Hi Anaïs. I'm glad these videos have been helpful. I've recently begun tutoring online as well. If you're interested, please drop a message on the official Facebook Page: facebook.com/TheLawSimplified
The crime or factor is operating or continues to have an effect on the victim e.g the stab wound is still effecting the victims well-being and means his more vulnerable or leads to him needing another surgery.
Hi Diego. It depends on the situation. Where there are multiple parties involved and it’s clear that between the defendants actions and the outcome suffered by the complainant/victim, you would need to consider legal causation. However, where it’s clear that no intervening parties are present between the defendants actions and the outcome, a consideration of factual causation would suffice.
@@anthonyclayton8906 true! But I got confused because common law is applicable in many countries and he used dollar sign instead of pound in the description
if a man plants a bomb, sets a timer, he warns the media and its evacuated, it goes off early injuring a man then he dies later from brain injuries in hospital, now is this legal, because factual...he didn't directly kill someone or aim to kill someone, so that leaves legal, he planted it, to blow a building up, substantially the shrapnel was bad, and he was in hospital, the shrapnel didn't kill him, the unknown brain issue caused from the explosion killed him. Admittedly the hospital aredirectly to blame for his death as if they had of noticed and treated him he wouldn't have died, however the shrapnel was a cause but not a main cause but the main cause was caused by him not breaking the chain so the defendant is guilty of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter??
R v Woolin would apply in this instance because there is indirect intent, because the death of persons would be ‘virtual certainty’. The fact that his death was caused directly due to another factor may not remove liability for the bomber.
sir, thank you please keep up the great content.
Hi Anaïs. I'm glad these videos have been helpful. I've recently begun tutoring online as well. If you're interested, please drop a message on the official Facebook Page: facebook.com/TheLawSimplified
Thank you so much for helping out....i had a doubt in 'what is operative cause?'
The crime or factor is operating or continues to have an effect on the victim e.g the stab wound is still effecting the victims well-being and means his more vulnerable or leads to him needing another surgery.
so do we need to go through both legal and factual causation, or does it depends on the complexity of the situation
Hi Diego. It depends on the situation. Where there are multiple parties involved and it’s clear that between the defendants actions and the outcome suffered by the complainant/victim, you would need to consider legal causation. However, where it’s clear that no intervening parties are present between the defendants actions and the outcome, a consideration of factual causation would suffice.
@@TheLawSimplified understood, also thank you I have criminal exam coming up your channel helped me a lot on my revision.
Thank you for this video!
Need a R vs secretary of transportation vid 😇
You should state what country's law this is somewhere
USA...
Actually this is English law, even says so in the description
@@anthonyclayton8906 true! But I got confused because common law is applicable in many countries and he used dollar sign instead of pound in the description
thank you
Very helpful
Good stuff.
if a man plants a bomb, sets a timer, he warns the media and its evacuated, it goes off early injuring a man then he dies later from brain injuries in hospital, now is this legal, because factual...he didn't directly kill someone or aim to kill someone, so that leaves legal, he planted it, to blow a building up, substantially the shrapnel was bad, and he was in hospital, the shrapnel didn't kill him, the unknown brain issue caused from the explosion killed him. Admittedly the hospital aredirectly to blame for his death as if they had of noticed and treated him he wouldn't have died, however the shrapnel was a cause but not a main cause but the main cause was caused by him not breaking the chain so the defendant is guilty of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter??
R v Woolin would apply in this instance because there is indirect intent, because the death of persons would be ‘virtual certainty’. The fact that his death was caused directly due to another factor may not remove liability for the bomber.
You are a God
Thank you for your vodio
Way too subjective
Idi nahui, Indus ebaniy
Thank you