The Nature of Law: A-Level OCR Study Notes

Laws vs Rules: What Makes Them Different?

Ever wondered why breaking a school rule gets you detention, but breaking the law gets you arrested? Laws are binding rules created by Parliament that apply to everyone in the country, whether you know about them or not. They're enforced through courts and carry serious sanctions like fines or imprisonment.

Rules, on the other hand, are much more flexible. They guide behaviour in specific situations - like your college dress code or football regulations. Breaking rules usually means facing disapproval from your group rather than legal punishment, though you might lose membership or face other consequences.

The key difference? Laws hold everyone to the same standard with severe consequences, whilst rules are created by individuals or groups and can vary widely. You can't choose to ignore laws, but rules often depend on whether you want to remain part of that particular group.

Quick Tip: Remember that laws are written down and published, whilst many rules can be unwritten customs or traditions that communities follow.

Law and Morality: When They Clash

Your moral beliefs don't always match up with what's legally allowed, and that's where things get interesting. Morality represents what society considers right and wrong, but these values change over time and differ between cultures.

Take abortion - it's been legal since 1967, yet many people still consider it morally wrong. Similarly, the Airedale NHS Trust v Bland case allowed doctors to withdraw life support, which some view as immoral despite being lawful.

The Re B case (2002) perfectly illustrates this tension. A paralysed woman wanted her ventilator turned off, knowing she'd die. Her doctors refused on moral grounds, but the court ruled she had the legal right to refuse treatment. This shows how personal autonomy can override medical professionals' moral objections.

Morality evolves slowly through social change, whilst laws can be altered overnight through legislation. Moral breaches rely on personal guilt and shame, but legal breaches face formal sanctions through the courts.

How English Law Developed: From Customs to Courts

English law didn't appear overnight - it's evolved over nearly a thousand years! After the Norman Conquest in 1066, William the Conqueror realised that controlling the legal system would help him control the country.

Custom formed the foundation of our legal system. Before formal courts, communities followed local traditions and practices that had developed naturally over time. These weren't written down but were understood and accepted by everyone in the area.

Common law emerged when Henry II sent judges around the country in circuits during the 12th century. These travelling judges would return to London, discuss the best local customs they'd encountered, and gradually create a uniform system that was "common" to the whole country.

Remember: Common law is still crucial today - murder remains a common law crime (never defined by Parliament), whilst theft is a statutory crime (defined by the Theft Act 1968).

This judge-made law through judicial precedent means that court decisions become binding rules for future cases. However, judges can't make sweeping changes to society - that's Parliament's job through statute law.

Statute Law: When Parliament Takes Control

Acts of Parliament represent the highest form of law because of parliamentary sovereignty - the idea that our elected representatives carry out the people's will. When Parliament passes a new law, it can overrule any existing common law or previous legislation.

Statute law serves several important functions. It can consolidate existing laws into one clear Act (like the Consumer Rights Act 2015) or codify both statutory and common law principles together (as the Theft Act 1968 did). This makes the law much easier for everyone to understand and apply.

Parliament excels at creating new laws for modern situations that judges couldn't have anticipated. Computer hacking offences, terrorism legislation, and regulations around new technology all required parliamentary action rather than waiting for relevant court cases to emerge.

However, judges still play a vital role in interpreting what statutory words actually mean when applied to real cases. This creates an ongoing partnership between Parliament making the law and judges applying it to specific situations.