I found the video very interesting and informative especially in the contradictory part of the need of wide but narrow (from direct intent) definition of indirect intent
Thanks for these lectures, i couldnt thank you enough for it but please i have one question that why was nedrick and woolin conviction was substituted to manslaughter other the mis direction, which part of the two test could not be satisfied, was it that death was not a virtual certainty in those cases or that defendant didnt appreciated that that was the case thanks i ll be waiting for you answers
Correct me if I'm wrong: So virtually certian means that the consequence is certian (very likely) to happen. And if the defendant knew that the consequences where virtually certian then they had a direct intention for the consequences to occur. However if the defendant didn't foresee the consequences of their actions as virtually certian then it is an oblique intention therefore they will have a shorter sentence. So if the victim had died and the defendant knew that it was virtually certian then they will be liable for muder but if they didn't know that it was virtually certian then they will only be liable for manslaughter.
In R v Woollin (1998) [minute 11:00- 11:30], you said that if the Jury felt that death or bodily harm was virtually certain then they had the right to draw an inference of direct or indirect intention. But, isn't it the case that in the case of Woollin, the Law Lords said that the Jury were entitled to 'find' the necessary intent if death or bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and if the defendant appreciated that such was the case
Good Day. Due to my demanding job, i am looking for online lectures such as this one to help me speed up my learning. Would this lecture be sufficient material for the exam??? Please let me know, i would greatly appreciate any response. Regards Johannes
Have you got an email? Wanted to enquire about tutoring please? I'm a second year LLB law student and I would really appreciate it if you could help! Thank you
No, the police officer was in front of the car, asking him to stop. The fact that he changed gears to speed up having already seen the officer rather than even attempting to slow down suggests he intended to cause the officer serious harm, or even kill him.
![[페이스캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FaceCam) @SBS Inkigayo 240707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x9VRNTV4VDI/mqdefault.jpg)
HEy...you are best LAw teacher Ive heard so far ;)
I found the video very interesting and informative especially in the contradictory part of the need of wide but narrow (from direct intent) definition of indirect intent
God! Your way of explaining is absolutely flawless. Highly appreciate!
anyone.. indirect same as oblique right?
Yup
Thanks for the videos mate they're really helpful, keep it up.
Brilliant videos mate
oh Thank youuu so much for this useful video. Today is my exam.. Keep going ! all the best!
Very helpful, thanks for the upload.
Very informative lecture. I found it authoritative and really quite fantastic!
Bqqqqa
Thank you so much for helpful videos
Thanks for these lectures, i couldnt thank you enough for it but please i have one question that why was nedrick and woolin conviction was substituted to manslaughter other the mis direction, which part of the two test could not be satisfied, was it that death was not a virtual certainty in those cases or that defendant didnt appreciated that that was the case thanks i ll be waiting for you answers
This video is incredible.
quite a helpful video!
Do you aslo do contract lectures??? been watching your videos. very impressed! Thank you so much
Thank you Geng
Yes they are the same Jess
Great video, keep it up.
Thanks for the vedios, they are too helpful
how did you do it can you share with me , thank you
Is knowing and intent the same?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
So virtually certian means that the consequence is certian (very likely) to happen. And if the defendant knew that the consequences where virtually certian then they had a direct intention for the consequences to occur. However if the defendant didn't foresee the consequences of their actions as virtually certian then it is an oblique intention therefore they will have a shorter sentence. So if the victim had died and the defendant knew that it was virtually certian then they will be liable for muder but if they didn't know that it was virtually certian then they will only be liable for manslaughter.
Instant sub!
This is great, thank you so much :)
You're very welcome!
Thank you
In R v Woollin (1998) [minute 11:00- 11:30], you said that if the Jury felt that death or bodily harm was virtually certain then they had the right to draw an inference of direct or indirect intention.
But, isn't it the case that in the case of Woollin, the Law Lords said that the Jury were entitled to 'find' the necessary intent if death or bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and if the defendant appreciated that such was the case
Is specific intent the same as direct intent? What is the difference between ulteiror intent, and basic intent and specific?
Superb videos.
Glad you like them!
Is this still on the current syllabus? I’m aware this video was posted 7 years ago but thought I’d ask
Many of the videos are still relevant to the but keep an eye but please subscribe to channel to receive the latest updates.
hi there, anyone has the slides of these lessons ? :D cheers
Good Day.
Due to my demanding job, i am looking for online lectures such as this one to help me speed up my learning.
Would this lecture be sufficient material for the exam???
Please let me know, i would greatly appreciate any response.
Regards
Johannes
how did your exam go
Please check out our website I upload as much as my job allows
Have you got an email? Wanted to enquire about tutoring please? I'm a second year LLB law student and I would really appreciate it if you could help! Thank you
Hello Sir.
👍👍
Case of r v Mohan is quite relevent for indirect intent as his aim was to escape and not to kill the police officer
No, the police officer was in front of the car, asking him to stop. The fact that he changed gears to speed up having already seen the officer rather than even attempting to slow down suggests he intended to cause the officer serious harm, or even kill him.
anyone here at degree level lmao
CovidImages need to be invested more than half19