NATURE OF LAW
Legal rules control what we do and also create rights
Legal principles are the underlying reasons as to why we have law and why we follow it
Criminal law is public, and prosecuted by the state
Civil law is private, and disputes are between individuals
1066 – English law moved away from Roman law
1215 – Magna Carta introduced
1670 – jury equity was introduced (Bushell)
1935 – presumption of innocence introduced (Woolmington v DPP)
1953 – England joined ECHR
1973 – England joined the European Union
1998 – Human Rights Act was passed
2009 – Supreme Court was introduced which improved judicial independence
Common law legal systems – laws come from judges and statutes
Civil law legal systems – laws come from statutes only, all evidence is inadmissible
Dicey’s Rule of Law 1885 – no punishment without law, no man is above the law
Plato – law is the master of the government, and the government is its slave
Aristotle – rule of law is preferable to any individual
Entick v Carrington – power of the state is limited as to what the law allows it to do
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM ESSAY
- Magna Carta in 1215
- Limited powers of the King by stating no person was above the law
- Allowed for equality as everybody had equal power when implementing the law
- Supports democracy
- Upholds public confidence
- However, Magna Carta didn’t end royal tyranny and so taxes continued to increase
- Presumption of innocence in 1935
- Links to the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP
- Presumption of innocence was reconsolidated by HOL for application across Commonwealth
- Ensures fairness as person accused will be innocent until proven guilty
- Allows for a secure right to a fair trial
- Protects defendant until a verdict can be reached
- Introduction of jury equity in 1670
- Jury are completely independent from the judge
- Bushell’s case, jury imprisoned for giving verdict that the judge disagreed with
- Prevents issue of judge attempting to influence a jury’s verdict
- Juries are representative of society
- Secrecy of the jury room ensures that the jury isn’t influenced by biases
- Dicey’s Rule of Law in 1885
- Ensured that judicial decisions protected the rights of citizens
- Dicey saw the importance of judge impartiality and the separation of powers
- Judiciary are independent from political pressure
- However, it wasn’t until 2009 that the Houses of Parliament moved into the Supreme Court
, LAW AND MORALITY
Laws are a set of legal rules that regulate behaviours, compliance is compulsory
Morals are a set of beliefs and values, compliance is voluntary
R v R – morals influenced the law, made it illegal for a man to rape his wife
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act – law influenced morals, IVF now viewed as positive
Natural law is where the law should reflect and support morality
Higher natural law comes from God or the basis of human society
Aristotle – natural law is the law of nature and the universe as it relates to natural justice
Aquinas – all natural law comes from God
Fuller – law should be published, prospective in existence, consistent, administered in the
same way for everybody possible to comply with, understandable, not changed too often
1950s – debates arose as to whether the law should keep up with morality
Hart-Devlin debate – government set up a commission to decide whether the law should
change regarding homosexuals and prostitutes
Wolfenden Report – Professor Hart in favour, Lord Devlin opposed (support – Shaw v DPP)
Hart-Fuller debate – Nazi laws during WW2, German court found them guilty (supported by
Fuller), Hart opposed to this and stated Nazi laws were immoral, shouldn’t be found guilty of
abiding by the law
LAW AND MORALITY ESSAY
- Deals with morality
- Making IVF treatments legal
- Influenced a change in morals as the legalisation of abortion and IVF was adapted
- Abortion legalised through Abortion Act 1967
- IVF legalised through Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
- Previous to the acts, moral outrage in society
- Believed that messing with pregnancy tampered with God’s plan
- Argued that this going against the natural law theory
- Since acts were passed, abortion and IVF more socially acceptable instead of outraging
- Deals with morality
- Cases that show outraging public decency often reflect on morality
- R v Gibson where the defendant expressively wore freeze-dried foetus earrings
- Article 10 had been violated in relation to human rights
- Legitimate aim is to protect the public’s health and morals within
- Decision in R v Gibson supports Devlin’s view of morality
- If judges took Hart’s view, may have decided differently as nobody was actually harmed
- Attempts to deal with morality
- Medical treatment
- Represented in the case of Re A where in order for one to survive, the other must die
- Courts had a difficult decision of separating conjoined twins
- Highlights moral principle that all lives are important
- Courts avoided liability using the defence of necessity
- Doctor who decided to separate them viewed it as the “lesser of the two evils”
- Contradicts decision in Dudley and Stephens (one life is no more important than others)
- Omissions in relation to the actus reus fails to deal with morality
- No legal obligation in England for bystanders to help drowning children
- However, in France, they have the Good Samaritan Law which imposes legal obligations
Legal rules control what we do and also create rights
Legal principles are the underlying reasons as to why we have law and why we follow it
Criminal law is public, and prosecuted by the state
Civil law is private, and disputes are between individuals
1066 – English law moved away from Roman law
1215 – Magna Carta introduced
1670 – jury equity was introduced (Bushell)
1935 – presumption of innocence introduced (Woolmington v DPP)
1953 – England joined ECHR
1973 – England joined the European Union
1998 – Human Rights Act was passed
2009 – Supreme Court was introduced which improved judicial independence
Common law legal systems – laws come from judges and statutes
Civil law legal systems – laws come from statutes only, all evidence is inadmissible
Dicey’s Rule of Law 1885 – no punishment without law, no man is above the law
Plato – law is the master of the government, and the government is its slave
Aristotle – rule of law is preferable to any individual
Entick v Carrington – power of the state is limited as to what the law allows it to do
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM ESSAY
- Magna Carta in 1215
- Limited powers of the King by stating no person was above the law
- Allowed for equality as everybody had equal power when implementing the law
- Supports democracy
- Upholds public confidence
- However, Magna Carta didn’t end royal tyranny and so taxes continued to increase
- Presumption of innocence in 1935
- Links to the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP
- Presumption of innocence was reconsolidated by HOL for application across Commonwealth
- Ensures fairness as person accused will be innocent until proven guilty
- Allows for a secure right to a fair trial
- Protects defendant until a verdict can be reached
- Introduction of jury equity in 1670
- Jury are completely independent from the judge
- Bushell’s case, jury imprisoned for giving verdict that the judge disagreed with
- Prevents issue of judge attempting to influence a jury’s verdict
- Juries are representative of society
- Secrecy of the jury room ensures that the jury isn’t influenced by biases
- Dicey’s Rule of Law in 1885
- Ensured that judicial decisions protected the rights of citizens
- Dicey saw the importance of judge impartiality and the separation of powers
- Judiciary are independent from political pressure
- However, it wasn’t until 2009 that the Houses of Parliament moved into the Supreme Court
, LAW AND MORALITY
Laws are a set of legal rules that regulate behaviours, compliance is compulsory
Morals are a set of beliefs and values, compliance is voluntary
R v R – morals influenced the law, made it illegal for a man to rape his wife
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act – law influenced morals, IVF now viewed as positive
Natural law is where the law should reflect and support morality
Higher natural law comes from God or the basis of human society
Aristotle – natural law is the law of nature and the universe as it relates to natural justice
Aquinas – all natural law comes from God
Fuller – law should be published, prospective in existence, consistent, administered in the
same way for everybody possible to comply with, understandable, not changed too often
1950s – debates arose as to whether the law should keep up with morality
Hart-Devlin debate – government set up a commission to decide whether the law should
change regarding homosexuals and prostitutes
Wolfenden Report – Professor Hart in favour, Lord Devlin opposed (support – Shaw v DPP)
Hart-Fuller debate – Nazi laws during WW2, German court found them guilty (supported by
Fuller), Hart opposed to this and stated Nazi laws were immoral, shouldn’t be found guilty of
abiding by the law
LAW AND MORALITY ESSAY
- Deals with morality
- Making IVF treatments legal
- Influenced a change in morals as the legalisation of abortion and IVF was adapted
- Abortion legalised through Abortion Act 1967
- IVF legalised through Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
- Previous to the acts, moral outrage in society
- Believed that messing with pregnancy tampered with God’s plan
- Argued that this going against the natural law theory
- Since acts were passed, abortion and IVF more socially acceptable instead of outraging
- Deals with morality
- Cases that show outraging public decency often reflect on morality
- R v Gibson where the defendant expressively wore freeze-dried foetus earrings
- Article 10 had been violated in relation to human rights
- Legitimate aim is to protect the public’s health and morals within
- Decision in R v Gibson supports Devlin’s view of morality
- If judges took Hart’s view, may have decided differently as nobody was actually harmed
- Attempts to deal with morality
- Medical treatment
- Represented in the case of Re A where in order for one to survive, the other must die
- Courts had a difficult decision of separating conjoined twins
- Highlights moral principle that all lives are important
- Courts avoided liability using the defence of necessity
- Doctor who decided to separate them viewed it as the “lesser of the two evils”
- Contradicts decision in Dudley and Stephens (one life is no more important than others)
- Omissions in relation to the actus reus fails to deal with morality
- No legal obligation in England for bystanders to help drowning children
- However, in France, they have the Good Samaritan Law which imposes legal obligations
