Sergeants' Exam 2027: Dates, Format, Pass Mark and Results

10 free Sergeants' exam practice questions with answers

Try each one, then open the answer. For a timed experience use the free mock exam.

1. 1. What are the prescribed alcohol limits for the purposes of ss.3A to 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as they apply in England and Wales?

   1. A. 35 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath, 80 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood, and 107 milligrammes per 100 ml of urine.
   2. B. 50 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath, 100 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood, and 107 milligrammes per 100 ml of urine.
   3. C. 35 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath, 107 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood, and 80 milligrammes per 100 ml of urine.
   4. D. 22 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath, 50 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood, and 67 milligrammes per 100 ml of urine.
   Show answer

   A. 35 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath, 80 milligrammes per 100 ml of blood, and 107 milligrammes per 100 ml of urine.

   Section 11(2) defines 'the prescribed limit' as 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, 80 milligrammes in 100 millilitres of blood, or 107 milligrammes in 100 millilitres of urine. Regulations may prescribe other proportions, and lower limits apply in Scotland.

   Source: Road Traffic Act 1988, s.11(2)

2. 2. WOOD is prosecuted for speeding. The only evidence is from a single police officer, who estimated by eye that WOOD was travelling at about 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. Which is correct?

   1. A. WOOD cannot be convicted solely on one witness's opinion evidence of his speed.
   2. B. WOOD can be convicted, because two officers' opinions are required only on motorways.
   3. C. WOOD can be convicted, because police officers are trained and experienced in estimating vehicle speeds.
   4. D. WOOD can be convicted if the officer gives his evidence on oath and is not shaken in cross-examination.
   Show answer

   A. WOOD cannot be convicted solely on one witness's opinion evidence of his speed.

   Section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that a person shall not be convicted of speeding solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in that witness's opinion, the person was driving at a speed exceeding the limit. Corroboration is needed, for example a second witness or a speed-measuring device.

   Source: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.89(2)

3. 3. Which of the following is correct regarding the offences of encouraging or assisting crime under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007?

   1. A. The offence applies only where the anticipated offence is triable on indictment
   2. B. The offence is committed only if the anticipated offence is at least attempted by the person encouraged
   3. C. It can be committed whether or not the offence encouraged or assisted is ever committed
   4. D. The offence is committed only if the person encouraged is aware of the encouragement
   Show answer

   C. It can be committed whether or not the offence encouraged or assisted is ever committed

   Section 49(1) SCA 2007 provides that a person may commit an offence under Part 2 whether or not any offence capable of being encouraged or assisted by his act is committed. The Part 2 offences are inchoate. Liability depends on D's act and state of mind, not on the outcome.

   Source: Serious Crime Act 2007, s.49(1)

4. 4. IRWIN takes a pedal cycle from outside a library without the owner's consent and rides it home, intending to return it the next day. Which of the following is correct?

   1. A. IRWIN commits the s.12(1) offence of taking a conveyance without authority
   2. B. IRWIN commits the separate summary offence under s.12(5) relating to pedal cycles
   3. C. IRWIN commits theft, because a pedal cycle is not a conveyance
   4. D. IRWIN commits no offence because he intended to return the cycle
   Show answer

   B. IRWIN commits the separate summary offence under s.12(5) relating to pedal cycles

   Section 12(5) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that s.12(1) does not apply to pedal cycles. Instead it creates a separate summary offence of taking a pedal cycle without consent or lawful authority for one's own or another's use, or riding one knowing it has been so taken, punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3. An intention to return the cycle does not matter for this offence, but it does mean there is no theft.

   Source: Theft Act 1968, s.12(5)

5. 5. DAVIES buys tablets believing them to be amphetamine (Class B). Analysis shows they are MDMA (Class A). He accepts he knew the tablets were a controlled drug of some kind. Which is correct?

   1. A. DAVIES can be convicted of possessing a Class A drug; not knowing which controlled drug it was is no defence.
   2. B. DAVIES can be convicted only of possessing a Class B drug, as the class he believed he had determines the offence.
   3. C. DAVIES should be charged with attempting to possess amphetamine, as that was the drug he intended to buy.
   4. D. DAVIES has a complete defence under s.28, because he did not know or suspect that the tablets were MDMA.
   Show answer

   A. DAVIES can be convicted of possessing a Class A drug; not knowing which controlled drug it was is no defence.

   Section 28(3)(a) states that the accused is not to be acquitted merely because he did not know or suspect that the substance was the particular controlled drug alleged. As DAVIES knew it was a controlled drug and believed it was one he could not lawfully possess, s.28(3)(b) does not help him. He is charged with possessing the drug he actually had.

   Source: Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.28(3)

6. 6. XU agrees with two others to attack a man and gives them a baseball bat. As they approach the man, XU says quietly 'I'm off' and walks away. The others carry on and seriously injure the man with the bat. Which of the following is correct?

   1. A. Withdrawal can never be a defence once a person has given any assistance
   2. B. XU has a complete defence, because he left before any blow was struck
   3. C. Whether XU effectively withdrew is a question of fact and degree for the jury
   4. D. XU is liable only if he was physically present when the injuries were inflicted
   Show answer

   C. Whether XU effectively withdrew is a question of fact and degree for the jury

   A secondary party is not liable if he withdraws from the joint venture before the offence is committed. Whether he has withdrawn is a question of fact and degree for the jury. Relevant factors include the nature of the assistance given (here, supplying the weapon), how imminent the attack was, and how the withdrawal was communicated (R v O'Flaherty [2004]). A quiet remark as the attack is about to start may not be enough.

   Source: CPS Secondary liability guidance (withdrawal)

7. 7. Neighbours report constant drug-related visitors, noise and fights at a house. Who may issue a closure notice under s.76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

   1. A. A police officer of inspector rank or above, or the local authority.
   2. B. Only a police officer of at least the rank of chief inspector, or the chief executive of the local authority.
   3. C. Only a magistrates' court, on a complaint made by a constable and supported by evidence of nuisance.
   4. D. Any police sergeant, if the premises are residential and the local authority has been consulted.
   Show answer

   A. A police officer of inspector rank or above, or the local authority.

   Section 76(1) allows a closure notice to be issued by a police officer of at least the rank of inspector, the local authority or, since 26 October 2026 (Crime and Policing Act 2026), a registered social housing provider, which may act only for premises it owns or manages (s.76(1A)). The issuer must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that use of the premises has resulted, or is likely soon to result, in nuisance to the public, or in disorder near the premises associated with their use. The notice must be necessary to prevent this.

   Source: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s.76

8. 8. HARRIS, a bar worker, sells a pint of lager to a customer who is 17. HARRIS says he thought the customer looked about 20, but he did not ask for identification. Which is correct regarding s.146 of the Licensing Act 2003?

   1. A. HARRIS has a complete defence, because he genuinely and honestly believed the customer was about 20, even though he did not ask for proof of age.
   2. B. HARRIS commits no offence, because lager is beer and the s.146 offence applies only to wines and spirits.
   3. C. He has a defence only if he believed the buyer was 18+ and took all reasonable steps, or nobody could reasonably have suspected otherwise.
   4. D. HARRIS commits no offence, because only the premises licence holder or the designated premises supervisor can commit it.
   Show answer

   C. He has a defence only if he believed the buyer was 18+ and took all reasonable steps, or nobody could reasonably have suspected otherwise.

   Section 146(1) makes it an offence to sell alcohol to an individual aged under 18. Under s.146(4), the seller has a defence if he believed the individual was 18 or over and either took all reasonable steps to establish age, or nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual's appearance that they were under 18. Reasonable steps means asking for evidence of age that would convince a reasonable person (s.146(5)).

   Source: Licensing Act 2003, s.146

9. 9. Which of the following is correct regarding the offence of strangulation under s.75A(1)(a) Serious Crime Act 2015?

   1. A. It requires an intentional act of strangulation, but no injury of any kind need be proved
   2. B. It may be committed recklessly, in the same way as a battery or common assault
   3. C. It requires proof that the victim's breathing or blood circulation was impeded
   4. D. It requires proof that the victim suffered at least actual bodily harm
   Show answer

   A. It requires an intentional act of strangulation, but no injury of any kind need be proved

   Section 75A(1)(a) is committed where A intentionally strangles B. The CPS guidance states that strangulation does not require any particular level of force, any injury, or proof of a consequence such as impeded breathing. It requires an intentional act and cannot be committed recklessly. Suffocation under s.75A(1)(b) is the limb that can be committed recklessly, through a battery.

   Source: Serious Crime Act 2015, s.75A; CPS Strangulation and suffocation guidance

10. 10. What is the maximum penalty on indictment for aggravated vehicle-taking under s.12A of the Theft Act 1968?

    1. A. Five years, or life imprisonment if a death is caused
    2. B. Six months, as the offence is triable only summarily
    3. C. Two years, or 14 years where an accident caused a death
    4. D. Ten years, whatever the consequences of the driving
    Show answer

    C. Two years, or 14 years where an accident caused a death

    Section 12A(4) of the Theft Act 1968 sets a maximum of two years on indictment. Where it is proved that, in circumstances within s.12A(2)(b), the accident caused the death of the person concerned, the maximum rises to 14 years.

    Source: Theft Act 1968, s.12A(4)

Frequently asked questions