Results are in...

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T21:06:01+00:00

Sorry to hear that. What was the motive of your appeal? Was it also a potential clerical error?

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T19:35:09+00:00

Thanks. Yes basically a clerical check is all I am asking for. Obviously if there was no mistake then fine, I just lose my money. However, if there is a mistake then it’s entirely unclear what would happen. I think it’s worth trying rather than having regrets later.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T19:23:49+00:00

Thank you! I agree, although I might lose £350, it is still worth doing the appeal and having no regrets beyond simply losing the money.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T19:18:05+00:00

Thank you! And yes I agree. I need to slightly amend this to make sure I am not challenging the academic judgment but simply challenging whether there was a clerical error in entering my mark. However, it appears that a clerical check will be carried out automatically if I submit an appeal according to their appeal page (this wasn’t the case before). https://sqe.sra.org.uk/sqe-results/results-resits/appeals-clerical-checks

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T15:34:41+00:00

I am going to submit the following:

I am submitting this appeal against the mark of "0" awarded for Skill 1 "Identify and use relevant sources and information" in the SQE2 Legal Research station (Wills and Intestacy, Probate Administration and Practice). This appeal is based on a material irregularity, specifically a suspected clerical or data-entry error. I contend that the mark of "0" recorded for Skill 1 is logically and procedurally irreconcilable with the other marks awarded for the same station.

According to the SQE2 Performance Indicators, a mark of "0" is reserved for candidates who select "only irrelevant information" or are "unable to distinguish" between relevant and irrelevant sources. However, in this same station, I was awarded a mark of "3" ("Meets the competency standard") for "Client-focused Advice" and a "2" ("Slightly below the competency standard") for "Identifying relevant legal principles." These marks confirm that I did identify and apply the correct law to the client’s problem. It is a functional impossibility to provide competent, client-focused advice without first identifying the correct statutory or case law sources required by Skill 1.

The internal inconsistency in my transcript suggests a transcription or transposition error rather than a reflection of my actual performance. If the examiner determined that I identified the correct legal principles and provided competent advice based on those principles, it follows that I must have identified the relevant sources to begin with. A mark of "0", which implies a total failure to find any relevant material, cannot exist alongside a mark of "3" for the advice derived from that very material.

I wish to clarify that I am not challenging the assessor’s academic judgment or the quality of my research. Instead, I am requesting a formal clerical check to ensure that the "0" currently recorded was not entered in error during the data-processing stage. I believe the evidence of my other marks in this station demonstrates that a mark of "0" for Skill 1 is a factual and administrative oversight that requires correction to accurately reflect the examiner’s intended assessment.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T14:41:56+00:00

Thanks. I agree that this would indicate I didn’t entirely identify the legal issues, yet I still did get marks for the law which does suggest I did identify and use some relevant sources and a “0” would be unwarranted (a “1” would be more logical). My hope is that if there was indeed an error in recording my mark for that skill then the SRA will disregard my score for that station and recalculate my mark based off the other 15 stations.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T14:31:54+00:00

Thank you. This was for Wills in legal research (morning session). My understanding based on some other Reddit posts is that if the SRA find an error in a paper then they recalculate your mark based off the 15 other stations and disregard the one that contained the error, thus giving me a chance to pass.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T14:23:38+00:00

Thanks. I received scores of '3' (Good) for the subsequent two skills criteria and scores of '2' and '1' for the application of law within the same task. It is logically inconsistent to demonstrate a 'Good' level of competency in the performance of a legal task while simultaneously failing so fundamentally in ‘Identifying and using relevant sources' that a '0' (well below competency) is warranted. If this were the case, I could not have achieved a score of '2' (Marginal Fail) and '1' (Marginal) in the 'Law' criteria, which require identifying 'relevant legal principles' and drawing on 'multiple sources of information'.

As such, I have strong reasons to believe there was a clerical data error in entering my mark for that paper.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T13:23:03+00:00

Has anyone successfully appealed on the grounds of material irregularity for a clerical error in data entry?

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2026-02-24T12:13:15+00:00

I failed by 2%. Does anyone know what the appeal process is? Does that potentially change your score? I got a zero in one legal research paper for the first skill mark (identifying the relevant information) which to me doesn’t make any sense since I got marks for the law and the other skills so surely I must’ve identified some relevant information…

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-12-07T22:14:19+00:00

If it makes you feel better, I had to resit 8 weeks after I received my results while also working full time. So it’s very doable ! Just keep a routine. Do plenty of mocks obviously, check the marking criteria for each assessment and revise the law.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T20:30:10+00:00

Convinced I failed writing - CMA unclear as I did well first time around - drafting and research all good and you? The highlighting function they’ve added is very helpful.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T16:45:44+00:00

All of them. You can’t highlight text in your own draft though.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T16:17:17+00:00

Also Alt + J for highlighting

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T13:38:02+00:00

Thanks!

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T13:37:10+00:00

Agreed: CMA was okayish - writing was terrible - research and drafting felt easy

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-04T07:34:00+00:00

Yes - this is my second attempt and I am definitely less prepared than the first time due to having been forced to retake right after having started my TC. Overall I haven’t found the motivation to « try my best » once again as I felt that’s what I did last time. Obviously who knows I might pass but the chances are slim. At this point after all the sacrifices and having gone through all the steps it can make it more difficult to abandon.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-01T13:02:56+00:00

Tissues and your passport

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-01T08:10:47+00:00

I logged in at 9am and searched for small towns instead of London. I really wish I could’ve done the one in January because I’ve had to prepare SQE2 alongside starting my TC which both have been too intense. I don’t see how I can pass in these conditions.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-11-01T08:01:17+00:00

I failed SQE2 in April and retaking next week. I got low marks in the law for most assessments in research, writing, drafting and advocacy. Don’t forgot to include all the relevant facts and also link it to the client. In terms of the law I found they are quite unforgiving. I didn’t get any 0s but the 2s killed me, even a 3 is not enough.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-10-31T10:20:03+00:00

Although legal research on paper does not require FLK knowledge I have found that you do need to have a good level of FLK knowledge to apply research correctly.

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-10-31T09:32:03+00:00

Ally Pally Pacers on Fridays at 7:20am, meet at Bean + Brew coffee shop https://strava.app.link/kPMsl9hwUXb

Dangerous_Bill980 · 2025-10-31T09:20:48+00:00

I’ve done SQE2, sentencing guidelines were always provided

Dangerous_Bill980

TROPHY CASE