Monday 1 June 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.
Join our SQE1 July Prep Livestreams! Join me Wednesdays at 1pm live for our MCQ workshop. Free for the whole community. Our next session will be this Wednesday 3 June on FLK Land Law https://youtube.com/live/5PP7Ef8f0rg
This Week’s Question: A woman executes a valid will leaving her entire estate equally to her two children. Five years later, she marries. She does not make a new will and does not include any provision in the existing will stating that it is made in contemplation of marriage. Two years after the marriage, she dies. Her spouse and her two children all claim an entitlement to the estate. What is the likely effect of the marriage on the will?
A. The will remains valid because it was properly executed and has never been revoked.
B. The will remains valid, but the spouse automatically receives half of the estate under the intestacy rules.
C. The will is revoked by the marriage, and the estate will generally be distributed according to the intestacy rules.
D. The will is revoked only in relation to gifts made to the children, but remains valid in all other respects.
E. The will remains valid unless the spouse can prove that the deceased intended to revoke it by marrying.
Dig Deeper: Revising FLK2 Wills & Estates? Watch https://youtu.be/yFhJ4uWLI_c
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) I have launched my own SQE Prep course, and it won’t cost you much more than a latte (and even that is optional)! Check it out on https://glintiss.co.uk/sqe-course/
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 10% off any plan on Law Drills at https://www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/
Last Week’s Question: A man and a woman agree to rob a jewellery shop. The plan is that the man will threaten the shopkeeper while the woman waits outside in a car to assist the escape. During the robbery, the man unexpectedly produces a knife and fatally stabs the shopkeeper after resistance is offered. The woman later claims she did not know a knife would be used and believed the plan involved only threats and no physical violence. She is charged with murder alongside the man. Which of the following best reflects the likely position regarding the woman’s criminal liability?
A. She is automatically guilty of murder because anyone participating in a robbery is liable for all offences committed during it.
B. She is guilty of murder because death was a foreseeable consequence of an armed robbery.
C. She may avoid liability for murder if the prosecution cannot prove she intended to assist or encourage the use of serious violence.
D. She cannot be guilty of any offence because she remained outside the shop and did not participate directly in the stabbing.
E. She is guilty of murder only if she personally knew the identity of the victim before the robbery began.
Correct answer: C. She may avoid liability for murder if the prosecution cannot prove she intended to assist or encourage the use of serious violence. Feedback: This question concerns secondary liability (accessorial liability) following the Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal offender to commit the crime; and the defendant possessed the necessary mental element for the offence. After Jogee, mere foresight that another participant might commit a more serious offence is not enough by itself to establish guilt. Foresight may be evidence of intent, but it is not the legal test. Here the woman agreed to participate in a robbery; however, she claims she did not know a knife would be used and did not intend to assist or encourage serious violence. If the prosecution cannot prove she intended to encourage or assist the use of lethal violence, she may avoid liability for murder, although she may still be liable for robbery or another offence.
The other options are incorrect because:
A is wrong: participation in one crime does not automatically create liability for all further crimes.
B reflects the old pre-Jogee approach based heavily on foresight.
D is wrong: a person can be liable as a secondary party without physically committing the act.
E is irrelevant: knowledge of the victim’s identity is not required for murder liability.
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