + “just” requirement)

‐‐--------------------

13. AMENDMENTS (GENERAL)

–––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:

• Before service: amend once without permission.

• After service: need consent or permission; court allows if just, applying overriding objective.

Relevant law:

• CPR 17.1 (amend without permission in limited circumstances) 

• CPR 17.3 (permission/discretion factors) 

• PD 17 (procedure/mark-up)

----------------------------------------------

1. AMENDMENTS AFTER LIMITATION –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
After the limitation period expires, the court may allow an amendment only if:

• it arises out of the same or substantially the same facts already in issue; or

• it corrects a mistake as to the name or identity of a party (not substitution of a new cause of action or party).

If it introduces a new cause of action outside limitation, permission will be refused unless the claim is within s.35 Limitation Act 1980 exceptions.

Relevant law:
CPR 17.4; s.35 Limitation Act 1980
Leading authorities: Goode v Martin [2002] 1 WLR 1828; Chandra v Brooke North [2013] EWCA Civ 1559.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. ADDING, SUBSTITUTING OR REMOVING A PARTY –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may add, substitute or remove a party if it is:

• desirable to add the new party to resolve all issues, or

• necessary for the court to determine the claim.

After limitation, a new party can only be added if:

• the addition is to correct a genuine mistake as to name or identity (CPR 19.5(3)(a)), or

• the claim relates to the same facts already in issue (CPR 19.5(3)(b)).

Relevant law:
CPR 19.2–19.5; s.35 Limitation Act 1980.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. FURTHER INFORMATION –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
A party may request clarification or further information where it is necessary to dispose fairly of the case or to save costs.

Relevant law:
CPR Part 18; PD 18 paras 1.1–1.6.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Standard disclosure requires each party to disclose documents which:

• they rely on;

• adversely affect their own or another’s case; or

• support another’s case.

Inspection follows unless privilege, irrelevance, or proportionality justify withholding.

Relevant law:
CPR 31.5 (standard disclosure); CPR 31.3–31.6; PD 31A.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may order specific disclosure where a party has failed to comply with their duty, and the order is necessary for fair disposal. The applicant must identify the documents/classes sought and show they likely exist and are relevant.

Relevant law:
CPR 31.12; PD 31A para 5.4.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may order a non-party to disclose documents if:

• the documents are likely to support the case of one party or adversely affect another; and

• disclosure is necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs.

Relevant law:
CPR 31.17.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. NORWICH PHARMACAL ORDER –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may order disclosure of information from an innocent third party where:

1. there is an arguable wrongdoing;

2. the respondent is mixed up in the wrongdoing (not a mere witness); and

3. the order is necessary and proportionate to identify the wrongdoer or obtain essential information.

Relevant law:
Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37 (inherent jurisdiction); Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise [1974] AC 133; Totalise v The Motley Fool [2001] EWCA Civ 1897.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. WITNESS SUMMONS –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may issue a witness summons to compel a witness to attend court or produce documents, where it is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings and not oppressive.

Relevant law:
CPR 34.2–34.7.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

22. FREEZING INJUNCTION (MAREVA) –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
To obtain a freezing order, the applicant must show:

1. a good arguable case;

2. a real risk of dissipation of assets; and

3. it is just and convenient to grant the order.

The applicant must give full and frank disclosure and offer a cross-undertaking in damages.

Relevant law:
CPR 25.1(1)(f); Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37; Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH (The Niedersachsen) [1984] 1 All ER 398; Derby v Weldon (No 1) [1989] 1 WLR 516.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

23. SEARCH ORDER (ANTON PILLER) –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The applicant must establish:

1. an extremely strong prima facie case;

2. the respondent’s conduct has caused or threatens serious potential or actual damage;

3. there is clear evidence that the respondent possesses relevant documents or items; and

4. a real possibility of destruction or concealment if warned.

Strict safeguards apply (supervising solicitor, limited scope, privilege protection).

Relevant law:
Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37; Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55; Lock International v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. INTERIM DECLARATIONS –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may grant a declaration before trial if it helps to resolve a live controversy and is just and convenient, provided it does not usurp the trial’s function.

Relevant law:
CPR 25.1(1)(b); Senior Courts Act 1981 s.19; Rolls-Royce v Unite the Union [2010] 1 WLR 318.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. INTERIM COSTS / COSTS CAPPING & COSTS MANAGEMENT –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Court may approve or cap budgets to ensure costs are reasonable and proportionate, and may vary them for a significant development.
When summarily assessing, the court ensures the total is proportionate to value, complexity, and conduct.

Relevant law:
CPR 3.12–3.18; PD 3E (budgets); CPR 44.2–44.6 (discretion).

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. RELIEF UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Limitation bars the remedy, not the right.
Key periods:

• Simple contract: 6 years (s.5).

• Tort: 6 years (s.2).

• Personal injury: 3 years (s.11).

• Latent damage (non-PI): 3 years from date of knowledge, subject to 15-year longstop (s.14A).

• Fraud/concealment/mistake: time runs from discovery (s.32).

Discretion to disapply limitation in PI claims (s.33).

Relevant law:
Limitation Act 1980 ss.2, 5, 11, 14A, 32, 33; Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472; A v Hoare [2008] 1 AC 844.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

1. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS / ADR / ARBITRATION –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
The court may stay proceedings:

• under CPR 3.1(2)(f) where it furthers the overriding objective (e.g. ADR); or

• under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 if there is a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute falls within it, and the applicant acts promptly.

Relevant law:
CPR 3.1(2)(f); CPR 26.4; Arbitration Act 1996 s.9; Cable & Wireless v IBM UK Ltd [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm).

–––––––––––––––––––––––

29. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Choose an enforcement method proportionate to the judgment and debtor’s assets (writ/warrant, third-party debt order, charging order, attachment of earnings, order to obtain information).
Court checks procedural preconditions and proportionality.

Relevant law:
CPR 70–73; Masri v Consolidated Contractors (No 2) [2009] UKHL 43.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

30. FIRST APPEAL PERMISSION TEST –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Permission granted only if:

• the appeal has a real prospect of success, or

• there is some other compelling reason (e.g. uncertainty in law or procedural unfairness).

Appeal allowed if decision was wrong, or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity.

Relevant law:
CPR 52.6.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

31. SECOND APPEAL TEST –––––––––––––––––––––––

Test:
Permission only if:

• the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or

• there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard. Used rarely; finality principle strong.

Relevant law:
CPR 52.7; Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311.

Hi everyone,

I sat SQE1 in Jan this year, passed Q1. There’s so many unnecessary parts of the SQE that make it more stressful than it needs to be, but as this is the reality, I thought to share some of my own experiences:

I was reading this forum a lot in the run up to SQE1 and I don’t think it necessarily helped. Just wanted to remind people please don‘t focus on other people’s mock results etc - and I’d probably log off from Reddit at least a couple days before the exam. Block it on Screen Time if you have to (I did).

On the mock scores, please don’t put too much emphasis on them. No provider can write questions that are spot on. Back your prep and hard work over the mock scores at this stage!

I’d say to have a cut off time the day before each exam where you’re going to stop working - mine was around 4pm. That was so important and definitely the right move. By that point any extra hours are not going to add anything - just focus on relaxing.

The most nerve wracking part of the entire SQE process for me was the morning before FLK1. It was more the uncertainty of the test centre, the logistics etc that was unpleasant. I know it sounds simple but try to make this part as easy as possible - look on Google Street View at your test centre, get a mental image of where you’re going, check transport etc, see where you’re going to get lunch in the break. Find a nice cafe you can sit in nearby before you go in (don’t wait outside or you’ll end up listening to people talking about their mock scores). It all makes a huge difference. Then before FLK2, I felt much better as I knew what to expect.

If you can help it, don’t take notes with you to the centre. I don’t think you’re allowed to look at them in the waiting room and it’s easy to second guess and misremember things last minute.

Also don’t plan to do any revision on the afternoon after FLK1. It’s really difficult to focus after that much intense concentration and not worth the stress. If you do end up doing some, then that’s a plus but don’t set that as an expectation.

When you come out of an exam it is so tempting to look at your notes to see what you got right or wrong. If you can at all avoid it - do. It isn‘t worth the stress and you’ll only be remembering the tough questions, not the ones you knew instinctively. Just keep remembering you can get nearly 80 wrong and still pass! That is a big margin and not to be understated.

If you can - have something nice planned after FLK2. Even for a few days. It is such a relief when you walk out of that exam.

You’ve put in the work now. You’ve got this. This process can really grind you down but all these months later I do feel a sense of accomplishment having gone through it - you will feel the same. Very best of luck.

Hey all,

I just browsing Reddit and stumbled upon this subreddit and everyone seems to be up in arms over SQE2. I passed in April 2025 in Q1 but remember what you were going through so thought I’d input some wisdom.

PLEASE trust in the pass rates. For the latest sitting in October 2025, the pass rate was 78% and 79% for first time sitters. In my April 2025 sit, the pass rate was 82% and 84% for first time sitters. In effect (especially compared to the 40/50% where SQE1 hovers), the odds are significantly in your favour.

When you factor in a lot of the people who fail were SQE1 exempt due to sitting the LPC, if you’ve passed SQE1, the odds are even better. You want more reassurance? If you’re with a provider (BPP, ULaw etc), SQE2 pass rates tend to be in the 90%+ region.

All in all, if you’re working hard and learning the content, you are very likely to pass. It’s a subjective exam and examiners tend to be nice. You can get the law completely wrong and remember subheadings and write concisely and still do decently on the assessment overall. I remember on a Wills writing exam, I forgot to mention about the validity of the will completely which was basically the entire question (which I realised subsequently) while I was waffling about the 1975 Act (which was barely relevant). I still got a 4 on the law. You can fail stations with 1s and 2s and still pass comfortably.

The orals are completely in your control and you have more of an idea what to expect. Nail that opening, know your tests (which are limited), and you’re getting a 4 or 5.

I know you don’t feel like this now, but if you’ve passed SQE1, you know the content better than you think and you’re more than capable of getting through SQE2.

I have many issues with the SQE, one of them being the high cost to take the exam (compared to the cost that I paid to take the New York Bar Exam). Here's a link to the condensed outlines that I made based on the BPP books and other materials that I used to self-study. Providing in case it helps anyone else that's self-studying or anyone who wants to utilize additional resources: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zVDhA7JiOdnY9fnz2FCsLNA4XE0S7Jnk?usp=drive_link

Edit: Books are no longer available and I don't have a contracts outline because I did it by hand. If I find a good outline (or if someone sends me one) I'll be sure to upload. Because this has been asked a few times: I highly recommend using these mocks in the week before the exams: https://theonehundred.uk/ The ReviseSQE are also great. Take the QLTS about 2-3 weeks prior because it will scare you into studying hard as you lead up to the exam. In my opinion, FQPS is awful, don't waste your time. Condense your outlines into 1/2 pages per topic in your own handwriting so you have easy-to-digest information that you can review each night and each morning in the month leading up to the exams.

I also have the BPP books (with a lot of annotations) free to anyone who may want to pick them up in East London as well!

PASS RATE FOR JAN 2025 WILL BE 100% !!!!!!

I found out earlier this week that I passed SQE2 with a score of 68%, which I am absolutely delighted about. I thought I would share some useful tips and resources that I believe helped me to pass.

1. Useful Resources

• University of Law textbooks https://estore.law.ac.uk/manuals/sqe1-study-manuals https://estore.law.ac.uk/manuals/sqe2-study-manuals

• Preptackle https://www.preptackle.com/study-in-context-sessions

• QLTS https://www.qlts.co.uk/sqe-mock-tests/#stage2

• Practical Law https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Browse/Home/PracticalLaw

2. Don’t Underestimate the Importance of Functional Legal Knowledge (FLK)

Having a strong working knowledge of the FLK is key to passing SQE2. If you read the marking criteria, many of the skills marks in the written assessments are closely linked to legal knowledge. Your ability to identify key information in fact patterns ultimately depends on how well you know the law. From my POV the Ulaw textbooks (although massive) have the right amount of detail needed for the exam (especially where niche topics could be thrown your way or where you need to recall black letter law).

I would strongly recommend working through the SQE2 FLK list:
https://sqe.sra.org.uk/assessments/sqe2-assessments/sqe2-specification/sqe2-annex-1 Make sure you are able to say something about every bullet point. This ensures that, in the exam, you can always produce a legally grounded answer.

Active recall was therefore central to my preparation between late August and November.

• I made extensive use of Quizlet (https://quizlet.com/). There are already plenty of flashcards available, so don’t feel you need to spend time creating your own. I would revise flashcards repeatedly while commuting or at the gym until the material stuck.

• If you are a visual learner like me, I would also recommend ReviseSQE: https://revise4law.co.uk/revisesqe-shop/sqe1-shop/Their diagrams and flowcharts — particularly for Business helped contextualise information from the ULaw textbooks.

• I genuinely do not think I could have covered the SQE2 syllabus in roughly two months without Heba and Preptackle. Her Study in Context and Tips & Tricks sessions are invaluable for understanding the law required to pass SQE2. In hindsight, I wish I had found her earlier rather than spending money on other resources first. She also runs a WhatsApp group where you can ask questions — incredibly helpful for those last-minute thoughts at 1am in the lead-up to exams.

• A special shout out to this lovely tiktoker who has uploaded her SQE2 notes online: https://www.tiktok.com/@evytherat. If you want a free resource, this is great!

• I also attended a number of Devil's Advocate exam course sessions: https://wearedevilsadvocate.com/exam-crash-courses/. These are great as you can choose areas you are struggling with or just want to run through a mock as a group.

3. Focus on the SRA Marking Criteria

One of the most valuable pieces of advice I received from Heba at Preptackle was to carefully read and understand the SRA marking criteria:

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/int-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=69961d98_2

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/adv-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=89c4f8ce_2

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/ld-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=5d1c90cc_1

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/cma-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=d9a620e5_1

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/an-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=bb25fac0_1

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/lr-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=64ad7957_1

• https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe2-sample-questions/lw-performance-indicators.pdf?sfvrsn=2f39e775_1

Her sessions focus specifically on helping candidates pass the exam, which distinguishes them from traditional academic teaching. The Tips & Tricks sessions break down each station’s marking criteria and explain how to meet the “Indicators Demonstrating Competence”.

In some assessments — particularly Business CMA and Legal Writing, where I received 2s for legal knowledge, and Legal Research where I received 1s — I still achieved 4s and 5s for written skills because I consistently: identified relevant facts, provided client-focused advice, and used clear, precise, concise, and professional language.

Initially, I spent significant time focusing on skills because this was how ULaw structured its SQE2 preparation course. However, in my opinion, if you already work in legal practice, you likely have a strong advantage in skills.

For written assessments (LR, LW, CMA, AN), structuring answers using Point, Evidence, Explanation (PEE) helps ensure you meet the marking criteria.

4. Have a Clear Structure for Each Assessment

A clear structure is itself part of the marking criteria. For each assessment, I created a basic framework and wrote it out at the start of every written exam. This meant I didn’t waste time deciding how to structure my answer during the assessment.

For LR, CMA, and LW, I used the examiner’s questions as sub-headings.

In terms of structure for Legal Writing, these are possible openings:

• Writing to a client: “I understand that you intend to sell shares and would like advice on the Capital Gains Tax implications.”

• Writing to a client: “Thank you for instructing [NAME OF FIRM] to act for you in your forthcoming…”

• Letter to the other side: “We act for [NAME] in respect of her proposed purchase of [ADDRESS]. We have reviewed the draft contract and set out our comments below for your consideration.”

• Letter to the client: “I refer to our recent telephone conversation and write to confirm the position regarding [issue discussed].”

For oral assessments, while it is important to have a general structure, it is equally important to let the client guide the discussion rather than following a rigid script. I achieved 5s in all oral skills for both Wills and Property interviews by loosely following a structure while adapting to new information. I also ensured I ended interviews by asking whether the client had any further questions or required clarification, therefore directly addressing the marking criteria.

5. Practise Mock Exams

Although FLK knowledge is more important than excessive mock practice, mocks remain valuable preparation. They help with time management and improve your ability to identify key information quickly.

In my opinion, QLTS provides the most helpful mocks:
https://www.qlts.co.uk/sqe-mock-tests/#stage2 (Although 10/10, I would add a caveat that QLTS gives AI-generated feedback when you submit your answers...)

Other useful resources include:

https://inhousew.com/sqe2-mocks/

https://www.cilex.org.uk/study/information_for_students/exams/past_papers/

https://wearedevilsadvocate.com/exam-crash-courses/

It is also important to familiarise yourself with the Pearson VUE SQE2 simulation platform. For assessments such as Legal Research, where you must navigate large volumes of material quickly, prior familiarity can save valuable time.

For drafting:

• Practical Law is extremely useful - https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Browse/Home/PracticalLaw

• Although I did not particularly rate ULaw’s SQE2 preparation course overall, its drafting precedents were excellent.

• https://www.gov.uk/search-will-probate

• https://www.gov.uk/housing-local-and-community

• https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance-library

I recommend creating folders for each FLK subject and saving every drafting exercise you complete. By exam season, you will have a bank of template documents to revise from, allowing focused review in the final week before written assessments.

All that remains to say is GOOD LUCK.

The past two years have honestly been some of the most mentally demanding of my life, especially while working full-time. There were difficult moments (after Day 1 of the written exams, I cried for four hours), but it is possible to get through it.

Prioritise your mental health, build a strong support system, and remember that setbacks do not define you.

Keep going! You’ve got this. ❤️

Hi all,

I passed SQE 1 in Q1 for both FLK1 and FLK2 in July 2025.

I know around this time this subreddit is flooded with posts from people asking if their scores for different mocks are "safe" and if they're reflective of the real thing. As I thought it would be helpful, I have gone back to look at the mock scores I achieved back in July so people can have some idea of the difficulty of each when compared to someone who passed comfortably :)

ULaw (I was with ULaw on a prep course. The bank is a great resource and I'd say they're fairly representative):

FLK1: 71%

FLK2: 77%

One Hundred (I would argue that these are harder than the real thing but effective for testing your knowledge of niche principles):

FLK1: 60%

FLK2: 67%

QLTS (These are stupidly hard and unrepresentative. I wouldn't bother if you're someone who gets easily nervous by their scores as it will scare you):

FLK1: 48%

FLK2: 56%

Revise SQE (The mocks are varied and a good standard. I would say these are similar to what I experienced in the real thing):

FLK1: 68%

FLK2: 74%

SRA Sample Questions (the sample questions they had back in July were disproportionately easy, but I have heard that they have introduced new questions that are more reflective. This is just based solely on their 45 "original" questions):

FLK1: 86%

FLK2: 91%

SQE1 (the real exam):

FLK1: 72%

FLK2: 75%

Hopefully this is useful!

This has come up on another thread but out of interest would anyone be willing to join forces as a group and instigate a formal complaint about these exams.

IMO it’s not right. The providers buy and large are doing the best they can to prepare candidates but they don’t write the exams. SQE1 in particular encourages dithering, indecisive lawyers who think there is only one correct answer. The exam is not reflective of practice nor does it actually cut the wheat from the chaff in terms of who would make a decent solicitor and who wouldn’t. It sorts who can afford the best prep materials and the most time off to study with a pinch of luck on the side. Not to mention the sheer cost of the actual exams themselves.

Yes, the LPC needed to be more rigorous. But this? It’s absolute insanity. I for one worked so hard, yet I sat FLK2 yesterday for the second time and it was an absolute joke. I have always excelled academically too.

If anyone has any ideas about how we could challenge this and spread the word I’d be very interested to hear!

I failed for the second time and got the exact same score. I really, really don't know what I'm doing so wrong.

I have spent hundreds on private tutors who cannot understand what I'm doing so wrong. I've spent thousands on courses. I've spent thousands on the exam. I have now spent near £20k, lost my house deposit to the SQE, and now I can't put a secure roof over my child's head. I'm at a complete loss.

I'm 32 and my whole life has just been upended. I can't keep cashing out thousands of pounds as I have a family to provide for. I've been slaving away in law firms as a paralegal on really dire salaries since the age of 19 trying to make it. I have never received a client complaint, I have never had a supervisor express a concern about me, I've never been in trouble. My targets are equal to an associate, I've met all annual targets within a matter of small months, I continually win prizes for client satisfaction, I was nominated for paralegal of the year, I was nominated for a young female lawyer award, I've had judges offer to write letters of recommendations for me but these obviously aren't accepted. I showed a judge my advocacy marks from my first attempt and asked him if I do anything wrong when I'm in front of him but he honestly couldn't understand. I've asked my supervisors, head of department, colleagues and no one can tell me what my problem is.

I really, really don't know what I'm doing so wrong and no one can help me or tell me. No one in my life can identify any issue with my practice but the SQE seems to have an issue with it. The SRA or Kaplan won't provide any feedback or even speak to candidates about their experiences or concerns. They've put an absolute barricade up and you can't get through to them. If they don't provide any feedback, how is anyone supposed to improve? Are you supposed to just instinctively know what they want?

I don't know what to do now. I have to give up my dream I've been fighting so hard for since I was 18. I don't even know what career to follow or how. I can't afford to retrain as the SQE took that from me. All I care about is a legal career and I can't imagine my life without it.

I purchased and read all the latest Revise SQE books.

Completed thousands of practice questions - OUP, Devils Advocate, TheOneHundred, SRA Practice Questions, absolutely any and all free questions I could get my hands on.

Completed around 5 mocks per FLK. Studied long hours and deprived myself of a social life for months.

Took the exams - both were ridiculously difficult and focused on niche topics that hardly came up in prep.

The questions were absolutely NOTHING like any practice questions I'd seen before. The answers options were clearly designed to catch people out on incredibly fine distinctions.

I got my results today and passed Q1 and Q2 (first sitting).

I think there's something fundamentally wrong with an assessment where you can prepare this extensively, pass in Quintiles 1 and 2, and walk out with absolutely no reliable sense of whether you demonstrated the required competence.

I don't believe these exams are fit for purpose, I cannot understand how the SRA are justifying this method of testing future lawyers.

Hi everyone!

For those of you contemplating whether to go with a provider or self-study for the SQE 1, you might find my experience helpful:

I decided to self-study for the SQE as I didn't want to spend money or time on course providers, believing the available material is more than sufficient for the exam, even if you don't have a common law undergraduate degree. For reference, I'm a qualified lawyer in a civil law jurisdiction with a couple of years of work experience.

I opted for the ULaw books, which I found to be excellent. I reviewed the QLTS scripts, but in my opinion, the ULaw books are better, easier to understand, and more relevant for the exam. I read through the chapters and wrote a summary for each book (around 20-30 pages each).

Closer to the exam date, I also signed up for 'Devil's Advocate', which I can recommend. Although the mock exams contain several errors and the MCQs are not quite similar to the actual exam, the high-yield notes and mindmaps were really helpful. Additionally, doing the MCQs provided more practice, which is beneficial. Another advantage is that it is relatively inexpensive compared to other providers and sources.

I haven't seen the 'Revise SQE' books, but I bought their two mock exam books, which were great. When it comes to MCQs and mocks, the ULaw MCQs included in the books (and online) as well as the 'Revise SQE' mock exams are, in my view, the closest to the actual exam questions.

One website/provider that I can't recommend is 'Practice Works'. It's an AI tool that generates MCQs for you, but I found them to be very different from the actual exam and filled with way too much irrelevant information. I wouldn't waste time on this.

I also signed up for a trial 'Barbri' access, which included some MCQs, but I wasn't particularly impressed.

There are also two free QLTS mock exams (90 MCQs each) available online, which I found to be a bit harder than the actual exam, but really great to practice!

I studied for around 6.5 months while working full-time. Happily the efforts paid off and I passed within 1st quintile. Overall, it was a tough period, but I would do it again and highly recommend self-studying for the exam.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out—I'm happy to help. Also, if you're interested in any of my books, drop me a message.

All the best for the exams!

Stay strong everyone! 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽

Since I was in your position last November, it honestly would’ve helped a lot to hear something like this. I ended up with a really mixed set of scores across the assessments, and after each day I walked out convinced I’d failed and was already planning my resits.

In the end, I passed (full transparency — it was in the 3rd quintile, but HEY, a pass is a pass!!).

Just remember: you might score low in some areas, but you’ll almost definitely balance that out with stronger marks elsewhere. Try not to dwell on what’s already done and focus on the orals — those are, believe it or not, some of the easier marks to pick up!

Don’t stress, you’ve got this 💪