Right, taking each in turn:
"Learning the Law"
I read this before interview, but I read the 11th Edition. From what I recall, when my dad ordered it he said that he went for the 11th since the reviews suggest that the editing of the newer editions isn't great (the editor changed for the 12th)...although I haven't compared the two versions to know whether there's any truth to this.
Nicholas on Roman
I've got this book but didn't really read it (
) - from what I recall of the "Introduction" books from the Clarendon Law Series, they're generally pretty interesting. This might be worth getting since it could be on your reading list anyway, and I found Roman the hardest to get my head around.
Borkowski on Roman
I'd definitely get this book since it's almost certainly going to be on your reading list. It's the most concise book on Roman law I've come across and is fairly readable, but tends to bombard you with detail on the different legal rules, so it can be quite frustrating to wade through and work out what you need to note down. Having said that, I don't think you'll find a better textbook as a starting point and the author's tried to set out the sides of some of the bigger disputes (particularly the Proculian/Sabinian schools of thought), so I'd get it. You can probably get away with any edition. I got the 4th (the newest) but a couple of my friends bought thr 3rd Edition second-hand and, aside from the page numbers being different in places, found that much of the content was the same.
Leyland on Constitutional
I haven't read this so I can't really comment, but I've got the Barendt on Constitutional Law (also part of the Clarendon Law Series) and found that pretty interesting. It's no textbook, but sometimes it's nice to read something a little lighter!
Ashworth on Criminal
Again, I never used this book but Ashworth is fairly well-known as a criminal lawyer, so it might be worth a look. If it's a textbook, it's probably not worth getting now, though. Instead, you might like to look at
Great Debates: Criminal Law by Jonathan Herring. It was on my reading list and gets you thinking about the theory behind criminal law (like "what's wrong with rape?" - not as controversial as it sounds!).
Simester and Sullivan on Criminal
This wasn't on my reading list but there was a copy in our law library, so I've dipped into it on occasion. I think it's alright, but not as good as
Herring's textbook on Criminal Law since he seems to explain things more straightforwardly. Having said that, Simester and Sullivan is edited by a number of Cambridge lawyers (Virgo, Spencer and O'Sullivan, I think), so it may be tailored more to suit their views on the criminal law...which is important if they're the ones marking your exam!
Weir on Tort
Yeah, I've got this and found it interesting. In terms of textbooks, you'll probably be told to use Winfield and Jolowicz - I didn't enjoy reading it since it's so thick and isn't concise at all! If you can get hold of a copy, I'd recommend using McBride and Bagshaw on Tort too (McBride is my Director of Studies). Currently only the 3rd Edition is out but I think there may be a 4th on the way (so bear in mind that this book will be OK for the core elements, but not recent developments). I've found that McBride doesn't always follow the conventional interpretation of decisions, but where he dissents, his explanation is more convincing and he explains the problems with the reasoning of the majority. It's written quite simply and is very readable.
I think there are a couple of chapters on the Law Faculty's website if you'd like to see them.
Out of interest, which college are you going to?