FE-1 Criminal Law common mistakes
FE-1 Criminal Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating each criminal-law question as a single issue: spotting the assault and stopping, without separately asking whether the act was voluntary, whether causation was broken, whether a defence applies, and whether the mens rea matches the actus reus.
Exam questions are written to stack two or three doctrines into one fact pattern, and candidates under time pressure latch onto the first label that fits, then select an answer that is correct on that one issue but wrong overall.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-step checklist on every question before reading the options: (1) identify the defendant and the charge, (2) list each element of that offence, (3) check each element against the facts, (4) check defences and mens rea mismatches. Write the checklist out in the first minute of the exam so it becomes automatic.
Confusing motive, intent, and mens rea terminology, for example treating 'intent to cause serious harm' and 'intent to kill' as interchangeable, or treating recklessness as sufficient where the offence requires intention.
Everyday usage blurs these words, and candidates memorise offence names without memorising the exact mental element each offence requires, so they apply the wrong standard to the facts.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table with a row per offence (murder, voluntary manslaughter, assault, battery, theft, robbery, burglary) and a column for the exact mens rea wording. Recite the table from memory weekly and, in practice questions, write the required mens rea next to the charge before evaluating the facts.
Missing partial defences to murder and instead choosing outright acquittal or full murder, without noticing the trigger facts (loss of control, diminished responsibility, suicide pact, excessive self-defence) embedded in the scenario.
The facts often state a defence trigger in one short sentence, and candidates focus on the killing itself, so they never test the partial-defence route and choose the wrong outcome.
What to do instead
After identifying a homicide, always run a mandatory partial-defence sweep: loss of control, diminished responsibility, suicide pact, excessive self-defence. For each, note the required elements and whether the facts support or negate them, then decide between murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Misapplying causation: accepting 'but for' causation as sufficient, or failing to test intervening acts (victim's refusal of treatment, third-party negligence, the victim's own unreasonable conduct, a free, deliberate and informed act) that may break the chain.
Candidates learn the 'but for' test first and treat it as the whole of causation, and the exam deliberately adds a medical or third-party intervention to see whether the chain is broken.
What to do instead
Apply causation in two stages: factual causation ('but for') then legal causation (substantial, operative, blameworthy cause). Then test each intervening act against the break-the-chain criteria and state the conclusion explicitly. Practise with scenarios where the victim refuses treatment and where a third party acts negligently, since those are the standard traps.
Conflating actus reus and mens rea timing, especially in omissions and continuing-act cases (duty to act, supervening fault, continuing appropriation), and assuming an omission can never constitute an offence.
Candidates memorise the general rule that omissions do not attract liability and stop there, missing the recognised duty categories (statute, contract, relationship, voluntary assumption, creation of danger) and the coincidence rule.
What to do instead
Memorise the five duty-to-act categories and the coincidence principle, then for every omission scenario ask whether a duty exists and whether the defendant had the required mens rea at the moment of the omission. For continuing offences, check whether mens rea was formed at any point during the continuing act.
Treating defences as all-or-nothing, so a partial or qualified defence (excessive self-defence, intoxication negating specific intent only, duress unavailable to murder) is either applied in full or ignored.
Candidates learn defences as labels rather than as rules with conditions and limits, and exam answers are designed to reward recognising the qualified version.
What to do instead
For each defence write a short rule statement including its limits (which offences it covers, whether it is complete or partial, whether it is subjective or objective). Then in questions, run every defence through that rule statement rather than deciding by intuition.
Ignoring the distinction between specific and basic intent when intoxication is raised, and failing to separate voluntary from involuntary intoxication.
The intoxication rules are counter-intuitive and easy to half-remember, so candidates apply 'drunk means acquitted' or 'drunk is irrelevant' rather than the specific/basic intent distinction.
What to do instead
Learn the classification of offences as specific or basic intent and the consequence for each type of intoxication (voluntary, involuntary, dangerous drugs). Apply the rule in a fixed order: classify the offence, classify the intoxication, then state the effect on mens rea and on the defence.
Answering the question asked by the facts rather than the question asked by the stem: choosing the offence that best fits the story instead of the option that answers what the stem actually asks (for example, which offence is committed, which defence succeeds, or what the prosecution must prove).
Under time pressure candidates read the facts first and the call of the question last, then select an answer that is legally accurate but unresponsive.
What to do instead
Read the call of the question first, underline the operative words (which offence, which defence, must prove, most likely outcome), then read the facts with that target in mind. Before committing, re-read the stem and confirm the chosen option answers it directly.
Misreading the burden and standard of proof: assuming the defendant must prove a defence beyond reasonable doubt, or forgetting that some defences (insanity, diminished responsibility) place an evidential or persuasive burden on the defence.
Candidates learn the general prosecution burden and never learn the exceptions, and exam questions test the exceptions precisely because they are commonly missed.
What to do instead
Keep a short list of burden-of-proof exceptions and their standards, and attach it to each defence on your rule sheet. In every defence question, state who bears the burden and to what standard before discussing the merits.
Spending disproportionate time on one long scenario, then rushing the remaining questions and guessing on straightforward definitional items that would have been easy marks.
Long fact patterns feel productive and candidates fear leaving them, while short definitional questions feel trivial, so time allocation inverts the marks available per minute.
What to do instead
Do a first pass answering every question you can resolve in under a minute, flag long scenarios, and return to them with the remaining time. Practise with a timer so you learn your personal pace, and set a hard per-question ceiling for the first pass.