Monday 2 February 2026
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
Hope you had a great weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the web version of this newsletter.
NEW! You can now find text guides, concept summaries, FLK breakdowns and flashcards on Substack in a series of posts. Subscribe here, if you were looking forward to this type of resource, or gain access through the new ‘preppers’ membership level on YouTube.
Livestreams are back! Our Wednesday 1pm live MCQ workshops are back. I will offer one free for the community going through questions prepared by me, followed by one available to all our members explaining answers to the SRA’s samples. Check the lives tab for the next available stream.
This Week’s Question: A man has occupied part of his neighbour’s registered freehold land since 2014. He fenced it off, maintained it, and used it as part of his garden. The registered proprietor took no action and was unaware of the encroachment. In 2024, the man applies to be registered as proprietor of the occupied land. The registered proprietor objects to the application within the required time. How is the application most likely to be resolved?
A. The man will automatically be registered as proprietor because he has been in adverse possession for more than 10 years.
B. The man’s application will fail unless he can show one of the statutory conditions allowing registration despite objection.
C. The man will succeed because the registered proprietor failed to take action during the 10-year period.
D. The man will succeed unless the registered proprietor proves that the possession was not exclusive.
E. The man cannot succeed because adverse possession is abolished for registered land.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about FLK2 Land Law, on https://youtu.be/UH5EqxVKUu8
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Try my FREE MCQ Test Bank! This newsletter’s questions in a test bank you can attempt! Currently with 40 questions, and more added all the time. Try on https://glintiss.co.uk/yannis-mcqs/
2) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at their shop.
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
4) Preparing for the July sitting of SQE1? Try my free Study Planner on https://glintiss.co.uk/study-planner/
Last Week’s Question: A woman pushes a man during an argument outside a pub. The push causes the man to stumble backwards into the road, where he is struck by a passing car and suffers serious injuries. The woman did not intend to cause serious injury but foresaw that the push might cause the man to lose his balance. The driver of the car was driving at a lawful speed and could not reasonably avoid the collision.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s criminal liability?
- She is not criminally liable because the injury was caused by the actions of the driver, which break the chain of causation.
- She is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm because she intended to apply unlawful force.
- She is liable for inflicting grievous bodily harm because she foresaw the risk of some physical injury and her act was an operating and substantial cause.
- She is liable only for common assault because she did not intend or foresee serious injury.
- She is not criminally liable because the harm suffered was too remote from her actions.
✅ Correct Answer: 3. She is liable for inflicting grievous bodily harm because she foresaw the risk of some physical injury and her act was an operating and substantial cause. Feedback: The actus reus is satisfied: the unlawful push caused serious injury. The woman foresaw the risk of some harm, which is sufficient mens rea for s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The driver’s lawful driving does not break the chain of causation, as it was a foreseeable consequence and not a novus actus interveniens. There is no requirement to foresee serious harm for s 20, foresight of some physical harm is sufficient.
Mens Rea for Section 20 OAPA 1861. This is the critical differentiator between the options. The Charge: Section 20 (Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm). The Principle: Under R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992], the mens rea for s.20 is the intention or foresight (recklessness) of some physical harm, however minor. Application: The defendant did not intend serious injury, nor did she foresee serious injury. However, she foresaw the man might “lose his balance.” In the context of a push outside a pub, foreseeing a loss of balance carries the inherent foresight of the impact (some harm). Therefore, the mens rea for s.20 is satisfied even though the resulting injury (GBH) was far more severe than what she foresaw.
- Option 1 (Chain of causation): Incorrect. As noted above, a driver unable to avoid a collision does not break the chain.
- Option 2 (Section 47 ABH): While technically she meets the criteria for s.47, “Serious Injuries” amounts to Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). Therefore, s.20 is the better and more accurate description of her liability than s.47. In “best describes” questions, the charge matching the severity of the injury (provided mens rea is present) is the correct choice.
- Option 4 (Common Assault): Incorrect. The actus reus includes serious injury, elevating the offence well beyond Common Assault.
- Option 5 (Remoteness): Incorrect. Being hit by a car after being pushed into a road is a foreseeable risk, not too remote.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group or on Reddit! Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
If you wish to unsubscribe: You can stop receiving the newsletter at any time by emailing us at newsletter@glintiss.co.uk with ‘unsubscribe’ as the subject. We will promptly remove your email address from our mailing list. Thank you for being with us.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis (Yannis) Glinavos
Leave a Reply