Law and Society (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Law and Society
The role law plays in society
Law functions as a mechanism of social control, comprising a set of rules designed to maintain order within society. These rules evolve from behaviour that society gradually comes to accept as appropriate or normal conduct.
A rule determines how individuals behave in society. Rules operate in two ways:
Two Ways Rules Operate:
- Voluntary submission: where individuals choose to follow rules, such as moral principles
- Enforceable compliance: where individuals must follow rules because they are legally enforceable
Aims of criminal law
The primary aim of criminal law is to maintain law and order in society. When an individual is found guilty of an offence, punishment follows. Criminal law also seeks to protect society from harm, which justifies custodial sentences for offenders.
The criminal justice system balances two competing objectives: punishment for wrongdoing and public protection from dangerous offenders. Understanding this dual purpose is essential for comprehending how criminal law operates.
Aims of civil law
Civil law upholds and protects the rights of individuals and organisations. When rights are violated, courts can order compensation to restore parties to the position they would have occupied had the breach not occurred. This restorative approach differs fundamentally from the punitive nature of criminal law.
The effect of law on enforceable rights and the balance required between competing interests
This content is assessed in Paper 3.
What are rights and interests?
Legal theorists Rudolf von Jhering and Roscoe Pound defined rights and interests as "principles identified by individuals and/or states as being of fundamental importance."
Private Interests (Individual Interests)
These include:
- Survival
- Safety
- Freedom
- Justice
- Privacy
- Healthcare
- Education
Many of these areas now fall within human rights law, which provides legal protection for fundamental freedoms and entitlements.
Public interests (state interests) are more straightforward, typically comprising:
- Physical security
- Financial security
The state's interests focus on maintaining stability, safety and economic wellbeing for society as a whole.
When do interests conflict?
Conflicts arise in two main scenarios:
Individual versus Individual Conflict
One person's exercise of their rights may infringe another person's interests. For example, a starving person's need for survival might lead them to steal another person's food, creating a direct conflict between one individual's survival interest and another's property rights.
Individual versus State Conflict
An individual's interests may clash with the state's need to protect society. For instance, a suspected terrorist's interest in personal freedom conflicts with the state's interest in maintaining physical security for the wider population.
How does the law balance conflicting interests?
The legal system employs different mechanisms to resolve these conflicts:
Key Distinction: Substantive vs Procedural Law
-
Substantive laws address conflicts between individuals' interests. These laws define prohibited conduct and establish consequences. In the example of the starving person, the law of theft provides the substantive framework for balancing the competing interests.
-
Procedural laws address conflicts between individuals and the state. These laws govern how state powers are exercised. The Terrorism Act 2006, which permits police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 14 days without charge, exemplifies procedural law balancing individual liberty against state security concerns.
Key theorists on enforceable rights and balancing interests
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)
Jeremy Bentham developed the concept of utilitarianism, also known as the "greatest happiness principle". This philosophy argues that laws should maximize overall happiness and wellbeing for the greatest number of people.
Bentham's Advocacy for Legal Reform
Bentham was a radical legal reformer who advocated for:
- Freedom of expression
- Equal rights for women
- The right to divorce
- Decriminalisation of homosexual acts
- Abolition of slavery
- Abolition of the death penalty
- Abolition of physical punishment
- Animal rights protection
Bentham strongly supported extending individual legal rights but firmly opposed natural law theory (the idea that rights are God-given), which he dismissed as "nonsense upon stilts." He believed rights should be rationally determined and legally established rather than assumed to exist inherently.
Rudolf von Jhering (1818–92)
Rudolf von Jhering explored the "struggle for law" in society. He approached jurisprudence as a scientific discipline that should advance the moral and social interests of humanity. Von Jhering emphasized that law develops through conflict and social struggle, with competing interests requiring resolution through legal frameworks.
Roscoe Pound (1870–1964)
Roscoe Pound is associated with the concept of social engineering. He emphasized the crucial importance of social relationships in shaping legal development. Pound argued that lawmakers function as social engineers, using law as a practical tool to identify and solve societal problems. This approach views law not as abstract rules but as an instrument for achieving social goals and managing competing interests.
Key cases for balancing competing interests
Understanding how courts balance conflicting interests requires examining landmark cases:
Miller v Jackson (1977)
This case involved a conflict between individual rights. A cricket club wanted to continue playing cricket on their established ground, while neighbouring homeowners wanted to prevent cricket balls from repeatedly flying into their gardens, causing damage and creating safety concerns. The court had to balance recreational interests against property rights and personal safety.
Kennaway v Thompson (1981)
The court demonstrated how to strike a balance between competing interests by using partial injunctions combined with damages. This approach allowed some continuation of the defendant's activities while protecting the claimant's rights, illustrating how law can find middle ground between absolute rights. The case involved balancing neighbours' rights against the social interest in sporting activities.
Evans v UK (2006)
This case presented a conflict between two individuals' rights concerning embryos they had created together. Following their separation, one party wished to destroy the embryos while the other wanted to preserve them for potential future use. The case highlighted how modern legal issues require balancing intensely personal and competing individual interests.
R v T (1990)
This case demonstrates how substantive criminal law attempts to balance the conflicting interests of defendants and victims. The defence presented in this case sought to account for the defendant's circumstances while acknowledging the victim's right to protection and justice.
DPP v Majewski (1976)
This case shows how courts sometimes restrict available defences for policy reasons - demonstrating that the law balances not just individual competing interests but also broader societal concerns. The restriction on using voluntary intoxication as a defence reflects the state's interest in maintaining public order and deterring reckless behaviour.
Key areas of substantive and procedural law
Students should understand how the following areas illustrate the distinction between substantive and procedural law:
Substantive Law Areas:
- Nuisance: defines what constitutes unreasonable interference with others' rights
- Consent: establishes when agreement validates otherwise prohibited acts
- Intoxication: determines when voluntary intoxication affects criminal liability
Procedural Law Areas:
- Bail: governs when and how defendants may be released pending trial
- Treatment of suspects by police: regulates how state authorities may exercise power over individuals
- Criminal trial process: establishes fair procedures for determining guilt
- Automatic disclosure of criminal convictions: balances rehabilitation against public protection
- Cautions: provides alternatives to prosecution for minor offences
The meaning and importance of fault in civil and/or criminal law
Fault represents a central principle running through all English law. It has been described as the common thread connecting civil and criminal legal systems. Understanding fault is essential for explaining why liability arises and how punishment is determined.
This content is assessed in Papers 1 and 2.
Fault in civil law
Negligence, one of the most significant areas of civil law, depends entirely on the concept of fault. Liability arises when a defendant breaches a duty of care owed to another person. This breach constitutes the defendant's fault.
The reasonable person test
To establish breach of duty, courts measure the defendant's conduct against the standard of the "reasonable person" - sometimes called the "man on the Clapham omnibus." This hypothetical figure represents an ordinary person with reasonable education and intelligence.
The Objective Test
The reasonable person test is objective, meaning it does not account for the defendant's personal characteristics, abilities or intentions. If the defendant's conduct falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances, they have demonstrated fault through breach of duty.
Levels of fault in negligence
The degree of fault can vary depending on multiple factors, including the defendant's knowledge of risks and the precautions they took. Key cases illustrating varying levels of fault include:
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
This case established that employers owe a higher duty of care to particularly vulnerable employees. The employer knew their employee had only one functioning eye but failed to provide protective goggles. The employer's knowledge of the employee's vulnerability increased their level of fault because they should have taken extra precautions.
Latimer v AEC (1953)
This case demonstrates that defendants are not required to take unreasonable or excessively burdensome steps to prevent harm. The employer had taken reasonable precautions to keep staff safe following a flood in the factory. The court found no fault because the employer had acted as a reasonable person would in the circumstances.
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability represents an exception to the normal fault principle. Fault can be transferred from one person (typically an employee) to another (typically an employer). An employer may be held legally responsible for an employee's wrongful acts, even though the employer personally committed no fault.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016)
Morrison's supermarket was held vicariously liable when its employee attacked a customer. The employer bore legal responsibility for the employee's fault, demonstrating how civil law sometimes imposes liability without personal wrongdoing.
Contributory negligence
Contributory negligence allows fault to be shared between parties. When a claimant's own actions contribute to their injuries, damages may be reduced proportionately to reflect their share of responsibility.
Froom v Butcher (1976)
The defendant caused an accident through negligent driving, making them primarily at fault. However, the claimant failed to wear a seatbelt, contributing to the severity of their injuries. The court reduced damages to reflect the claimant's contributory fault.
No-fault civil liability
Just as criminal law contains strict liability offences requiring no fault, civil law includes some torts with no fault requirement.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
This case established a tort of strict liability for damage caused by dangerous things escaping from land. Liability can arise without the defendant demonstrating any fault, based purely on the dangerous nature of the activity.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)
This landmark case established that fault became a requirement in negligence claims. Before this decision, fault was not always necessary for damages to be awarded. The case clarified that damage must be reasonably foreseeable, introducing a fault element into negligence liability.
Fault in criminal law
Criminal liability generally requires both a prohibited act and accompanying fault. An act without fault is merely an accident, not a crime. This principle ensures individuals are only punished when morally blameworthy.
Strict and absolute liability offences
Two categories of criminal offences require no fault:
Offences Without Fault
-
Strict liability offences: These crimes require no mens rea (mental element). Examples include many regulatory offences such as parking violations or speeding. Defendants are liable based solely on committing the prohibited act, regardless of their intentions or knowledge.
-
Absolute liability offences: These offences require no fault whatsoever and include no defences. An example is sexual intercourse with a child under 13, where consent is irrelevant and no defence is available.
These offences exist to regulate society efficiently and protect vulnerable groups. However, they raise concerns about convicting individuals who may have acted entirely innocently.
Sweet v Parsley (1970)
This case demonstrates judicial reluctance to create strict liability offences without clear Parliamentary intention. The court protected defendants from unjust convictions by requiring fault elements even when statutory language seemed to impose strict liability. Judges inserted the word "knowingly" into the offence definition to prevent strict liability application.
Different levels of fault in criminal law
Criminal law recognizes varying degrees of fault, which typically reflect how seriously society views the defendant's conduct rather than focusing solely on consequences.
The mental element (mens rea) can range from:
Hierarchy of Fault Levels
- Direct intention: the defendant's aim or purpose
- Indirect/oblique intention: the defendant foresaw the consequence as virtually certain
- Recklessness: the defendant recognized a risk and unreasonably took it
- Negligence: the defendant failed to meet the standard of a reasonable person
R v Janjua and Choudhury (1998)
This case illustrates the different levels of fault acceptable for establishing the mens rea of murder. The fault spectrum ranges from direct intention to kill at the highest level, down to oblique intention to cause grievous bodily harm at the minimum level.
R v Adomako (1995)
This case established that negligence - the lowest type of fault in criminal law - can suffice for serious offences. An anaesthetist failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube, resulting in the patient's death. The defendant's gross negligence, though not intentional, constituted sufficient fault for manslaughter.
How sentencing reflects fault levels
Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, meaning judges have no discretion in sentencing convicted murderers. Gross negligence manslaughter carries only a maximum life sentence, giving judges discretion to impose lesser penalties.
Punishment Reflects Fault, Not Outcome
This sentencing structure demonstrates that punishment reflects the defendant's fault level rather than the outcome. Two defendants may both kill one person, but the intentional killer receives a mandatory life sentence while the negligent killer may receive a significantly shorter sentence. The difference lies in their culpability, not the harm caused.
Defences and fault
Criminal defences can reduce or completely remove fault from a defendant's actions. Successful defences acknowledge that, although the defendant committed the prohibited act, their level of moral blameworthiness is diminished or absent.
Importance of fault in the legal system
Importance in civil law
Fault was formally introduced into negligence law through Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994). Before this decision, damages could sometimes be awarded without establishing defendant fault.
No-Fault Systems
Some jurisdictions operate no-fault systems for civil claims. New Zealand, for example, operates a taxpayer-funded scheme that compensates accident victims regardless of fault. This eliminates the need to prove negligence but requires higher taxation to fund the compensation scheme.
Implementing an entirely no-fault civil system in England and Wales would require substantial tax increases, making it politically and economically challenging.
Importance in criminal law
Fault has always been fundamental to criminal law. It provides essential justification for punishment - it would be manifestly unjust to penalize someone for an outcome they did not cause through their own culpable conduct.
Balancing Fault Requirements
A criminal justice system without any fault requirement would be unworkable and unjust. However, a system without any no-fault offences would also fail. Without strict liability for regulatory offences like traffic violations, courts would be overwhelmed with trials for minor infractions. The current system allows such offences to be processed efficiently through fixed penalties rather than requiring court proceedings to establish fault.
Summary of key cases on fault
Key Cases on Fault:
Sweet v Parsley (1970): Courts will avoid interpreting offences as strict liability unless Parliament clearly intended this. Judges inserted "knowingly" to require fault and prevent unjust convictions.
R v Janjua and Choudhury (1998): Demonstrates the range of fault levels (mens rea) sufficient for murder, from direct intention to kill to oblique intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
R v Adomako (1995): Established that negligence - the lowest fault level - can suffice for gross negligence manslaughter when the breach of duty is sufficiently serious.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951): Employer's knowledge of employee's particular vulnerability (one eye) increased their duty of care, making their failure to provide safety equipment a more serious fault.
Latimer v AEC (1953): Employers must take reasonable precautions but are not required to take unreasonable steps. Demonstrated that fault depends on reasonableness in the circumstances.
Froom v Butcher (1976): Established the principle of contributory negligence in tort law. The claimant's failure to wear a seatbelt meant they shared fault for their injuries, reducing damages proportionately.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016): Employers can be vicariously liable for employees' torts. Morrison's was legally responsible when its employee assaulted a customer, despite the employer having no personal fault.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994): Introduced the requirement that damage must be reasonably foreseeable in negligence, making fault a necessary element. Established fault as fundamental to negligence claims.
Law and morality
This content is assessed in Papers 2 and 3.
The distinction between law and morality
Laws are objective rules and regulations enforced by the state. They are not necessarily based on fault - strict liability offences like speeding demonstrate that legal rules can impose liability without moral blameworthiness.
Morals are subjective personal codes of values and beliefs. They are based on assessing levels of fault to determine what is right or wrong. Moral judgments typically consider the actor's intentions and culpability - lying, for example, is generally considered morally wrong regardless of whether it breaks any law.
Overlap between law and morality
While law and morality are distinct concepts, they sometimes overlap. Murder provides a clear example - it is both:
Law and Morality Overlap: Murder
- Legally prohibited: murder is a serious criminal offence carrying a mandatory life sentence
- Morally condemned: society views intentional killing as fundamentally wrong
This overlap reflects how legal rules often, though not always, align with widely shared moral values.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Law functions as social control: creating enforceable rules that maintain order, while morality represents personal beliefs about right and wrong
-
Competing interests require balancing: individuals' rights can conflict with each other or with state interests; substantive law resolves individual conflicts while procedural law governs state power
-
Key theorists shaped legal thinking: Bentham's utilitarianism, von Jhering's struggle for law, and Pound's social engineering all influenced how law balances competing interests
-
Fault is central to liability: in civil law, fault is established through the reasonable person test; in criminal law, fault levels determine the seriousness of offences and appropriate sentences
-
Exceptions to fault exist for policy reasons: strict liability offences in both criminal and civil law serve important regulatory functions and protect vulnerable groups, despite raising concerns about convicting innocent people