Question is:

The courts have made little progress in the understanding of legal causation. Case law in this area

remains essentially unstable and irrational.

Critically discuss.

- it is for a criminal law united kingdom class

right now I have as a outline

-What is legal causation? Give definition - de minimis, the test (operating and substantial vs. Significant), then about novus actus interveniens

1. Explain the old test with reference to the case, how this changed in Wallace (cite them)
2. De Minimis and why it's a bad measure (Simester/textbook info)
3. The test (significant cause, use Jordan/Cheshire examples)
4. Novus Actus Interveniens and how this would confuse: Simester says an event can "peter out" which makes no sense if novus actus interveniens is a yes/no question

just need help putting it together and ensuring i am on the right track - using uk criminal law cases