My name is Louise Merrett. I am one of the
Law Fellows at Trinity College. I am also
a reader in International Commercial Law in
the Law Faculty at Cambridge.
My name is Ben Spagnolo. I am also a Law Fellow
here at Trinity and I work mostly in Public
Law and Roman Law.
This video is intended to demystify an understandably
stressful and, we think, often misunderstood
part of the admissions process by showing
an example of a typical law interview. We
have also included some reflections from some
of our current students about their experiences
at interview, including a student who was
interviewed overseas.
Although this video focuses on the interview,
it is important to remember that the interview
is just one part of our admissions process.
It helps us to understand your interest in
law and explore some of your ideas but it
is only one element of the process and evaluation.
We also, of course, will have your school
results and your predictions, your references,
your personal statement and your Cambridge
Law Test.
The Cambridge Law Test is a one-hour written
paper that you will be asked to take when
you come for interview. You don't have to
register or sign up for the test. Your college
or the overseas panel that is arranging your
interview will make all of the necessary arrangements.
The Cambridge Law Test is a common paper across
the Cambridge colleges. It offers you an opportunity
to show some of the skills and abilities that
we have found good lawyers and good law students
possess. It is a test about reasoning; it
is a test about argumentation. You can see
some sample Cambridge Law Test papers on our
website so you can get a feel for what might
be involved, but it's important to stress
that it's not a test where we expect any prior
legal knowledge or prior legal training. We
are focusing on those skills of reason and
argumentation. It's not about legal knowledge
per se.
That last point that Ben made about the Cambridge
Law Test is also true of the interview. We
don't expect any prior legal knowledge when
you come to an interview in Cambridge. Of
course, some of you may have studied some
law - you might be studying A level law, for
example - and you may want to talk about that
and bring that into your interview. That's
not something we expect. We don't expect any
legal knowledge when you come for your interview.
We think that one of the best ways of preparing
for a law interview is to think about the
world around you and your own lives and see
if you can think about some of the legal aspects
there may be and the legal dimensions of what's
going on in the world. You can feed that knowledge
and interest by reading a newspaper, watching
the news, reading quality magazines and books
and just really focusing on what legal dimensions
there are and what interests you in the news
and the world around you.
There are no tricks or secrets to the interviews
in Cambridge. We just want to see how you
argue, what you think, and really just see
whether you would enjoy the Cambridge supervision
process and enjoy learning and talking about
law.
Exactly what a Cambridge law admissions interview
looks like varies considerably from college
to college and from interviewer to interviewer.
Most interviews, though, will involve some
kind of exercise. It could be an exercise
with a legal flavour or it could be an exercise
that involves moral or practical reasoning
a bit more generally. You might, for example,
be asked to read and think about an extract
from a case or to work through a particular
factual scenario or perhaps to try and explain
how a statutory provision would operate in
practice. Once again, though, we are not looking
for any pre-existing knowledge of the law.
If we want you to know some law for the purpose
of the exercise, we'll give it to you. We'll
give it to you in the interview or perhaps
a short time beforehand.
The exercise that you are going to see in
this video is a typical mock law interview.
In our example, the candidate was given a
page half an hour before the interview which
contained some facts and some legal information
and some relevant law. You can find a copy
of that page on the website. So in our example
the candidate had half an hour before the
interview to prepare and to take some notes
and just think through their ideas. In some
interviews, you may be given a similar exercise
but during the interview itself. The exact
way in which it is done does not matter. It's
just a different way of doing a very similar
thing.
Our interview with Rhianna was not rehearsed,
it's not scripted and we didn't tell Rhianna
in advance anything that the Cambridge Law
Faculty and the Cambridge colleges haven't
already told you at an open day or via our
website or our prospectus. Please don't think
of this as a model, ideal or perfect interview.
It is just a typical example. We hope that
by offering you an example interview, we can
make the process a little bit more familiar
and a little bit less intimidating. Please
be reassured that if you are invited to interview,
your interviewers will quite genuinely be
excited to meet you. They want you to be as
relaxed as possible and they want you to do
well in the interview. We hope this video
helps.
Example law interview
Hi.
Hi.
You must be Rhianna.
Yes.
I'm Ben. Come on in and grab a seat.
Thank you.
Do sit down and make yourself comfortable.
Thank you.
Rhianna, my name's Ben. It's very good to
meet you. I'm one of the Law Fellows here
in college and with me is
Louise Merrett and I'm another one of the
Law Fellows.
We're very excited that you've come for interview
today. We have about 20 to 25 minutes together
and we want to spend much of that time doing
a legal exercise which I gather you've had
Yes, yes.
for half an hour in advance. We'll also make
sure we leave some time at the end in case
you have any questions for us but perhaps
before we get to the exercise we can start
with the obvious question. Why are you interested
in studying law?
I think on my work experience I've kind of
got a real understanding of the impact which
the law can have on ordinary people and I'd
like to do something, even after I leave university,
which does have an impact on people. I want
to improve people's lives and I think that
law is a very good way to do that. I also
don't kind of shy away from hard work and
I think that, I know that law is hard work
but also I think that the subjects that I've
chosen at A level mean that I have got used
to writing essays, I've got used to doing
research and I think that it's a natural progression
for me on to law but also I think that kind
of, thinking about the skills that I have
myself, I think that that kind of ability
to scrutinise information and the ability
to persuasively argue for what I think is
right is something that I've been trying to
develop, especially through kind of extracurricular
things like debating and public speaking and
those sorts of things. So, yes, I think it's
just the right subject for me and I hope you'll
agree.
You mention there some legal work experience
and I see in your personal statement you've
been to a solicitor's firm
and you had some time in a major firm in London.
Can you tell us what you saw? Probably a lot
of hard work but
Yes, a lot of hard work actually. I was quite
young when I did the work experience so it
was all very fresh and I didn't know any law
so it was kind of, it was a real insight into
what it actually meant to be a lawyer. I think
that the thing that my work experience has
kind of shown me most of all is that kind
of even the unpredictable nature of law in
that I thought I was, I thought that the office
that I was in was focusing on kind of land
law and those sorts of things but actually
we were looking at a ramp for a shop and how
that was going to work out, where the problems
were with sort of building this ramp for a
shop and something that you would have thought
was just a matter of kind of putting some
concrete down actually has such huge wider
impacts on people just generally, like the
public and on the shop itself, and I think
that that was kind of the thing that I learnt
most was actually that all of these different
decisions, even things which actually may
not have seemed massively interesting to me
at first, have so many different implications
that actually, you know, it's all very exciting
is what I learnt. I think that it really kind
of got me interested in law and I think that,
yes, I think that's what I got from it really.
It got me excited about it because I couldn't
really learn a lot about particular cases
and things because I don't have any
Sure.
proper background or any textbooks or anything
but it was helpful in confirming that I was
interested, yes.
So it's clearly an interest in yours, not
just in the subject matter but also in the
skills because you've done a lot of debating
and public speaking and those sorts of things
at school as well.
Yes.
What is it that you enjoy about debating and
public speaking?
I think that... Well, personally, I really
like to be able to put my thoughts across
kind of out loud. I'd rather do that than
kind of confuse people and have people in
a sort of strange email chain and things like
that. I like the ability to actually meet
with people and to be able to discuss ideas
and I think that's one of the things that
I like so much about, say, debating, is that
I feel it's very productive and that's another
thing that I saw in my work experience, actually,
is that lawyers do seem to work really well
in kind of a team and together, which is exciting
for me because I do really think that to kind
of work very much independently and not to
have any proper dialogue kind of limits you
a little bit. But I think it's the fact that
I'm able to write what I believe about, I
think, and to be able to present that as persuasively
as I can but then also the fact that I'm then
able to share that with other people and to
gain more from it because actually everybody
makes mistakes and you're not... people aren't
very good at spotting their own mistakes.
So actually it's a really productive forum
and it's a good way of kind of training your
brain to think about things from different
directions because everybody has their own
way of dealing with ideas and actually it's
much more useful if other people are throwing
ideas at you and you have to tackle those
as well because it kind of changes the dynamic
of the way that you work, I think.
Okay. Shall we engage in a dialogue about
some of your ideas?
Yes, let's do some ideas, shall we? We hope
you've had a chance to look at this problem.
Yes.
Obviously we don't expect you to know any
law
Yes.
but we've asked you at the end whether you
can think about the arguments that are likely
to be made by both the prosecution and the
defence.
Yes.
So can you maybe start just by running through
what you think the main arguments will be
in this case?
Okay. So I think there are a number of arguments
and some of them are quite complex really.
So I think, starting with the prosecution
who want him to be convicted... who want the
conviction to stand, I think that obviously
the baby has died and during the pregnancy
Tony caused his mother significant trauma
and I think that when he's already been charged
with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
and the definition of murder, which I have
on the sheet, is, like, an act which causes
the death of a human being and that they've
done that with the intention of causing death
or with the intention of causing grievous
bodily harm, well, he's already been convicted
of intent to cause grievous bodily harm and
now the baby has died. Also, I think it's
reasonable to suggest that grievous bodily
harm on a pregnant abdomen is going to have
some impact on that baby. I'm not sure that
anybody could deny that if you stab someone
in the stomach and they are pregnant, that
there would be some potential harm to that
child.
Also, I think the fact that there's only two
weeks which pass between the incident and
going into premature labour suggests that
there is some sort of link between it because,
I mean, people - and I'll come on to this
in the defence - people do have premature
births but there does seem to be some kind
of causation there, but that's not as strong
an argument, I wouldn't say. There's also
the fact that if it is that the attack had
some part in causing this premature birth,
it is the premature birth itself which has
harmed... well, not the birth itself but the
fact that the baby was born prematurely, which
has harmed it or him and the fact that he
was born prematurely and then had the lung
condition, which is attributed to that, means
that it was the prematurity and if we can
attribute the prematurity to the fact that
his mother was attacked, then I think it's
quite a clear connection between Tony's behaviour
and the death of the baby but I think that's
where the problem arises.
So then going on to the defence who want to
overturn the conviction, I think that the
fact that Mary obviously went to hospital
because she'd been stabbed three times and
the doctors said that that hadn't harmed the
baby means that they're going to struggle
to convince people that it was the attack
which caused the prematurity because actually
many babies are born prematurely. It's not
a completely rare thing. I mean, he's not
phenomenally early. There are babies who are
born more early than that and don't have the
lung condition so actually, one, he could
just have been born prematurely and he's a
first baby, I assume from that, I don't know
that, but if he is then there are lots of
other problems which could be the cause of
the prematurity and also lots of babies are
born prematurely and survive and are very
successful and don't have lung conditions.
So actually whether that's something that
he's had any influence on is hard to figure
out. Also the fact that... yes, so it kind
of is just bad luck really that the baby had
that condition. That's a shame, obviously,
but whether it's Tony's fault, I don't know
how we would know that, especially when the
doctors said that it hadn't harmed the baby.
Also the fact that they decided to charge
him initially with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm and wounding rather than, say,
attempted murder maybe suggests that they
didn't think he was intending to kill anybody
which... I mean, obviously that's an argument
which would need to be reconsidered in light
of the new evidence but it's possible to be
able to say that actually he wasn't trying
to kill anybody but obviously the definition
of murder doesn't... you don't have to intend
to cause death. You can just intend to cause
grievous bodily harm which they've said he
did do. Also the fact that he stabbed her
three times but only once in the abdomen suggests
that it wasn't the baby that he was trying
to hurt or kill. I'm not sure the fact that
there were two stabs elsewhere and one stab
in the abdomen would suggest that that wasn't
the main site of attack. So actually that
almost... that's the anomalous stab is the
one in the stomach and that could have been
because he was clumsy. It doesn't necessarily
mean that he was ever trying to actually hurt
the baby but the fact that he did stab her
in the abdomen obviously means that the baby
had quite a high chance of being made poorly.
So I think that kind of the arguments follow
that for the prosecution the baby died, he's
already been charged with grievous bodily
harm and that constitutes murder and I think
that the thing that they need to convince
the judge of is that it's reasonable that
a stab in the abdomen during pregnancy could
be such a significant, like, stressor or factor
as to cause premature birth and then the argument
for the defence is kind of that the baby died
but it wasn't because of what he did, it wasn't
because of the act of wounding the mother.
The mother was told at first that he hadn't
been harmed and also prematurity is not that
uncommon and, furthermore, like, the illness
that he then had owing to the prematurity
is also even less common and lots of babies
would have survived that. So the death can't
be attributed to Tony.
Okay. Thank you very much and you've got lots
of very good arguments on both sides. We want
to just explore a couple of things maybe with
you in a bit more detail.
Mm-hmm.
So you referred to the definition of murder
in paragraph 6
Yes.
which is good because it tells us what the
definition is. Shall we see if we can go through
each of the elements, some of which you've
talked about in a lot of detail, some not
so much.
So we've talked about the defendant's got
to perform an act.
Yes.
And the act here was...
Stabbing.
The stabbing.
Yes.
So that seems straightforward, which causes
death and that, I think, is one element which
you did explore in some detail.
Yes.
I agree with you, I think will definitely
be one of the major issues
and I think, as you said, there's really two
causal stages, aren't there?
There's the whether the stabbing caused the
premature birth
Yes.
and then secondly whether the death resulted
from the premature birth because of the lung
condition
Yes.
and I think you've made some very good points
about that and you'd have to prove both of
them.
Do you think there should be...? Let's say
that we can prove that the stabbing did contribute
to the baby
Yes.
being born early, would it matter whether
the 50 percent... there was a 50 percent chance
of the baby then dying of the lung condition
or even if it was only a ten percent chance,
would we not just say, well, but that is in
fact what happened so we can say that that
did cause the death? Other babies might have
survived
Yes.
but do you think that really matters?
I think my personal opinion is that it shouldn't
matter. I think that if we can attribute the
stabbing as the premature birth, then I don't
think that the fact that the lung condition
may or may not have happened and he may or
may not have died, the fact that he did die,
I think, is sufficient to charge him with
murder. I think if we can attribute the stabbing
to the premature birth, then, because it's
the prematurity itself that's the cause of
the death rather than... I mean, he wouldn't
have had the lung condition necessarily if
he hadn't been born prematurely so, yes, I
think it's fair enough to say that, but I
also am conscious that I need to be able to
distance myself from the problem because obviously
it's a horrendous act and I want to be fair
to him but I do still think, even if I'm being
as kind of distant as possible, that if he
caused the premature birth and the baby died
as a result of the premature birth, then he
caused its death.
Yes. One of the ways, of course, we distance
ourselves is sort of to be dispassionate by
focusing on the exact words of the offence
Yes.
which is something you did do early on. So,
yes, going back to that, I think we've explored
causation in quite a lot of detail but there
are other things, of course. So he's got to
perform an act which causes the death, then
it says "of a human being."
Yes. Yes, I did think about that a little
bit.
Do you think there's an issue about is a baby
before it's born a human being and does that
matter here?
So this is something I've studied a little
bit in my A level in philosophy and ethics
and I think that when this happened, the baby
was, I think, viable which is kind of the
stage at which the law starts to see, or at
least in some instances, starts to see the
baby as a being of its own. So it's when,
like, abortion would become illegal. If the
baby was able to survive outside the womb
on its own, which obviously this baby in particular
isn't because he also has additional problems,
then we would be considering him as his own
entity but I also definitely see that as a
problem. I think that the fact that he died
when he'd been born means that he was a human
being
Yes.
so actually in this case, yes, but I think
had she miscarried, for example, then that
would be a more challenging situation but
actually, considering that he was born and
died, I think that that means... yes.
Yes, you make a very good point. So, in other
words, in this case there was a human being
Yes.
on any view
Yes, yes.
It's interesting because you've talked about
the ethical, that you might have thought about
the ethical issue and, of course, there might
be a rule about abortion.
Yes.
Of course, for the criminal law and the purposes
of this offence, you might have a different
definition
Yes, yes.
necessarily. So here we're talking about,
according to the terms of this provision here,
that you have to be a human being
Yes.
which you might answer that in a different
way than you would in a different context
Yes, I think.
and I think you make a very good point that
maybe it didn't matter on the facts here.
Yes.
Any thoughts about whether you think a baby
before it's born can be classified as a human
being in accordance with the terms of this
provision?
I think that... I can see that there's kind
of a slight dilemma here in that it isn't
simple because actually it's not the same
as if he'd killed Mary, if he'd killed the
mother. That seems to be a different issue
but...
Why do you say that would be a different issue?
I suppose because we do treat... I know that
people have lots of different opinions about
this but the fact that we do treat people
who are already... who have already been born
with a different kind of value to how we treat
the unborn means that in this kind of a human
being would be a more independent being which
means that kind of he couldn't be if he was...
if the baby is still kind of in utero, he's
not actually... he's not actually yet a human
being whose death can be caused. I think,
like, there might be a problem in having a
death before a birth in this.
Okay, but you said earlier that of course
the baby was born
Yes.
and it died after that. So there is a human
being at that later point in time.
Yes. Yes.
So Mary was a human being at what time the
baby was a human being, at a different time?
How does that fit in to the words of the provision
here? You're drawing a distinction, I think,
based on when something happens.
Yes, and the distinction is between... The
distinction I'm drawing is at the point of
the baby's birth. So at that point, I'm kind
of treating them as two separate human beings
but before that more as one and the thing
with this case in particular is that we do
eventually have two human beings and we have
two live human beings. So actually what happened
before his birth... I mean, nothing affected
him before his birth. He was only affected,
like, as he was born which means that until
then he's not really needing to be considered
because actually it's Mary who was injured
and as long as he was inside her, we had no
reason to suspect that he was injured. He
was actually deemed to be okay by doctors
and it was only once he was born that the
problems became apparent and at that point,
once he was born, once he had left Mary, he
was his own human being, I think, kind of,
quite definitely. I think the problem arises
in the fact that when he was born he wasn't
attacked. He was attacked when he was inside
her and so if he wasn't a human being then,
then his death later on doesn't count because
actually that's not the same... he's not the
same being supposedly if actually he wasn't
a human being before.
I think that's helpful because you've identified
that there might have to be a human being
at the time of the act
Yes, yes, yes.
in that first part of the provision. Is there
anything else that might... you know, don't
know what the law is on this point, it doesn't
really matter?
No.
Is there anything else that would fall into
that same category as something that might
have to be true at that time, do you think,
looking at the provision that you've got?
Do you mean just in the case of?
So you were saying that there had to be a
human being at the time of the stabbing.
Yes.
Is there anything else that turns on when
there was a human being whose death was caused,
do you think?
In particular, is there something else we
have to show which we haven't really talked
about so much in paragraph 6?
Not sure. I'm not quite sure I understand
where you're coming from.
Okay. So you helpfully said it doesn't matter
for the death when the baby was born because
in this case the baby died after being born.
Yes.
And you said there might be a problem with
whether the stabbing took place at a time
when there was a human being because the baby
hadn't been born at the time of the stabbing
and, just looking again at paragraph 6, is
there anything else that might have to have
been true for this conviction to work that
required there to be a human being at the
time? So it wasn't a problem for the death.
No, but the fact that though he didn't wound
that human being if the human being... yes,
yes. So if
Okay, so it might be that problem about
Yes.
who was wounded.
Yes, yes. Precisely. Yes, and I think that's
something I was trying to bring out with the
fact that when I was talking about Mary, kind
of it wasn't the baby he was necessarily trying
to hurt so actually the baby's death, even
if, like, we can agree that the baby consequently
died because of what he'd done to his mother,
it wasn't about what he'd done to him, if
you understand what I mean by that.
Yes.
It wasn't actually...
And actually I think you've said two things
that are quite helpful there, Rhianna. You
said that it wasn't the stabbing perhaps to
the baby
Yes.
which picked up on that earlier point you
made
Yes.
about how many stabs there were, but you also
said maybe it wasn't the baby he was trying
to hurt.
Yes.
Does he have to have been trying to hurt the
baby, do you think?
Well, I think actually when I was writing
the notes about this, I was thinking that
it was a bit ambiguous because it says that
it's done with the intention of causing death
and the intention of causing grievous bodily
harm but... so that would kind of suggest
that he was trying to do it - if it has to
be done with intent, then he is trying to
do it - but also I think there's kind of a
problem in that when people talk about, say,
manslaughter as something that's slightly
different to... obviously quite different
to murder, in that it's... if, say, you...
So I read in the news recently about the elderly
gentleman who had reversed into some ladies
in the carpark and I think he was charged
with manslaughter and the sentence isn't really
relevant but the fact that that is manslaughter
is because it was an accident, he wasn't trying
to hurt anybody, and actually he is trying
to hurt someone, he might not have been trying
to kill the baby or whatever, but he was obviously...
there was no reason for him to be stabbing
someone if he wasn't trying to hurt somebody.
There was no kind of... it wasn't like he
turned around with a knife and accidentally
Sure, it wasn't an accident.
Yes, yes.
In fact, I think you said, when you first
ran through, what we know. We know that, because
what's he pleaded guilty to already?
Yes, he's already pleaded guilty to, like,
offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm so we know that that is kind of
satisfied.
But who was the intent towards in that
Towards Mary, yes.
Right, so I guess that's the question
Yes, and that's the problem, yes. It's distinguishing
between the baby and between Mary.
But you also said earlier that if you do stab
someone in the abdomen
Yes.
and Mary was about, six months
Seven... six months, yes.
six or seven months pregnant at this point
so one can imagine that Tony, as the father,
also knew that she was six months pregnant.
Yes, yes, and I think it would be visible
by then. I would find it very hard to
Sure
That he really didn't know.
In the ordinary course.
Yes.
Does that change what you're thinking about
the trying to or the intention element here?
The fact that he knew that she was pregnant?
Yes.
Yes. Yes, I think that it's entirely reasonable
to expect a grown man to expect that if you
wound Mary, if you wound an expectant mother,
that that would have some effect on the baby.
I think that is an accepted level of awareness
amongst all human beings.
So it sounds to me as though you are saying,
"He must have known or he could have known
or he was taking the risk by stabbing Mary
in the abdomen."
Yes.
Is that the same as intending to cause grievous
bodily harm or intending to kill the person
who actually died, do you think?
I think that according to this definition,
yes, because actually he was... the very act
of him wounding has been dealt with in the
previous conviction. We've accepted previously
that he was trying... that he was intending
to harm somebody
Someone.
and obviously what we're coming to is the
fact that the crux of this is what distinction
we make between Mary and her baby and her
son and I think that obviously it's caused
the death of a human being... well, the death
of a human being has happened and we know
that he was intending to harm at least the
mother and we accept that most people, I think
all people with a sort of sufficient mental
capacity, which obviously would be determined
separately, if we accept that he has a kind
of sufficient mental faculty to understand
that if you harm a pregnant woman that will
possibly impact on
Okay, but when I wear my pair of shoes, right
Yes.
I understand that in wearing my shoes I might
scuff them or I might wear out the sole.
Yes.
Do I intend to scuff them? Do I intend to
wear out the sole when I know that that's
a risk of wearing them?
No. No, you don't. You're not setting out
to scuff the soles of your shoes. You're setting
out to wear the shoes to protect your feet
and to be able to walk on different surfaces
but I think that here, there is... I think
that you... I think I, at least, am struggling
to be able to make the distinction between
obviously a stabbing, which is... stabbings
are not intended to do anything other than...
this kind of a stabbing is not intended to
do anything other than harm. There isn't any
other... this isn't a side effect of... I
don't know. There is nothing you could kind
of think of which would be another outcome.
Obviously, he might want to go to prison,
he might want something, he might want something
else, he might be being paid to do it. There
are lots of other things that could be a motivation
Sure.
but actually that's all resultant through
the wounding. So I think I would struggle
to be able to see it in the same light as
the scuffing of shoes.
Okay.
I think that... yes, it's problematic.
Okay.
Okay. Thank you very much for that. I'll just
take those notes from you if I may.
Yes, sure.
Just so we know where they are. Thank you.
Do you want the problem?
Yes, thank you.
Now, we said we'd leave some time, Rhianna,
in case you had any questions for us. There's
absolutely no reason you should have a question.
If you do, you're very welcome to ask it but
we don't expect you to have a question.
I don't think I do have a question, no.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you very much for coming.
It's been lovely to meet you.
Thank you, yes, and lovely to meet you both
as well. I enjoyed that. Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Thanks.
