Hello, my name is Kian, and I'm a law mentor here at Oxbridge Solution. I want to talk you through the Oxford Law interview, because it can look mysterious from the outside when in fact its purpose is quite simple. It is designed to test whether you have the skills you would need to become a lawyer. Once you understand what those skills are, and what the interview is actually going to put in front of you, the whole process becomes far less intimidating. The three skills interviewers are looking for Throughout your interview, try to demonstrate three skills in particular. The first is reading and comprehension, so whether you can read and understand a complicated text in a short amount of time. The second is summarising, so whether you can take the complicated arguments in that text and put them into your own words. The third is taking a position and defending your ground against opposing arguments and criticism. The third is the most important by some distance. It is the thing Oxford interviewers are really looking out for, and whatever material you are handed, you should keep coming back to it. The first two skills get you into the discussion; the third one is the discussion. Scenario one: working with a statute A common scenario is being given a statute, which is a piece of legislation. In the example I use, we look at the offence of criminal damage as set out in the Criminal Damage Act. The first thing to do when you are given a statute is to identify the elements of the offence. Resist the temptation to skim. A statute is not like ordinary writing and every word matters, so read it carefully and work out what each element requires. To take a simple analogy, to say that someone has committed homicide you generally need to prove both that they had the intention to kill and that they carried out an act that resulted in another person's death. Those are the elements. So the question becomes: what are the elements you need in order to say that criminal damage has been committed? Applying the facts to the law After you have read the statute, you are usually given a fact pattern and asked to apply the facts to the law. Put yourself in the shoes of the prosecutor and ask which actions in the facts allow you to establish each element of the offence. It is very important not to have a knee-jerk reaction here. Resist making moral judgments, such as deciding that one person seems responsible and another seems irresponsible and is therefore guilty. As a lawyer, that is not what you are expected to do, and it is not how an offence is made out. Work through each element in turn, and only then decide whether the offence is established. And whatever answer you give, always substantiate it with an explanation rather than simply asserting that someone is guilty. Explaining the terms of a statute Sometimes you will be asked to explain a particular section or phrase in the statute. For example, you might be asked what "without lawful excuse" means in the context of criminal damage, or to give an example of a lawful excuse. At this point you are expected to think quickly on your feet, because the interviewer does not expect you to have detailed prior knowledge of the offence. Apply common sense. Imagine you are trapped in a burning room and a firefighter has to break down your door with an axe to reach you. In that situation we would say the firefighter has a lawful excuse, and we would not convict them of criminal damage. That is one perfectly good way to answer, and it works precisely because it is a sensible everyday example rather than a remembered rule. Scenario two: discussing a case The second scenario is a case, which is essentially a judgment. You will read it and then discuss the outcome. Typical questions include whether you agree with the judge's decision, and why you think the judge decided the way they did. This is where the third skill matters most, so take a clear position and defend it against whatever the interviewer puts to you. Changing your mind is perfectly fine if you are given a good reason to, but drifting away from your position simply because you are being pushed is not. You may also be asked broader, hypothetical questions connected to the material. One of my students, for example, was asked whether it would be justified to kill one prisoner in order to use their organs to save seven other people. Questions like that can feel as though they have come from nowhere, but they test exactly the same ability, so once again the task is to take a position and defend it. Common mistakes to avoid Most of what goes wrong in a law interview is avoidable. Don't skim-read the statute, because every word in it is doing work. Don't react morally to the fact pattern instead of testing it against the elements of the offence. Don't jump to a conclusion before working through each element in turn, and don't assert an answer without substantiating it with an explanation. Don't abandon your position the moment the interviewer pushes back. And don't assume you were supposed to arrive already knowing the law, because you weren't. Final thoughts To recap: emphasise the three skills, and be ready for the two main scenarios, a statute or a case. Above all, remember that you are not expected to have a complete understanding of the law before you arrive. Interviewers are not testing prior legal knowledge. They are testing whether you can respond on your feet, apply common sense to the facts, and, most importantly, take a position and defend it against criticism and counter-argument. That is what the interviewer is looking for. If you would like more support preparing for an Oxford or Cambridge law interview, Oxbridge Solution is here to help. I wish you all the best in your application.
