Handy 60-second explainers cover legal basics — from contract to criminal law
For aspiring lawyers, nothing beats classic case law to spice-up often bland black letter law.
But as law students struggle to make brain space for the reams of legal knowledge coming their way, many soon find that memorising seemingly endless case facts and court decisions is no easy task.
Offering her solution to this textbook law student struggle is Leticia Santoro, a first year law student at King’s College London, who uses TikTok to create 60-second case law explainers. Joining the new wave of legally-minded social media influencers, Santoro, whose amassed nearly 50,000 followers on the popular short video-sharing app, covers essential legal basics — from contract to criminal law.
Speaking to Legal Cheek, Santoro, an aspiring solicitor, reveals her short video summaries began as a personal revision tool. She explains:
“The reason I started filming them was because I learn and memorise things most efficiently when I say them, recording myself reading my notes is something I started doing during my A-Levels. TikTok has a maximum of 60 seconds per video, so I also use it to train myself to be very succinct when I explain myself which seems to be a desirable skill amongst lawyers.”
Santoro now hopes her videos can educate TikTok’s younger user base, particularly “GCSE/A-Level students who want to get an idea of what studying law at university entails”. However, her videos tackling sex and consent in case law are “aimed towards the general public for raising awareness about our rights which we don’t get taught in school,” she adds.
With exam season well underway, here is a handy round-up of the Santoro’s best TikTok case law explainers.
R v Stone & Dobinson
@ilyleticia what are your thoughts on this case? It’s R v Dobinson 1977 if you want to know more xx
R v Lipman / R v Kingston
@ilyleticia The law on intoxication is A LOT more complicated though
R v Blaue
@ilyleticia Do you agree with this rule? The case is R v Blaue ##law
R v Brown / R v Wilson
@ilyleticia The case is R v Brown 1994 if you want to know more xx
R(F) v DPP
@ilyleticia consent can be withdrawn even after penetration has begun. The case is R(F) v DPP 2013 if you’d like to find out more ##foryou ##girls
R v McNally
@ilyleticia Deception as to gender vitiates consent. The case is R v McNally 2013 if you want to find out more xx ##foryou ##law
R v BM
@ilyleticia The case is BM 2018 if you want to know more xx
Chen v Home Secretary / C-86/12 Alopka
@ilyleticia I explained this so badly
Troughton v MPC
@ilyleticia The case is Troughton v MPC 1987 if you want to know more xx ##foryou ##law
United Biscuits (UK) Ltd (No. 2) (aka the Jaffa Cakes case)
@ilyleticia such an important debate xx
Stilk v Myrick
@ilyleticia The case is Stilk v Myrick 1809 if you want to know more x
Follow Legal Cheek on TikTok. Looking for your 15 seconds of fame? Tag us in your legal TikToks or email them to: tips@legalcheek.com
