Accessing common law cases.

I am interested in studying law in the future, so would like to go 'above and beyond' in ensuring that happens.

How would I be able to access common law cases online? I wish to be able to read them.

Reply 1

Mimir

I wouldn't bother, you might not understand it, it's not vital and you won't really be setting yourself aside simply because you can talk about R v Brown (read it here) :colone:

Case transcripts are extremely long and in honesty very boring. Plus it's a waste of time, you're only looking at (and being interviewed for) studying, not practicing. Keep it real.

Stick to reading The Lawyer, maybe dip into the Gazette if you need help getting to sleep. Rest of it, just keep an interest in the profession and what is going on in general. The FT or business pages of the BBC are usually good summaries.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 2

Lord Hoffman

Law cases are easier to read than the above posters let on. Read them if you'd like and you'll ordinarily find them online on BAILI.

And they're not boring! EU cases are awful, but English judgments can be very much enjoyable to read. Take your time, make sure you're following, and you'll have a blast. Generally, the more accessible cases will be the criminal cases. R v Brown is a very famous case because it concerns the illegality of BDSM which results in GBH. Lots of whipping, genitals being crushed, drugs and an all-round great read. Future bestseller. Tort cases can be quite fun too. Scott v Shepherd (1773) talks about a person throwing a bomb into a busy market, and Willis and Ryal throwing it away from themselves and towards other people:

"He is the person who, in the present case, gave the mischievous faculty to the squib. That mischievous faculty remained in it until the explosion. No new power of doing mischief was communicated to it by Willis or Ryal. It is like the case of a mad ox turned loose in a crowd. The person who turns him loose is answerable in trespass for whatever mischief he may do. The intermediate acts of Willis and Ryal will not purge the original tort in the defendant. But he who does the first wrong is answerable for all the consequential damages..."