Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    you did a fantastic job.
    thank you so much hun

    as im new to law i've done some reading.
    could you share what you know on the topic of causation in criminal law?
    there's 2 filters in causation.
    1) by law
    1) by fact

    could you go through the process of causation in order to establish if the D was guilty?
    how do i arrive at the conclusion?
    Ah thanks, I'm glad that helped
    If D has committed the 'actus reus', the physical act, then you look at causation. Yes there are two types of causation, factual and legal. Factual is the 'but for test', i.e but for D's act would V have been injured. If yes then this is established and you move on to look at legal causation, which assesses whether D's act is more than the minimal cause of harm. This will involving looking at whether there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. So depending on the facts there either will be legal causation or there won't. If so, you then move on to look at Mens Rea, the mental state of D to see if they intended the result. If no legal causation then D is not guilty. You need both kinds + guilty state of mind which itself is rather complex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Coolsbreeze)
    Would you say that 2 year llb students have it a tad easier since they don't have to do 3rd year?
    Not really as if I'm correct they do EU, land, criminal and equity at the same time, which is quite a hefty workload.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Which residences are closest to the school and which are catered? How long does it take usually to walk to classes from the residences?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    Ah thanks, I'm glad that helped
    If D has committed the 'actus reus', the physical act, then you look at causation. Yes there are two types of causation, factual and legal. Factual is the 'but for test', i.e but for D's act would V have been injured. If yes then this is established and you move on to look at legal causation, which assesses whether D's act is more than the minimal cause of harm. This will involving looking at whether there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. So depending on the facts there either will be legal causation or there won't. If so, you then move on to look at Mens Rea, the mental state of D to see if they intended the result. If no legal causation then D is not guilty. You need both kinds + guilty state of mind which itself is rather complex.
    i kid you not but your answer are better than the some of the imbeciles on the law forum.
    you should consider going into academia.

    i have a fictitious question. hope you don't mind.
    John added cyanide to his mother's tea which she duly drank and died.
    advise john of his liability.

    what happens in john's scenario?
    also could you give a scenario to illustrate the 'by fact' & 'by law situation?
    thank you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Coolsbreeze)
    Which residences are closest to the school and which are catered? How long does it take usually to walk to classes from the residences?
    Nixon court and Opel court are closest, probably just a 5minute walk away, but as I didn't stay in either of those I'm not sure what they're like. Don't think they have a catered option. If you stay in the Oadby student village, most people take the specific student bus as it's a 30min walk, but most of these rooms are catered.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    i kid you not but your answer are better than the some of the imbeciles on the law forum.
    you should consider going into academia.

    i have a fictitious question. hope you don't mind.
    John added cyanide to his mother's tea which she duly drank and died.
    advise john of his liability.

    what happens in john's scenario?
    also could you give a scenario to illustrate the 'by fact' & 'by law situation?
    thank you.
    Wow thanks, that's quite a compliment!

    Ok, as she drank the drink, then he would be liable for murder, as he is the factual cause, putting the poison in the drink, and the legal cause as there is no other reason for her death, no intervening act.
    There is a case of R v White where he poisons the drink but the mother dies of a heart attack before she has chance to drink it, so here there is no causation as the heart attack is entirely separate. (This scenario is attempted murder)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    Wow thanks, that's quite a compliment!

    Ok, as she drank the drink, then he would be liable for murder, as he is the factual cause, putting the poison in the drink, and the legal cause as there is no other reason for her death, no intervening act.
    There is a case of R v White where he poisons the drink but the mother dies of a heart attack before she has chance to drink it, so here there is no causation as the heart attack is entirely separate. (This scenario is attempted murder)
    i am serious about the compliment i paid you.
    some of the imbeciles there on the law forum talk all day long about rankings and training contacts and fat cat lawyers and first class honours and this and that.
    but when they're asked about questions about the study of law itself, they disappear.
    that, or they offer meek replies which to me amounts to a non-response.

    i even asked an idiot who completed his masters in a prestigious UK uni on causation.
    he stuttered, stammered and looked like a deer caught in headlights.

    anways, i did read about the case of White.
    so do correct me.
    (a) which instances would one stop at the 'but for' rule?
    the one in White?

    so in which instances do we move over to the legal cause?
    when the answer to (a) above is 'no'?

    the factual cause has the 'but for' rule.
    the legal cause has the 'operating and substantive cause of death'?
    this is followed by the 'novus actus intervenious'?
    and then we have the de minimis principle?

    am i right in saying this?
    in order for the defendant to be guilty of causation, his act must be the factual and legal cause of the death?

    thank you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    Title says it all really, ask me anything about the University of Leicester and I will do my best to answer! Obviously I don't know much about other subjects but can try and help with most things, e.g. accommodation, societies, whatever you want!
    what were your a level grades?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    i am serious about the compliment i paid you.
    some of the imbeciles there on the law forum talk all day long about rankings and training contacts and fat cat lawyers and first class honours and this and that.
    but when they're asked about questions about the study of law itself, they disappear.
    that, or they offer meek replies which to me amounts to a non-response.

    i even asked an idiot who completed his masters in a prestigious UK uni on causation.
    he stuttered, stammered and looked like a deer caught in headlights.

    anways, i did read about the case of White.
    so do correct me.
    (a) which instances would one stop at the 'but for' rule?
    the one in White?

    so in which instances do we move over to the legal cause?
    when the answer to (a) above is 'no'?

    the factual cause has the 'but for' rule.
    the legal cause has the 'operating and substantive cause of death'?
    this is followed by the 'novus actus intervenious'?
    and then we have the de minimis principle?

    am i right in saying this?
    in order for the defendant to be guilty of causation, his act must be the factual and legal cause of the death?

    thank you.

    I haven't ventured on to that forum so that's quite surprising to hear! But I have encountered it before, lots of people put on a good show and come across as very confident but often can't back it up!
    Yeah you'd stop at 'but for' in White, as there was no but for causation you don't need to consider legal causation at all because both are required.
    So to set it out in full I'd do this:

    Actus reus - physical element of the crime. Consider causation, factual (but for) first, then legal (operating and substantive cause ). This is where novus actus interveniens would be discussed, if there is some other substantial cause then D won't be the substantial cause. So that's basically the process to go through for Actus reus
    Then you'd go on to mens rea and whether they intended the result.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamsmithqm)
    what were your a level grades?
    AAC and a B in Extended Project.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    I haven't ventured on to that forum so that's quite surprising to hear! But I have encountered it before, lots of people put on a good show and come across as very confident but often can't back it up!
    those very same people are probably reading this thread now :eek:
    what would u say to people who say that leicester uni is rubbish for law?
    how is the quality of teaching there?
    have you encountered students where you wondered to yourself.
    'how did these cartoons get into leicester uni for law?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    those very same people are probably reading this thread now :eek:
    what would u say to people who say that leicester uni is rubbish for law?
    how is the quality of teaching there?
    have you encountered students where you wondered to yourself.
    'how did these cartoons get into leicester uni for law?
    Haha no I mean people on other discussion boards, wasn't referring to people on my course :P
    I'd tell them how highly it is regarded by many academics, and the fact it is climbing up the rankings. Many people say what a great reputation it has. The quality of teaching is very high, especially in the tutorials where you can ask specific questions and get to the bottom of any issues.
    Not so much that, but I've encountered people who never seemed to turn up to lectures and wondered how they managed as I was confused enough and I barely missed any!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    Haha no I mean people on other discussion boards, wasn't referring to people on my course :P
    I'd tell them how highly it is regarded by many academics, and the fact it is climbing up the rankings. Many people say what a great reputation it has. The quality of teaching is very high, especially in the tutorials where you can ask specific questions and get to the bottom of any issues.
    Not so much that, but I've encountered people who never seemed to turn up to lectures and wondered how they managed as I was confused enough and I barely missed any!
    so whats next for you?
    teaching or being a barrister?
    i suppose teaching since the legal industry is kaput?
    in terms of the ability to pay high wages?
    yes no?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    so whats next for you?
    teaching or being a barrister?
    i suppose teaching since the legal industry is kaput?
    in terms of the ability to pay high wages?
    yes no?

    I'm not going into a career in law, although I wouldn't rule it out in the future. Right now I just want to find a full time job which I'll enjoy, so I'm applying for various things at the moment
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How many city firms visit you on campus?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    How many city firms visit you on campus?

    A lot actually, throughout the year firms often visit and give you the chance to introduce yourself and ask questions. There is also the careers fair in November time, which has a specific day dedicated to law - lots of different firms attend this so it's really important to go and have a look, get info on various firms etc. There'll be a mix of local firms and bigger city ones.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    i am serious about the compliment i paid you.
    some of the imbeciles there on the law forum talk all day long about rankings and training contacts and fat cat lawyers and first class honours and this and that.
    but when they're asked about questions about the study of law itself, they disappear.
    that, or they offer meek replies which to me amounts to a non-response.

    i even asked an idiot who completed his masters in a prestigious UK uni on causation.
    he stuttered, stammered and looked like a deer caught in headlights.

    anways, i did read about the case of White.
    so do correct me.
    (a) which instances would one stop at the 'but for' rule?
    the one in White?

    so in which instances do we move over to the legal cause?
    when the answer to (a) above is 'no'?

    the factual cause has the 'but for' rule.
    the legal cause has the 'operating and substantive cause of death'?
    this is followed by the 'novus actus intervenious'?
    and then we have the de minimis principle?

    am i right in saying this?
    in order for the defendant to be guilty of causation, his act must be the factual and legal cause of the death?

    thank you.
    The factual cause is most helpful for finding who cannot be held liable for the crime. So if Andy is speeding, and Tom runs into the road, liability will depend on whether Tom would have been hit even if Andy was not speeding.

    The widespread use of the factual cause would not work. Imagine the example of Alex being killed by James, but if Alex's mother had never given birth to him, the incident would not have occurred. 'But for causation would obviously not be applied.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    ...
    I'll probably end up studying law at Leicester this September.

    On the whole, did you enjoy the course? Did you find it interesting?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTranshumanist)
    I'll probably end up studying law at Leicester this September.

    On the whole, did you enjoy the course? Did you find it interesting?

    I really did enjoy it. It was horrible at times, especially in third year, but that will be the case with any degree when it comes to exams. On the whole, I found the modules interesting, and there was a good variety of topics. I'm definitely glad I studied law at Leicester, I wouldn't change my experience at all. Also, there are so many opportunities to do extra things within the law school, which can really enhance your enjoyment of it. Plus all the non-law things of course. It's definitely worth the effort!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellkins)
    I really did enjoy it. It was horrible at times, especially in third year, but that will be the case with any degree when it comes to exams. On the whole, I found the modules interesting, and there was a good variety of topics. I'm definitely glad I studied law at Leicester, I wouldn't change my experience at all. Also, there are so many opportunities to do extra things within the law school, which can really enhance your enjoyment of it. Plus all the non-law things of course. It's definitely worth the effort!
    Thanks
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.