Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Good morning. My name is Graham Virgo. I'm deputy chair of the law faculty and a professor
in this faculty, and a fellow of Downing College. I'm going to be running a session on legal
problems. Now, you've heard something already about what it's like to study law at Cambridge,
how we have lectures. Actually many of the lectures are given in this very lecture theatre.
We also have supervisions, the small group teaching where you spend time in small groups,
typically of three or four students with a supervisor where you talk about the law.
Really what I want to do in this session with you is to give you an idea as to what it's
like to study law at Cambridge, particularly through the supervision system. So, I really
want this to be for the next 40, 50 minutes a supervision. Now, there are far too many
of you here for this to be a supervision proper, but I want to give you an idea of the way
you think and talk in supervisions. Another reason this is artificial is that for supervisions
we expect our students to have done reading in advance and with the problems we're about
to go through I'm not expecting any reading, any knowledge whatsoever.
Now, for this session to work I do rely on audience participation. I am going to ask
questions, throw them out to you and if none of you responds this is going to be really
hard for me and very boring for everybody. So please respond. That does include people
accompanying potential applicants for law. I've done this before and sometimes parents
in particular are desperate to participate. That is fine, but if there are some, perhaps,
younger people, I may choose them in advance but, everybody, feel free to participate.
We are going to go through the legal problems. Do you have a hard copy of the problems? Good.
They will be up on the Powerpoint as well and we'll go through those in a minute. There
probably won't be time to look at all of them, but let me just say a couple of introductory
things. Our supervision system really provides our students with an opportunity to learn
to think like lawyers and that's the sort of phrase it's ever so easy to say, we teach
you to think like a lawyer. What does that actually mean? In my view it means a variety
of things. First, we teach you and we expect you to learn how to look at fact patterns,
to unpick the fact patterns, to work out what the key issues are.
Then we expect you to know what the law is. That's actually the most limited part of studying
law but it is an inevitable part. You do need to spend some time learning the law, learning
what the rules are, learning what cases decide, learning what statues say. Then you need to
interpret the law, interpret the cases; interpret statutory provisions to see how that can be
applied to your particular problem. Then you need to apply the law to the problem. You
may find it easy, the law may fit perfectly and give you an easy answer, but quite often
it won't. You'll have to think, can I make arguments based on the law as I've identified
it? Can it be applied in new areas? Can I reason by analogy? Then you apply it and come
up with a result, and then you've got to stand back a bit and think, is that the right result,
is that fair, is that just. If it is and you can justify it, fine, but if you can't then
you need to criticise it. It's never enough just to say, "Oh that's bad, I don't like
it". You've got to give reasons for that and suggest possible improvements and those improvements
may require you to consider other disciplines, theory, philosophy of law, sociology, politics,
economics. All of that comes in and helps us to criticise the law and try to make the
law better.
That's really what I mean about thinking like a lawyer and in these problems that's really
what I want you to do. I'm going to give you law when you need it, so don't worry about
that, but there may be some issues about interpretation, there may be some issues about working out
what the problems are actually about and then you need to apply, and criticise the law as
well. Now, as I say, I do rely on audience participation. If you get really excited and
loads of hands go up I may not have time to call on everybody, but please feel free to
participate readily and in a relaxed way. Let me just add two particular comments. There
may be some of you here who've done a bit of law, who've studied law before and you
may want to, and I'm not going to stop you, want to use a bit of terminology. Most of
you will not have studied law so don't be put off if somebody's using a bit of Latin
or a bit of terminology you've never come across. If need be I'll try and explain it.
The other thing is there are no right answers. You can really say, well, it's not quite.
I was going to say you can say whatever you like. If you disagree with my conclusions
you are by definition wrong, what I say goes, but there are all sorts of opinions, so please
don't worry if I change the facts a bit or maybe even say, you're wrong, I disagree with
you. A lot of this is a matter of opinion and it's an important part of being a lawyer
and studying the law that you can come up with an argument with a conclusion and you
reason, give an explanation as to why that is the right conclusion, so if you want to
disagree with me, please do. So, that's all I want to say by way of introduction.
Let's go to the first problem and this is a problem about the criminal law and particularly
as you'll see the law of ***. So, let me just read it out. Jane, Paul and Marcus are
in a room. Jane pulls two guns from a bag. She gives one gun to Paul and places the other
gun against Paul's head telling him to kill Marcus or else she will kill Paul. Is Paul
guilty of *** in the following alternative circumstances? First, Paul kills Jane and
secondly Paul kills Marcus. Now, I said right at the start I don't expect you to know anything
about the law at all, but hopefully you do know that we have a crime of *** in this
country and *** is committed when you cause somebody's death intending either to kill
them or to cause serious injury. So, let's just accept that, whether Paul kills Jane
or Marcus, it looks as though he's guilty of ***. He's caused death presumably with
an intention to kill. So obviously the question is does he have a defence to ***? Should
he have a defence? As part one and part two, are they treated in the same way, or should
they be treated differently?
So, let's start with part one, Paul kills Jane. Do you think he might have a defence
to *** in that situation? Yes?
I think he has a complete defence in *** because he is acting out of self-defence,
because Jane put a gun to Paul's head and threatened to kill him if he does not kill
Marcus. So he has a perfect like although his mens rea is to kill her, but it
is also to protect himself.
Okay, so he will argue for self-defence and self-defence is a defence to ***. You said
it's a complete defence, which is right. If you have a defence of self-defence you will
be acquitted of the crime, but self-defence is only available where you have acted reasonably.
So, do you think that Paul has acted reasonably in killing Jane?
If you take it from the viewpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, by
killing Jane he is saving him and himself. So in that sense it can be seen as a reasonable
action.
Okay. But if we're looking at it from the greatest good for the greatest number, he's
killed her, but she was going to kill him, so isn't it neutral.
But by killing her he is saving Marcus.
He's saving Marcus as well, okay. So, he's saving his own life, so he's acting quite
selfishly, but also he is by doing that going to save Marcus as well?
Yes.
So, you would say that that makes it reasonable, okay? Do you all agree with that?
It could be argued that there was an alternative method. He could have hurt her, harmed her
without killing her.
Yes, okay.
But still protected himself and Marcus.
We're not told where he shot her but, presumably, let's say he shot her in the head and he could
have shot her in her leg, let's say, and disabled her. Does that mean that he's acted unreasonably
in killing her?
It could be argued that, yes, he acted unreasonably.
Okay. Do you want him to have a defence? Do you want him to be convicted of ***? You
do?
No, I don't want him to.
You don't want him to be convicted of ***, okay, because it's worth saying if he is convicted
of *** the sentence is the mandatory life sentence and it's an incredibly serious crime.
Are there any other views on this?
Well, I think because the gun is against his head it is reasonable to act to kill Jane,
because that's a very high pressure situation with the very little choice he had.
Okay, so I think assessing what is reasonable, it's one thing in a room like this saying,
"Oh, you should have shot a little bit lower down", and the law actually says you've got
to put yourself in the defendant's position and you can't weigh up precisely exactly what
you should have done. Who thinks he should have a defence of self-defence to ***,
just raise a hand if you think he should? Most of you! Does anybody think he shouldn't
have a defence? Okay, so we are going to allow him a defence if he kills Jane and I think
you're right. It's always a bit arguable on the facts and I haven't given you many facts,
but that looks like self-defence.
But what if Paul kills Marcus, do you think Paul has a defence then?
Duress.
Duress, okay. There is a defence of duress. If I say to one of you, go outside and steal
a bag of crisps for me or else I will kill you, or a member of your family, you have
a defence of duress to the crime of theft. So duress is saying, do this or else. Do you
think Paul should have a defence of duress to *** here?
It would probably depend on whether he believed Jane would kill him or not, because if their
relationship made it very unlikely that she actually would shoot him, then he wouldn't
have that justification.
Okay, and that's a really important point that actually for duress you've got to reasonably
believe that somebody will carry out the threat. So, we don't know anything about the relationship.
The fact that she has put a gun against his head suggests it's not the most loving of
relationships perhaps, but you would have to take that into account. So, possibly it
looks as though there's a defence of duress there but let me give you the law. English
law says self-defence is a defence to *** but duress is not a defence to ***. If
you say to somebody, do this, kill that person or else I will kill you, English law actually
says the person in Paul's position must act like a hero, he must sacrifice his own life
rather than killing the innocent party, Marcus.
Now, there are loads and loads of cases that say that. One of the most famous cases some
of you may know is a 19th century case called Dudley and Stevens and that was a case concerning
three men and a cabin boy who were shipwrecked on the high seas. They had no food or water;
a turtle swam past a few days later. They caught the turtle, ate the turtle raw and
then used the shell to collect some water. The cabin boy was not doing very well, he
was really struggling, getting weaker and weaker, and in the end Dudley and Stevens
decided that they would kill the cabin boy, which they did, and they ate the cabin boy.
A few days later they were rescued and they were taken back to England. They were given
a hero's welcome. Dudley and Stevens stood at the dockside saying, "Thank you for this
welcome, but we ought to just note that if it wasn't for Richard Parker, the cabin boy,
we wouldn't be here today." They were immediately arrested, they were charged with *** and
they were convicted of ***, and the court said that they had no defence in those circumstances.
Now, this was slightly different to the problem we've got here and it wasn't quite somebody
saying, do this or else. It was the circumstances in which they found themselves made them,
they argued, commit *** to kill the cabin boy. I'll just add a little footnote that
may or may not interest you. The cabin boy was called Richard Parker. Now, does anybody
know something more recently involving Richard Parker?
Life of Pi.
The Life of Pi, which was made into a film involving a boy in a lifeboat and the name
of the tiger was Richard Parker after this particular case. That just shows you, if you
need any proof that law is everywhere the cultural implications as well. So, this case
says and it's not been overruled, duress or they called it necessity but it doesn't matter
too much the difference, is not a defence to ***. Now, that's the law, that's the
answer to our problem, if Paul kills Jane, self-defence; if Paul kills Marcus, he's guilty
of ***.
Now first, can any of you explain to me why we have come up with a different response
to those two problems? Why are they different?
Their roles are different, Marcus didn't have any threat to Paul while Jane has a threat
on both.
Absolutely, so what we're saying I think on the face of it it's perfectly defensible.
If you kill somebody you have a defence if the person you kill was threatening you. But
if the person you kill is completely innocent then you have no defence at all and that will
mean Paul is guilty of *** and gets the mandatory life sentence if he kills Marcus.
But surely you said you've got to put yourself in the defendant's shoes or the defendant's
position and if it's a very high pressured, stressful situation. Surely there's got to
be some sort of sympathy for his actions, given the fact he had a gun to his head?
Okay. Well, do we have any sympathy though, because the law says, and there's a very famous
case which went up to the top court, and the court said, "You should sacrifice your own
life in that situation. You should not kill an innocent party." So, do you think we should
have sympathy for Paul?
Well, surely 10 minutes before Jane walked in the door he was an innocent person himself
as well, so he didn't do anything to put himself in that situation, he was a victim of Jane
So, do you think he should be acquitted completely of ***?
No, but I don't think he should be getting a life sentence if you do not choose to be
in that position.
Okay, right. Does anybody else have any views on this, for or against?
So can this case be reduced down to manslaughter instead?
Okay, now that would be a solution if we think, yes, he has killed an innocent person, he
deserves to be punished, convicted and impose a punishment, but not the mandatory life sentence,
that is far too severe bearing in mind the circumstances we're in. Does anybody disagree
with that? Does anybody want to try and defend the state of English law?
I don't think it should be manslaughter because he knew that by killing Marcus someone else
would be dead and even if he is in a high pressure situation he's decided that his life
is more valuable than Marcus's life.
Okay, so I'm going to put you on the spot, this is so unfair. You are in that position,
you've got somebody putting a gun against your head and they're telling you, kill that
person.
But I couldn't live with myself if I had killed that person, because I'd regret it and I wouldn't
be able to know that I'd killed someone else to save my own life.
Okay, so you're saying what the law says is you should sacrifice yourself? And the message
the law should say is, "Give up your own life." You may actually, under the pressure, some
people may say, "Oh, I'd kill them and still feel guilty, but at least I'm still alive."
That's the moral dimension to this and the issue is what the law should be saying that
you should do in those circumstances. At the moment what you've said is what the law says,
you should sacrifice yourself.
Of course the law is important but if it comes to a certain point where people are more important
than the law. So, of course, if the law says that you should take your life and you should
kill yourself instead of killing someone else. If anyone, people imposing that law, if anyone
else was in that position would you actually do it? Of course that's what you should do,
but if you're in that position yourself I doubt 99 percent of people would not take
their own life.
Okay, and there is an issue, we can argue about whether the law is more important than
people, but maybe we could say the law should be sending out the right messages for people
to respond to difficult circumstances, and maybe a response is, you have killed an innocent
person, but we can understand why you did it and therefore we will punish you but we
won't treat it like ***. I have to say my own view is exactly that. I think it should
be a partial defence of duress to ***. I think that would be a much more appropriate
response. That would reflect the fact that you've killed an innocent person, but also
it's not as bad as a cold-blooded ***.
I was just wondering, if Paul kills Marcus what happens to Jane?
Very good point. Does anybody, do you want to answer that? Does anybody want to suggest
what might happen?
I would presume that she'd probably receive a life sentence because she'd caused the ***.
I was just wondering what would happen to Marcus.
Yes. She would be regarded as an accessory to *** and she would get life imprisonment
as well. So actually, which must be right, I think, that's entirely the appropriate response.
Now, that problem just shows you how we start with a relatively simple problem. We start
arguing about and analysing it, we see a distinction in the law and then we have to try and defend
it. Some of us may feel happy saying the law is right, but then there may be times we think
actually that's just not right, that's giving out the wrong message, it's not fair, it's
not just and therefore we can suggest alternatives like duress arguably should be a partial defence
to ***. Okay, very good.
Let's go onto another problem, this is another criminal problem but this time concerns theft.
Now, I've given you this problem because as you'll see at the bottom in italics there's
some statute that applies and when you consider law you have to spend some time interpreting
and thinking about the meaning of words. So, the problem is as follows, David is an employee
in Val's shop. He takes £50 from the till when the shop closes on Saturday afternoon,
confidently expecting to be able to replace the money on Monday when it opens. He is robbed
on his way home from the pub on Saturday night and is unable to replace the money. Is David
guilty of theft?
Now, you then see the statute. The Theft Act defines theft as dishonestly appropriating
property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the other of it. So
that's what theft is. That word dishonesty is defined as conduct which the reasonable
person would consider to be dishonest and the defendant is aware that the reasonable
person would consider it to be dishonest. So that's the law; that's all you need to
worry about, the law.
Let's apply the law to the problem first of all. Is David guilty of theft do you think?
I think he's being dishonest but it says that to be guilty you have to permanently deprive
someone of it, and he is intending on replacing it. So in that sense he is not guilty really.
It's difficult to prove. It will probably be difficult to prove whether he is or not.
There may be all sorts of evidential difficulties. Let's just believe him that he's basically
taking this £50 from the till and he's going to replace it on Monday morning, we'll accept
that. So, you're saying arguably it's not theft because he intends to replace it on
Monday morning, so there's no intention to permanently deprive?
Yes, what he's doing is temporary.
Okay, and that's not theft. Theft is not a crime of borrowing; it's a crime of taking
away permanently. Can anybody think of a possible way round that, that it might be theft?
The fact that he can now no longer replace it.
Why can't he replace it?
Because he's been a victim of theft himself.
Okay. Why do you think he took the £50 on Saturday afternoon in the first place? Presumably
to go and go out that Saturday night. Presumably he was intending to spend that £50 and then
go to the bank on Monday morning, go to the cash point and get another £50 note out
and put that back. He can still do that, okay the money's been stolen from him so he can't
go out on Saturday night, but he could still go to the bank and get £50 out. So, could
it be theft still?
But surely if it's just the £50 that's been taken from him or more money that means he
can't pay it back, or maybe it's the bank, more of a credit.
Okay, so I'm being quite charitable to him, I'm assuming he's got some money in his bank
account so he can put it back. What I'm really trying to get at is just for you to think
what it is that he might have stolen. You said he's going to put it back, what is he
going to put back?
Knowing there's a difference between £50 the value and the fifty pounds, and if he
was out partying he would have another £50 it would have been the same thing as well.
Yes. So actually part of this problem is about what we mean by property. Certainly it looks
as though he intends to borrow the amount of fifty pounds and spend it on Saturday night
and put that amount back into the till, so therefore the owner of the shop won't know
otherwise. But does he intend to permanently deprive the shop of that particular piece
of paper that £50 note and I think the answer is yes unless he decides he just wants to
have £50 in his wallet, show people he's got that £50 and then put that £50 back.
He could argue that, I think that's unlikely. So in fact he is intending to permanently
deprive the shop of that piece of paper, that fifty pound note and that's property belonging
to somebody else.
Now, if that's the case, do you think it's dishonest for somebody to take a £50 note
out of the till, spend that one but intend throughout to put £50 back in the till on
Monday morning? Is that dishonest, do you think?
Yes it is, because if it wasn't dishonest he would have asked, Val, who owns the shop
if he could borrow it, whereas he didn't, he was intending to not tell her at all, but
just do it and hand it back.
Okay, but is that dishonest? If any of you work in a shop and you did this, do you think
you'd be in trouble?
Yes.
Yes I think you probably would actually, because maybe you're taking other things as well.
But in your own mind if you think, well, she's not going to miss it, I'm not taking anything
away from her in terms of value. True, I'm taking away the note, but she can't worry
about that very £50 note being back in the till, can she?
Surely there is a permanent deprivation here because if the shopkeeper actually chose to
come along and use that £50 note at the weekend, they have been permanently deprived
of the opportunity to do so.
Fine, for that weekend period, exactly, and particularly if we say he's intending to spend
that note. I've absolutely no doubt there's an intention to permanently deprive. I think
the real difficulty is dishonesty. So what about that definition at the bottom? Dishonesty
is defined as conduct which the reasonable person would consider to be dishonest and
the defendant is aware that the reasonable person would consider it to be dishonest.
You are all reasonable people; would you say this was dishonest? You all would? And then
the question is whether he thinks you think it's dishonest, and he may well think that.
He may himself think it's perfectly honest for me to do it but I realise other people
would consider this to be dishonest, if so he is guilty of theft.
Now, I could give you so many examples of issues arising from that, I'm just going to
give you one. In the light of what we've just said, do you think Robin Hood was dishonest
in robbing the rich to feed the poor? That's the definition of dishonesty, is Robin Hood
a thief? It is taking property permanently and everything, what would you say reasonable
people would say about his conduct, and what do you think Robin Hood thinks?
Although it is like a morally good thing to be helping out the poor, ultimately it is
something that's breaking the law by the fact that it is taking away. So I think you've
Okay, so that would mean, Robin Hood, great folk hero, is a common or garden thief and
we shouldn't be making any films about him.
He was called king of thieves, wasn't he?
He was you're right. That doesn't necessarily mean that Hollywood got their law right, but
they are right. I think he is according to this definition a thief. That has all sorts
of implications for other contexts where crimes are committed against property but there may
be very good reasons for doing it but, ultimately, if we say it's dishonest then a serious crime
has been committed. Excellent. So that just shows you a little bit about thinking about
statutory interpretation.
Now, I am conscious we've only got 10 minutes left. The next problem I am going to skirt
over and I'll let you read this one. This is about negligence and tort. You may have
been told earlier what tort is, some of you will know already. Tort is where criminal
law is where the state punishes you for wrong, tort is where somebody has committed a wrong
but the injured person seeks compensation. And this is a problem about compensation where
somebody becomes pregnant following a failed vasectomy raising some quite difficult issues
about whether having a perfectly healthy baby is a loss and is damage which deserves compensation,
and that raises some quite difficult moral and ethical issues.
But I want to finish with this problem on unjust enrichment. This is another area of
the law, it's not criminal law it's we call part of private law where individuals sue
other people for a remedy that they themselves want. So let me give you this problem. John
pays Norma £10,000 thinking that he owed her the money when in fact he owed it to Sarah.
Norma does not realise the money was paid to her by mistake and thinks John is being
very generous. She uses £9,999 to pay for a holiday. She uses the remaining £1 to
buy a National Lottery ticket and wins £20,000. John asks for the money to be repaid because
it had been paid to Norma by mistake. He also claims the £20,000 prize money. Should Norma
be required to repay the money?
Now, there is so much here, but let's try and concentrate on the core issues. Let's
first deal with that £10,000 which he says has been paid by mistake. English law recognises
what we call unjust enrichment. If somebody is enriched at your expense in circumstances
where we could say it's unjust then you can get your money back and one reason it will
be unjust is if you've paid money by mistake.
So, if for example and I'm not going to pick on any of you, but if for example I look around
the room and I find one of you and think you look really dishevelled and really down in
the dumps, I'm going to give you £1,000 to make you feel better, and you can go and
buy loads of law text books and read them and get really informed and happy. And then
I discover the reason you are looking so dishevelled and sad is that you are really, really hung
over, you have an appalling lifestyle, you drink alcohol all the time, maybe you're addicted
to drugs as well, etc., etc. If I knew that I wouldn't have given you a penny. Do you
think I can get my money back from you? Some people say no, but why can't I? You've been
enriched, you've got £1,000 from me, did I make a mistake? Was I mistaken in paying
that money to you? I thought you were just looking a bit sad and tired when I was wrong,
you are not a very nice person, a bad person. Can I get my money back?
I think it's because you're being subjective when you're looking at her or him and he doesn't
have the intention to make you pay money to him, so technically it is your mistake.
Okay, good, it's a part of the problem of this whole area of mistake. It's my mistake;
it's not your fault. English law actually says if you make a mistake and the other person's
received money as a result of your mistake you can get the money back. Now, there is
a nice point in the example I've just given you of you looking dishevelled etc., whether
I'm really mistaken, but if I am I can get my money back. So, John pays Norma £10,000
thinking he owes it to her when he doesn't, can he get that money back? In light of what
I've just said, yes he can. But is that fair, because she has spent £9,999 going on a
holiday? Is that relevant, do you think that she's spent most of it on a holiday?
There's that reasonable behaviour in the sense that if £10,000 suddenly appeared in your
bank account, would you just say, "Oh great, I'll go on a big holiday." You would actually
question where's that come from and you might go back to John and say, "Why have you given
me this money." Meanwhile Sarah might be wondering where her money's gone to.
And in fact John certainly still owes Sarah the money, so she could sue him for that,
there's a straightforward obligation there. So there is an issue of reasonableness. Now,
let me try and bring this home to you, maybe coming on this open day you didn't think you
might learn something that's of real practical benefit. But I know on a number of occasions
if you are in a job you may have your salary paid to you monthly and one month there may
be a mistake in that you may be paid more money than is due to you. Now, you've just
said if that happens to you, you really ought to investigate and find out what's happened
and not spend it. But let's say it's not a massive amount of money and you say, "Oh,
there's a bit more in my bank account than I expected." But you do decide I've got a
bit more money I can go out to a restaurant I wouldn't otherwise have done or maybe I
can afford a holiday that I wouldn't have gone on. If that's the case do you think you
have to pay the amount of money back if you've spent it? What do you think the fair result
is in those circumstances?
You chose to spend that money so surely if it's not your own, you haven't earned it or
you haven't been given it purposely, then surely it's your responsibility to have to
pay that back?
So the fact you've spent it is irrelevant?
What you've done with the money is completely irrelevant.
Okay, do you all agree with that?
I think if she spends it in good faith because she went on holiday it wasn't like if she
knew she had to give it back she would have saved it, she wouldn't have spent it. So I
think in a way she shouldn't have to pay it back. I think John still needs that money
back because of course he needs to repay Sarah, but I just don't think she necessarily meant.
Okay, because if Norma is required to pay it back she's lost out £10,000. She's spent
the holiday she wouldn't otherwise have gone on, but also she has to pay him back and actually
English law says if you receive money paid by mistake and you change your position in
good faith, you spend it in good faith, you don't have to pay anything back. So if your
employer puts by mistake more in your bank account than you expected, what should you
do?
Spend it.
Spend it, just spend it then you're fine, weird. Now, I'm going to be a proper lawyer
with a big caveat in the light of what you've said, you've got to be reasonable and if you
really are suspicious about, oh I've got a lot more than I thought, a lot more than I
thought in my bank account, I'm going to spend it, you might be in serious trouble and you
may not have a defence. There was a case a couple of weeks ago where that happened to
somebody with state benefits, getting loads of money which she spent and she was convicted
of theft, so it's got to be in good faith. So I don't want you, if you ever do this,
to say I was told by Professor Virgo on this open day that if I get money by mistake I
must spend it regardless of whatever. But if you're in good faith and you have spent
it then actually you are not required to pay that money back.
But then finally what about this National Lottery ticket, this £1 which has been used
to buy that National Lottery ticket and it wins £20,000, do you think John has any
claim to that £20,000 prize money?
As with the rest it's been spent in good faith, so if she's not obliged to pay the money back
she actually owes him, why would she be obliged to pay the money back that she never had any.
Okay, so as regards the £1 you could say she's changed her position in buying that
ticket. The fact that it wins £20,000, you're saying that's her money and he has no claim
for that money? Fine, but what if he says that was my money that I paid you by mistake,
you have used my money to buy a National Lottery ticket, that means the jackpot is my jackpot.
She's used the £9,999 to pay for a holiday, that doesn't mean she has to give him a holiday
as well, I don't see that because it's a monetary value it has any difference.
Good, but you could say that's different because the £9,999 has gone, she's had the holiday,
so there's nothing there any more. But let's assume she hasn't spent the £20,000 jackpot,
so it is there. Can he say, "Give me my money, that jackpot is mine."
He wasn't going to use the £10,000 to buy a lottery ticket because he was going to pay
Sarah her money, so he can't pay them.
Okay, so I'm getting a sense nobody thinks he should recover this £20,000. Does anybody
think he should have a claim to the £20,000?
I don't think he should, but I think it's not his. He's arguing it's his right to have
the £20,000 back in the first place but it's not his money in the first place, it's
Sarah's money, he borrowed it off Sarah.
Okay, so are we really saying Sarah can claim this £20,000? Now, we're in an area where
it gets really complicated. This is based on quite a few real cases actually that go
to court and most of them say in these circumstances what he's arguing, if we just focus on John,
is about property and who owns a piece of property. And actually in these circumstances
what you were saying I think is right. This £20,000 actually belongs to Norma, she can
hold onto that, it isn't his property because she made the decision to buy the National
Lottery ticket, that's her decision therefore it's her jackpot. So, maybe the other lesson
is, if you receive money by mistake, just buy loads of National Lottery tickets, hoping
they'll win, and then you can hold onto the jackpot.
Okay, so maybe there are a few lessons there, but the real point of that is just to get
you thinking about what the law might say, what the right result should be and how we
apply the law to particular problems. We are going to have to stop I'm afraid, there is
one other problem another negligence problem which again I will let you look at. I'm actually
going to be around at lunch so if you look at those problems and want to ask me about
any of them or anything else, please do.
Let me just say two final things. Quite often when people in your position come on an open
day like this you come with all sorts of different thought processes going on. Some of you may
have thought I want to do law, no doubt about it. Some of you might be thinking I'm not
sure whether law is for me. I think if you go through problems like this and a session
like this, and you enjoy these sorts of problems, and this sort of discussion, I think law is
the right subject for you. This is a good test, because this is actually a lot of what
we do, I mean all sorts of different areas, but this way of thinking, unpacking problems,
thinking about the issues is what the study of law is about.
And finally, and I apologise for what I'm about to say, but not too much. Quite often
people come on an open day like this and think about whether study of law is right for them.
As I say this is a useful test, but sometimes they say, is there anything I can read that
will help me to decide whether law is the right subject for me? There are loads of books
on the market, but there is one book called "What About Law" that I contributed to and
as I say there are other books on the market, but "What About Law" provides all the answers
to whether studying law is the right subject for me. This is a shameless plug, it's available
at all good book shops, it's very cheap, but I do commend it to you only because it was
written for people in your position, people who are thinking, do I want to study law at
university? What does the study of law actually involve? So, if you look at that book it will
help me with my Christmas and being able to buy presents for my children, but if you look
at that book that may actually give you some idea of what the study of law is actually
like.
So, thank you very much. I will be at lunch and happy to answer questions then. Thank
you.