Didn’t want to read the whole chapter, I’m now fully prepared for tomorrow’s seminar. Videos like this help me to understand things way better than reading fat books does. Thanks you’re doing a great job!
fantastic - you were very clear and succinct in explaining causation. I thoroughly understood it through your explanation otherwise i was finding it very difficult.
In Australia legal causation is called scope of liability, this is where the chain of causation comes in. The scope of liability deals with remoteness of causation (I think I am only still learning first year, that is why I am here trying to get some more understanding). The material contribution also is in the scope.
You are the factual cause (but for test approved) but not the legal cause. The kick to the shins was not the operative and substantive cause of death. The chain of causation was broken by the act of God.
These are the leading cases so you'll find them all in your Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod or Elliot & Quinn, whichever textbook you use. They will also give you the depth of analysis you'll need.
@@SarahHarwood okay thank you I'll have a look, just a quick question, are causation and omissions liability linked at all? I find myself almost merging the two at times during answers
@@mattclark5652 Commissions (actions) and Omission (failures to act) are actus reus elements and are to do with the action/failures of the defendant. Causation is what the commission/omission causes with a results crime like murder or assault. You are right that the one leads to the other.
In the case of Padgett, the verdict seems right morally, but some thoughts: 1. Pagett was not responsible for the actual reus (he did not commit the act of unlawful killling) and did not have the men’s rea either for murder, and presumably subjective recklessness for manslaughter 2. The police shot the girl. Is there not an argument to say the police were negligent? The likelihood is Pagett in using the the girl as a shield might shoot at police and also believe the police wouldn’t shoot at him for risk of innocently killing the girl. The police should have anticipated a response from Pagett positioned themselves safely, thus not necessitating any risk to themselves, and thus not require a defensive response. 3. It is true Pagett satisfies the ‘but for’ test for factual causation in that he held her as a shield. The legal causation of firing the shot, he is not guilty of. If the police had not fired, she would not be dead. There is no evidence of subjective recklessness, what am I missing. 4. Reading the case in more detail, he is not a nice dude, but may be going to prison, he found god...
your point 2 and 3 are quite similar in terms of who shot the girl. It was reasonably foreseeable in that circumstance that the policemen would instinctively return fire.
He was the main reason of her death. Police can be held liable only for reckless behaviour, duty to care. But he shouldnt have done that. In that sense anyone can use anybody as a shield in order to save themselves in future. Correct me if i am wrong. Just an opinion
@@alinaaa.1846 an explanation of this case would be quite lengthy. this was in intervening cause, specifically third party. pagett was the legal cause of her death as he started a chain that led to her death and it was *foreseeable* if he shot at the police they would return fire and I use the word foreseeable bcus it is important if an act is foreseeable or daft. the court held that it was his actions was *A* cause that contributed significantly to the result. when youre dealing with legal causation you must look at if it was operative and substantial. i also dont think that the police returning fire as their lives were in danger would be "reckless" recklessness is a topic i would have to review to get definite answer for you. As with the person who mentioned he didnt commit an unlawful killing and the mens rea etc that would dive more into liability i believe. (i havent covered that topic in school as yet) causation is quite a large topic to learn with many different cases and types of intervening acts etc but maybe that might of cleared up something maybe not but i hope it did lol
The road traffic collision is more likely the act of a 3rd party because someone is likely to be at fault. An act of God, or naturally occurring event, is no one's fault, it's an unpredictable and random event, like a lightning strike, wild fire or flood.
Didn’t want to read the whole chapter, I’m now fully prepared for tomorrow’s seminar. Videos like this help me to understand things way better than reading fat books does. Thanks you’re doing a great job!
fantastic - you were very clear and succinct in explaining causation. I thoroughly understood it through your explanation otherwise i was finding it very difficult.
This is the clearest explanation for the rules of causation I have listened to yet. Great job.
I have to say you are very professional so well done
Wonderfully explained I really enjoyed the whole lesson.
Have u already graduated?
very well explained. i was strugling here but now everything is clear. thank you :)
Thank you best 3 video explanations i found on youtube. Easy to understand for foreigner ;)
I like the presentation it is loud and clear
My best part of this ever causation
Mam plz upload more videos like this on criminal law
Thanks and much appreciated
In Australia legal causation is called scope of liability, this is where the chain of causation comes in. The scope of liability deals with remoteness of causation (I think I am only still learning first year, that is why I am here trying to get some more understanding). The material contribution also is in the scope.
This was very well explained!
Love this. Thank you so much 🙏🏾
Your the best !!! Thank you so much 😊
Plz make more such videos mam
Thank you very much.
Awesome ❤
God bless you beautiful soul 🙂
This is so Helpful Thank you Loads. Xox
Thank you so much
Only one question, why isnt it act of god when the lightning struck her in the car?
You are the factual cause (but for test approved) but not the legal cause. The kick to the shins was not the operative and substantive cause of death. The chain of causation was broken by the act of God.
Chain of causation was broken when car was hit by light
THANK YOU
do you have the citations for each case? i have an essay on this topic soon
These are the leading cases so you'll find them all in your Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod or Elliot & Quinn, whichever textbook you use. They will also give you the depth of analysis you'll need.
@@SarahHarwood okay thank you I'll have a look, just a quick question, are causation and omissions liability linked at all? I find myself almost merging the two at times during answers
@@mattclark5652 Commissions (actions) and Omission (failures to act) are actus reus elements and are to do with the action/failures of the defendant. Causation is what the commission/omission causes with a results crime like murder or assault. You are right that the one leads to the other.
In the case of Padgett, the verdict seems right morally, but some thoughts:
1. Pagett was not responsible for the actual reus (he did not commit the act of unlawful killling) and did not have the men’s rea either for murder, and presumably subjective recklessness for manslaughter
2. The police shot the girl. Is there not an argument to say the police were negligent? The likelihood is Pagett in using the the girl as a shield might shoot at police and also believe the police wouldn’t shoot at him for risk of innocently killing the girl. The police should have anticipated a response from Pagett positioned themselves safely, thus not necessitating any risk to themselves, and thus not require a defensive response.
3. It is true Pagett satisfies the ‘but for’ test for factual causation in that he held her as a shield. The legal causation of firing the shot, he is not guilty of. If the police had not fired, she would not be dead. There is no evidence of subjective recklessness, what am I missing.
4. Reading the case in more detail, he is not a nice dude, but may be going to prison, he found god...
your point 2 and 3 are quite similar in terms of who shot the girl. It was reasonably
foreseeable in that circumstance that the policemen would instinctively return fire.
He was the main reason of her death. Police can be held liable only for reckless behaviour, duty to care. But he shouldnt have done that. In that sense anyone can use anybody as a shield in order to save themselves in future. Correct me if i am wrong. Just an opinion
@@alinaaa.1846 an explanation of this case would be quite lengthy. this was in intervening cause, specifically third party. pagett was the legal cause of her death as he started a chain that led to her death and it was *foreseeable* if he shot at the police they would return fire and I use the word foreseeable bcus it is important if an act is foreseeable or daft. the court held that it was his actions was *A* cause that contributed significantly to the result. when youre dealing with legal causation you must look at if it was operative and substantial. i also dont think that the police returning fire as their lives were in danger would be "reckless" recklessness is a topic i would have to review to get definite answer for you.
As with the person who mentioned he didnt commit an unlawful killing and the mens rea etc that would dive more into liability i believe. (i havent covered that topic in school as yet)
causation is quite a large topic to learn with many different cases and types of intervening acts etc but maybe that might of cleared up something maybe not but i hope it did lol
Is an example of an Act of God for example D injuries V. V in on an ambulance, there’s a crash and V dies. Is this an example of an Act of God?
The road traffic collision is more likely the act of a 3rd party because someone is likely to be at fault. An act of God, or naturally occurring event, is no one's fault, it's an unpredictable and random event, like a lightning strike, wild fire or flood.
Sarah Harwood Thank you so much. I understand now. Your videos are saving me. Thank you!
Sarah Harwood Actus reus