Master Law Making for OCR A-level Exams: Comprehensive Revision Guide

Contents Overview

This revision guide tackles the Law Making & the Law of Tort exam $H418/02$, which makes up a third of your A Level grade. The content covers six major areas that form the foundation of how English law develops and changes over time.

You'll need to master both theoretical knowledge and practical application skills. The exam tests three key abilities: demonstrating knowledge, applying legal rules to scenarios, and analysing legal principles in discussion questions.

Quick Tip: This guide includes practice questions and revision techniques to help you tackle the 2-hour exam with confidence.

Exam Structure & Technique

Your Law Making & the Law of Tort exam is worth 33.3% of your A Level, so getting this right really matters. The paper splits into two sections: Section A (Law Making, 20 marks) and Section B (Law of Tort, 60 marks).

In Section A, you'll choose one 8-mark question and one 12-mark question from two options each. Section B requires you to answer all three 20-mark questions, but you can pick between Part 1 or Part 2. The exam runs for exactly 2 hours with 80 total marks - roughly one mark per minute.

Essential exam technique: Always highlight key words in questions, plan your answers briefly, and cite relevant cases or Acts. Never write lists - use continuous sentences and clearly number your responses.

Remember: You must refer to the scenario and use the actual names given in Section B questions.

Revision Techniques & Judicial Precedent Basics

Smart revision involves making notes on your notes, using acronyms, spider diagrams, and getting others to test you. Information sticks when you read and re-read multiple times - there's no shortcut here.

Judicial precedent (also called stare decisis) is a system where past judicial decisions create law for future judges to follow. Think of it as judges building on each other's work to create consistent legal rules.

Three crucial terms you must know: ratio decidendi (the binding part of a judgment that creates precedent), obiter dicta (non-binding 'by the way' comments), and stare decisis (literally 'standing by what has been decided'). Sometimes multiple judges hear cases, which can create confusion when they disagree or have different reasoning.

Key Point: Judges must always follow EU law and UK statutory law - these trump any previous case decisions.

Types of Precedent

There are three main types of precedent you need to understand. Original precedent creates completely new law for situations never decided before (like Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993). Binding precedent comes from higher courts and must be followed by all lower courts - no exceptions.

Persuasive precedent is more flexible - judges can choose whether to follow it. This comes from five sources: decisions from lower courts, dissenting judgments, Privy Council decisions, obiter dicta comments, and foreign court decisions.

The Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords) gained massive flexibility through the 1966 Practice Statement. Before this, London Street Tramways (1898) meant they couldn't change their own decisions unless they were completely wrong. Now they can overrule previous decisions 'where right to do so', allowing law to adapt to changing times.

Example: The Practice Statement was first used in civil law in Herrington v BRB (1972) and in criminal law in R v Shivpuri (1986).

Court of Appeal Rules & Precedent Cases

The Court of Appeal has separate criminal and civil divisions, each bound by their own previous decisions. However, they can escape this rule using the Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944) exceptions: when there are conflicting past decisions, when the Supreme Court has created binding precedent on the matter, or when the previous decision was made per incuriam (wrongly).

Several landmark cases show the Practice Statement in action: Conway v Rimmer (1968), Pepper v Hart (1993), and Miliangos v George Frank Textiles (1976) all overruled earlier Supreme Court decisions. However, the court remains reluctant to use this power too freely.

Lord Denning famously caused controversy by refusing to follow Supreme Court precedent in cases like Broome v Cassell and Schorsch Meier. This broke the hierarchical rules and showed why judicial discipline matters in the precedent system.

Remember: When a decision is overruled using the Practice Statement, the earlier case ceases to exist from that point forward.

Avoiding Precedent & Its Pros and Cons

Judges can avoid following precedent in four ways. Distinguishing allows them to avoid precedent when case facts differ significantly (like Merritt v Merritt distinguishing Balfour v Balfour). They can also ignore precedent when it conflicts with EU law or statute law, or when the earlier decision was made per incuriam.

The precedent system brings real advantages: it makes law more certain, consistent, and precise while saving time and allowing flexibility through distinguishing. Use the mnemonic CCTPF - "Chim Can Teach Precedent Flawlessly".

However, disadvantages exist too. The system can be undemocratic (judges making law instead of Parliament), too rigid, create illogical distinctions, make law slow to develop, and keep it complex. Remember URISC for these drawbacks.

Balance Point: Distinguishing can create flexibility, but it can also lead to unfair decisions based on tiny factual differences.

Court Hierarchy Structure

Understanding the court hierarchy is absolutely essential because it determines which courts must follow which precedents. The system creates a clear pyramid structure that governs how legal authority flows through the English legal system.

At the top sits the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which binds all UK courts on matters of EU law. This represents the highest legal authority and cannot be overruled by any domestic court.

The Supreme Court sits as the highest domestic court, followed by the Court of Appeal with its separate civil and criminal divisions. Below these come the Divisional Courts of the High Court, which handle appeals in specific areas like Queen's Bench, Family, and Chancery matters.

Key Structure: Superior courts create precedent; inferior courts follow it but cannot create binding precedent themselves.

Court Classifications & Parliamentary Law-Making Introduction

The court system divides into superior courts (appeal courts) and inferior courts (first instance courts). Crown Court, High Court, County Court, and Magistrates' Court are all inferior courts where cases are first heard, but only County and Magistrates' Courts cannot create any precedent.

Parliament consists of two houses: the elected House of Commons (650 MPs representing constituencies) and the largely unelected House of Lords (692 hereditary peers, 640 life peers, and 26 senior bishops). General elections occur every five years, though by-elections can happen sooner.

Parliament creates law through Acts of Parliament (also called statutes or legislation). Most Acts start as government proposals, drafted by specialist civil service lawyers called Parliamentary Draftsmen. The drafting quality matters enormously - unclear wording leads to statutory interpretation problems later.

Important: A proposed law is called a Bill until it successfully passes all parliamentary stages and becomes an Act.

Types of Bills & Private Members' Bills

Understanding different types of bills helps you grasp how various laws come into existence. Public Bills affect the whole country (like the Legal Services Act 2007), while Private Bills only affect specific areas or people (such as the Faversham Oyster Fishery Company Bill 2016).

Hybrid Bills combine elements of both - introduced by government but affecting particular people or places, like the Crossrail and HS2 Acts for major infrastructure projects. These often prove controversial because they balance national interests with local impacts.

Private Members' Bills (PMBs) let individual MPs champion causes they care about. Famous examples include the Abortion Act 1967 and Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. MPs can introduce PMBs through a ballot system (usually Fridays, with only 6-7 actually heard) or the '10 minute rule' - though ten minutes rarely provides enough time for success.

Reality Check: Most Private Members' Bills fail due to time constraints and lack of government support, but some create landmark social changes.

How Bills Become Acts

The process of turning a Bill into an Act involves multiple stages designed to ensure thorough scrutiny and democratic approval. This legislative process represents one of the fundamental ways that English law develops and changes.

MPs can introduce Private Members' Bills through two main routes: the ballot system (like a lottery held on Fridays where 20 members are chosen but only 6-7 bills actually get heard) or the '10 minute rule' where any MP can make a brief speech proposing new legislation.

The '10 minute rule' proves particularly challenging because the time limit is extremely restrictive and speakers often face heckling from other MPs. This makes it a difficult route for serious legislative proposals, though it can raise awareness of important issues.

Process Point: The journey from Bill to Act requires surviving multiple readings, committee stages, and votes in both Houses of Parliament.