A video examining the third element of causation namely intervening acts. Download a full set of notes for this topic. thelawbank.co.uk/shop/ols/pro...
TOO AWESOME! Great method of instruction and summarizing everything. Love the pictures as well because they give me mental pictures to remember when trying to think about a topic. Much love from Canada.
I cannot appreciate you enough as to the amount of good you did to me. I'll be participating in a moot competition tomorrow and really needed to understand the concepts of chain of causation, but for test, legal causation and interrupting causation. Very well explained and it was very fun to watch actually, you using all this funny pictures and all really helped in visualising the cases. Thank you sooo much. God bless❄
I honestly don't see much difference between the two cases of victims jumping out of a car. Based on the facts given, I feel that it should have been held that the chain of causation remained intact in the wallet case for similar reasons as the clothing case. Different holdings smack of sexism to me: the woman victim received proper sympathy, but not the man.
The refusal to receive a blood transfusion case also seems a bit messed up. Definitely, the defendant is guilty of something heinous (e.g. attempted murder, grave bodily injury), but the outcome was exaggerated by a wacky (not just unforeseeable) situation outside of the defendant's control. There's a difference between being born with a thin skull vs. intentionally choosing to not receive standard medical care, because the latter is the victim's choice; whereas, the former is not. I guess my main problem here is, why is the victim's religion being treated as a rock falling from the sky, when we all know darn well that it's her choice?? I don't see this as an infringement on the woman's religious rights. To the contrary, being able to choose your religion means you choose the consequences, one being that doctors will not be able to revive you when they otherwise probably would have been able to. It's like our current problem with anti-vax. People are failing to protect society, and we are letting them get away with it, because "choice". I'm sorry, but I don't get to choose to swerve all over the road. Not vaccinating is exactly the same: it is a form of swerving. That's true even if it has a basis in religion, and should be looked upon with prejudice. We do not have a religious exception for human sacrifice; those who practice it would be found guilty of murder.
TOO AWESOME! Great method of instruction and summarizing everything.
Love the pictures as well because they give me mental pictures to remember when trying to think about a topic. Much love from Canada.
I cannot appreciate you enough as to the amount of good you did to me. I'll be participating in a moot competition tomorrow and really needed to understand the concepts of chain of causation, but for test, legal causation and interrupting causation. Very well explained and it was very fun to watch actually, you using all this funny pictures and all really helped in visualising the cases. Thank you sooo much. God bless❄
You are welcome
Thank you!! Very helpful. From Ghana 🇬🇭 ❤️
You're so welcome!
It's 2020 and your video is still relevant
Thank you so much. I just started A Levels and I was so confused on this
Great videos! Thank you. They have helped me so much.
Love all your videos!
Amazing work.
I love this lecturer
you are just too amazing 1m% better than my Criminal law lecturer
thank you so much this really helps. God bless
thank you very much!
I like that the word "daft" is a legal term of art XD That is just hilarious to me.
still useful 2021
very informative!!!!!!! Thank you so much. Owesome!!!!!!!
Thank youuuuu
You're a saviour OnG
Brilliant
I feel bad that I understood this better than my lecturer. Thanks.
I do hope you're doing well...
hi, please how do I apply Child destruction act in a problem question, where its not entirely sure how far gone the victim is ?
wait, I can't jump out of a car if someone tries to rob me!?
Ee
I honestly don't see much difference between the two cases of victims jumping out of a car. Based on the facts given, I feel that it should have been held that the chain of causation remained intact in the wallet case for similar reasons as the clothing case. Different holdings smack of sexism to me: the woman victim received proper sympathy, but not the man.
The refusal to receive a blood transfusion case also seems a bit messed up. Definitely, the defendant is guilty of something heinous (e.g. attempted murder, grave bodily injury), but the outcome was exaggerated by a wacky (not just unforeseeable) situation outside of the defendant's control. There's a difference between being born with a thin skull vs. intentionally choosing to not receive standard medical care, because the latter is the victim's choice; whereas, the former is not. I guess my main problem here is, why is the victim's religion being treated as a rock falling from the sky, when we all know darn well that it's her choice??
I don't see this as an infringement on the woman's religious rights. To the contrary, being able to choose your religion means you choose the consequences, one being that doctors will not be able to revive you when they otherwise probably would have been able to.
It's like our current problem with anti-vax. People are failing to protect society, and we are letting them get away with it, because "choice". I'm sorry, but I don't get to choose to swerve all over the road. Not vaccinating is exactly the same: it is a form of swerving. That's true even if it has a basis in religion, and should be looked upon with prejudice. We do not have a religious exception for human sacrifice; those who practice it would be found guilty of murder.