Aqa law04 tort + concepts revision
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Alex-jc123
Okay, this helps a lot. In my exam, I wrote the whole definition of murder and then finally said something like, "considering this, so-and-so is evidently liable for murder due to blablabla", haha.
Thank you for your help! Somehow my law teachers (half of them being trained solicitors, apparently) have never managed to tell me of this. I wish you luck with your degree!
Thank you for your help! Somehow my law teachers (half of them being trained solicitors, apparently) have never managed to tell me of this. I wish you luck with your degree!
Don't worry, its fine
The law group at my school has had an awful teacher (cos my examiner law teacher left last year), and he's been sacked, and then the new teacher they're getting is the woman I had for AS (who is AWFUL, and this was when my examiner law teacher was on maternity leave) 
Yeah, trained solicitors/barristers (my law teacher was a barrister for some time too) can teach the A Level, but they don't really know the technique you need for the exam. So yeah, just applying! You've got to make sure that your essays are roughly half applying/half knowledge. Hope this helps
and thank you! Law at degree level sounds so scary though 
I know you said to start off with Occupiers' Liability Alex but I thought I'd share some of my questions and answers on Product Liability. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.Product Liability
1) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987 define a product’?
“Product means any goods or electricity and includes a product comprise in another product, whether by virtue of being a component part or raw material”. The term doesn’t only cover manufactured good e.g. - radios and computers, but also natural products, such as coal or flowers. In the case of A v National Blood Authority, it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
2) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act define a ‘producer’?
The producer can be:
-The manufacturer of the product, this also includes the manufacturers of certain components of a ‘final product’. So theoretically both the manufacturer of the final product and the component are liable.
-Someone who has ‘won or abstracted’ the product e.g.- a mining company
-‘Owner brander’, liability is still imposed on a person who brand-names a product or claims to be the producer in any way (retailers can only be liable for defects in own-brand goods).
-The importer of the product into the EU from outside (if you brought a fault Chinese food mixer, you could sue the firm that imported it into the UK).
-Section 2(3) states that any supplier of a product is liable unless he complies and can name the actual manufacturer (in the EU) or the importer (in the EU). This would exonerate distributors, retailers and wholesalers.
3) How does Section 3 Consumer Protection Act define a ‘defect’?
“When the safety of the product is not such as a person’s generally entitled to expect”
4) In assessing whether a defect exists, what will the court take into account under Section 3(2)?
The court will take into account:
-Manner in which and the purposes for which the product has been marketed, including any marketing claims.
-Packaging of product.
-The use of any mark in relation to the product e.g.-Kite mark for British Standards Institution.
-Instructing for, or warning with respect to, doing or refraining from doing anything in relation to the product e.g.- dosage on medicine.
-What might be reasonably expected to be done with the product.
-Time when the product was supplied by its producer to another.
5) Summarise the cases of A v National Blood Authority and Abouzaid v Mothercare.
A v National Blood Authority- it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
Abouzaid v Mother care- it was held that the severe consequences of the injury inflicted on a 12 year-old-boy indicted that the sleeping bag was defective.
6) Liability under the Act is not strict- 4 possible defences (Section 4)
-Product is defective because the product has to be complying with legal requirements. However, this defence only proves the D not guilty if the defect was an inevitable result of such compliance.
-The defendant did not sell the product to a person. For instance, this protects the defence when the product has been stolen and then sold onto the customer who is then injured because of the defect.
-Supply by defence was not in the course of business and was not carried out for revenue. For example, if Mary bakes some cakes and Ian is poisoned he can’t sue under the Act.
-Scientific/ technological knowledge at the time when the producer put the product into circulation was not capable of discovering the existence of the defect. This failed in A v National Blood Authority because the judge ruled that the authority was are of the risk that the blood they supplied might have been contaminated.
Please let me know if these were helpful and I'll type up some for medical/economical liability
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by pinda.college I know you said to start off with Occupiers' Liability Alex but I thought I'd share some of my notes on Product Liability. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.
Product Liability
1) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987 define a product’?
“Product means any goods or electricity and includes a product comprise in another product, whether by virtue of being a component part or raw material”. The term doesn’t only cover manufactured good e.g. - radios and computers, but also natural products, such as coal or flowers. In the case of A v National Blood Authority, it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
2) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act define a ‘producer’?
The producer can be:
? The manufacturer of the product, this also includes the manufacturers of certain components of a ‘final product’. So theoretically both the manufacturer of the final product and the component are liable.
? Someone who has ‘won or abstracted’ the product e.g.- a mining company
? ‘Owner brander’, liability is still imposed on a person who brand-names a product or claims to be the producer in any way (retailers can only be liable for defects in own-brand goods).
? The importer of the product into the EU from outside (if you brought a fault Chinese food mixer, you could sue the firm that imported it into the UK).
Section 2(3) states that any supplier of a product is liable unless he complies and can name the actual manufacturer (in the EU) or the importer (in the EU). This would exonerate distributors, retailers and wholesalers.
3) How does Section 3 Consumer Protection Act define a ‘defect’?
“When the safety of the product is not such as a person’s generally entitled to expect”
4) In assessing whether a defect exists, what will the court take into account under Section 3(2)?
The court will take into account:
? Manner in which and the purposes for which the product has been marketed, including any marketing claims.
? Packaging of product.
? The use of any mark in relation to the product e.g.-Kite mark for British Standards Institution.
? Instructing for, or warning with respect to, doing or refraining from doing anything in relation to the product e.g.- dosage on medicine.
? What might be reasonably expected to be done with the product.
? Time when the product was supplied by its producer to another.
5) Summarise the cases of A v National Blood Authority and Abouzaid v Mothercare.
A v National Blood Authority- it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
Abouzaid v Mother care- it was held that the severe consequences of the injury inflicted on a 12 year-old-boy indicted that the sleeping bag was defective.
6) Liability under the Act is not strict- 4 possible defences (Section 4)
? Product is defective because the product has to be complying with legal requirements. However, this defence only proves the D not guilty if the defect was an inevitable result of such compliance.
? The defendant did not sell the product to a person. For instance, this protects the defence when the product has been stolen and then sold onto the customer who is then injured because of the defect.
? Supply by defence was not in the course of business and was not carried out for revenue. For example, if Mary bakes some cakes and Ian is poisoned he can’t sue under the Act.
? Scientific/ technological knowledge at the time when the producer put the product into circulation was not capable of discovering the existence of the defect. This failed in A v National Blood Authority because the judge ruled that the authority was are of the risk that the blood they supplied might have been contaminated.
I know you said to start off with Occupiers' Liability Alex but I thought I'd share some of my notes on Product Liability. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.Product Liability
1) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987 define a product’?
“Product means any goods or electricity and includes a product comprise in another product, whether by virtue of being a component part or raw material”. The term doesn’t only cover manufactured good e.g. - radios and computers, but also natural products, such as coal or flowers. In the case of A v National Blood Authority, it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
2) How does Section 1(2) Consumer Protection Act define a ‘producer’?
The producer can be:
? The manufacturer of the product, this also includes the manufacturers of certain components of a ‘final product’. So theoretically both the manufacturer of the final product and the component are liable.
? Someone who has ‘won or abstracted’ the product e.g.- a mining company
? ‘Owner brander’, liability is still imposed on a person who brand-names a product or claims to be the producer in any way (retailers can only be liable for defects in own-brand goods).
? The importer of the product into the EU from outside (if you brought a fault Chinese food mixer, you could sue the firm that imported it into the UK).
Section 2(3) states that any supplier of a product is liable unless he complies and can name the actual manufacturer (in the EU) or the importer (in the EU). This would exonerate distributors, retailers and wholesalers.
3) How does Section 3 Consumer Protection Act define a ‘defect’?
“When the safety of the product is not such as a person’s generally entitled to expect”
4) In assessing whether a defect exists, what will the court take into account under Section 3(2)?
The court will take into account:
? Manner in which and the purposes for which the product has been marketed, including any marketing claims.
? Packaging of product.
? The use of any mark in relation to the product e.g.-Kite mark for British Standards Institution.
? Instructing for, or warning with respect to, doing or refraining from doing anything in relation to the product e.g.- dosage on medicine.
? What might be reasonably expected to be done with the product.
? Time when the product was supplied by its producer to another.
5) Summarise the cases of A v National Blood Authority and Abouzaid v Mothercare.
A v National Blood Authority- it was held that contaminated blood counted as a ‘product’ under the Act.
Abouzaid v Mother care- it was held that the severe consequences of the injury inflicted on a 12 year-old-boy indicted that the sleeping bag was defective.
6) Liability under the Act is not strict- 4 possible defences (Section 4)
? Product is defective because the product has to be complying with legal requirements. However, this defence only proves the D not guilty if the defect was an inevitable result of such compliance.
? The defendant did not sell the product to a person. For instance, this protects the defence when the product has been stolen and then sold onto the customer who is then injured because of the defect.
? Supply by defence was not in the course of business and was not carried out for revenue. For example, if Mary bakes some cakes and Ian is poisoned he can’t sue under the Act.
? Scientific/ technological knowledge at the time when the producer put the product into circulation was not capable of discovering the existence of the defect. This failed in A v National Blood Authority because the judge ruled that the authority was are of the risk that the blood they supplied might have been contaminated.
This is helpful, thank you. I have actually not even started this area of Tort yet though, so I cannot really contribute
By the way, if ever you want a model answer on law and morality, I have an essay which got 100% that I am going to copy out a few times until June
Original post by Alex-jc123
This is helpful, thank you. I have actually not even started this area of Tort yet though, so I cannot really contribute
By the way, if ever you want a model answer on law and morality, I have an essay which got 100% that I am going to copy out a few times until June
By the way, if ever you want a model answer on law and morality, I have an essay which got 100% that I am going to copy out a few times until June
That would be great
Thank you.
Erm im confused. So is this law04? Why dont you start with theft?
Original post by slacker07906
Erm im confused. So is this law04? Why dont you start with theft?
I believe they are doing the tort section of the paper, not the criminal section... Or maybe both? But doing just one seems logical, otherwise thats a crazy amount of knowledge to be in one's brain
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by teaandcoffee
They are obviously doing the tort section of the paper, not the criminal section.
I'm confused... Are you doing law A2 or are you already at university?
Original post by Alex-jc123
I'm confused... Are you doing law A2 or are you already at university?
I'm a gapper
Original post by teaandcoffee
I'm a gapper
Ah, cool. What are you doing on your gap year? I am taking one next year.
Original post by Alex-jc123
Ah, cool. What are you doing on your gap year? I am taking one next year.
Nothing. It wasn't a planned gap year, I didn't get into my first choice university last year and didn't go to my insurance choice. So just trying to save up money for university, trying to find another job..
glamorous. Make sure you do something nice on your gap year Original post by teaandcoffee
Nothing. It wasn't a planned gap year, I didn't get into my first choice university last year and didn't go to my insurance choice. So just trying to save up money for university, trying to find another job.. glamorous. Make sure you do something nice on your gap year
glamorous. Make sure you do something nice on your gap year Oh, I am sorry
I can imagine how terrible I would feel if I had to take a gap year without any preparation or thought! I am planning on doing a fast-track A-level in economics, part-time employment in Waterstones, charity work for Oxfam and boost my French. It isn't a great gap year, I know.Original post by Alex-jc123
Oh, I am sorry I can imagine how terrible I would feel if I had to take a gap year without any preparation or thought! I am planning on doing a fast-track A-level in economics, part-time employment in Waterstones, charity work for Oxfam and boost my French. It isn't a great gap year, I know.
I can imagine how terrible I would feel if I had to take a gap year without any preparation or thought! I am planning on doing a fast-track A-level in economics, part-time employment in Waterstones, charity work for Oxfam and boost my French. It isn't a great gap year, I know.Yeah it is a bit annoying. I took an independently learnt A Level in sociology all in January, and got an A in it
So I guess thats something I've done. I'm retaking a few more exams to get an A* in psychology (I was 4 UMS off in January) so I can get my law scholarship at Reading Don't worry. I think people expect those on gap years to go on extravagant travels all around the world. However, they neglect the fact that a majority of people on gap years mostly work to save up for university
Original post by teaandcoffee
Yeah it is a bit annoying. I took an independently learnt A Level in sociology all in January, and got an A in it So I guess thats something I've done. I'm retaking a few more exams to get an A* in psychology (I was 4 UMS off in January) so I can get my law scholarship at Reading
Don't worry. I think people expect those on gap years to go on extravagant travels all around the world. However, they neglect the fact that a majority of people on gap years mostly work to save up for university
So I guess thats something I've done. I'm retaking a few more exams to get an A* in psychology (I was 4 UMS off in January) so I can get my law scholarship at Reading Don't worry. I think people expect those on gap years to go on extravagant travels all around the world. However, they neglect the fact that a majority of people on gap years mostly work to save up for university
Wow, so if you get a scholarship, you pay no fees?!
Congrats on your grades! I think I need 3 A*s to stand a chance of getting into a top london university for history :| I want to do a law conversion course afterwards though and aim for the BAR ;p
Original post by Alex-jc123
Wow, so if you get a scholarship, you pay no fees?!
Congrats on your grades! I think I need 3 A*s to stand a chance of getting into a top london university for history :| I want to do a law conversion course afterwards though and aim for the BAR ;p
Congrats on your grades! I think I need 3 A*s to stand a chance of getting into a top london university for history :| I want to do a law conversion course afterwards though and aim for the BAR ;p
Nooo sorry, I can see how that was misunderstood
You can get a law scholarship worth £1000 if you achieve A*AA, but its only for the first year. Nonetheless, I want this £1000 Thank you!
What London Uni you planning on going to? Reading isn't far from London Ahh good luck! The conversion course looks tough, but I'm sure you'll be fine
Original post by teaandcoffee
Nooo sorry, I can see how that was misunderstood You can get a law scholarship worth £1000 if you achieve A*AA, but its only for the first year. Nonetheless, I want this £1000
Thank you! What London Uni you planning on going to? Reading isn't far from London
Ahh good luck! The conversion course looks tough, but I'm sure you'll be fine
You can get a law scholarship worth £1000 if you achieve A*AA, but its only for the first year. Nonetheless, I want this £1000 Thank you!
What London Uni you planning on going to? Reading isn't far from London Ahh good luck! The conversion course looks tough, but I'm sure you'll be fine
Ah! So if I get A*A*A*, will I get the first year completely free?
I am applying to UCL, King's and LSE in London. I would be most happy at UCL I think. But, you are right, Reading is indeed not far from London haha
I read a report from the BAR Council that they generally prefer candidates who have not gone straight into law, but have instead done a traditional/academic degree and then done a law conversion course. I am therefore hoping that history fits into that category of 'traditional' haha
Original post by Alex-jc123
Ah! So if I get A*A*A*, will I get the first year completely free?
I am applying to UCL, King's and LSE in London. I would be most happy at UCL I think. But, you are right, Reading is indeed not far from London haha
I read a report from the BAR Council that they generally prefer candidates who have not gone straight into law, but have instead done a traditional/academic degree and then done a law conversion course. I am therefore hoping that history fits into that category of 'traditional' haha
I am applying to UCL, King's and LSE in London. I would be most happy at UCL I think. But, you are right, Reading is indeed not far from London haha
I read a report from the BAR Council that they generally prefer candidates who have not gone straight into law, but have instead done a traditional/academic degree and then done a law conversion course. I am therefore hoping that history fits into that category of 'traditional' haha
Erm, no. Its basically £1000 just to have, you still pay the normal tuition fees. Different universities do different scholarships/bursaries, for example, if I went to Birmingham this year as planned (got rejected this time due to poor LNAT performance) then I wouldn't have a law scholarship, but I'd be eligible for the Bham scholarship. You will have to see if your universities do bursaries/scholarships for good exam performance, however some of them are based on household income (the bham scholarship was for those on lower incomes who achieved AAB or higher, whereas the Reading law scholarship isn't based on household income, but anyone who gains A*AA gets it.)
Ah cool. They sound like a nice bunch of universities
Original post by teaandcoffee
Erm, no. Its basically £1000 just to have, you still pay the normal tuition fees. Different universities do different scholarships/bursaries, for example, if I went to Birmingham this year as planned (got rejected this time due to poor LNAT performance) then I wouldn't have a law scholarship, but I'd be eligible for the Bham scholarship. You will have to see if your universities do bursaries/scholarships for good exam performance, however some of them are based on household income (the bham scholarship was for those on lower incomes who achieved AAB or higher, whereas the Reading law scholarship isn't based on household income, but anyone who gains A*AA gets it.)
Ah cool. They sound like a nice bunch of universities
Ah cool. They sound like a nice bunch of universities
Oh, I see. I am not particularly that fussed about the fees because I have no desire of becoming rich and powerful. I am more interested in becoming a lawyer for the purposes of justice, honesty and intellectual satisfaction. I know someone who is so arrogant and over-confident about being a barrister and it makes me sick. He has no interest in law at all and is about as intellectually capable as a fish, yet he thinks that he will enjoy an extremely prosperous career at the BAR with a salary of over £500,000 p/a.
Yeah, I would love to be in London because of the shops, bars, libraries, transport links, museums and history
Original post by Alex-jc123
Oh, I see. I am not particularly that fussed about the fees because I have no desire of becoming rich and powerful. I am more interested in becoming a lawyer for the purposes of justice, honesty and intellectual satisfaction. I know someone who is so arrogant and over-confident about being a barrister and it makes me sick. He has no interest in law at all and is about as intellectually capable as a fish, yet he thinks that he will enjoy an extremely prosperous career at the BAR with a salary of over £500,000 p/a.
Yeah, I would love to be in London because of the shops, bars, libraries, transport links, museums and history
Yeah, I would love to be in London because of the shops, bars, libraries, transport links, museums and history
Haha this guy thinks he's going to get a salary like that as a barrister? Brilliant.
I'm the same. I just want to wake up in the mornings and go to a job I really enjoy. If my job has the huge salary attached to it; great, but if it doesn't, then it does not bother me at all.
London is a good place to be. I'm happy that being at Reading, I have it on my doorstep
Original post by teaandcoffee
Haha this guy thinks he's going to get a salary like that as a barrister? Brilliant.
I'm the same. I just want to wake up in the mornings and go to a job I really enjoy. If my job has the huge salary attached to it; great, but if it doesn't, then it does not bother me at all.
London is a good place to be. I'm happy that being at Reading, I have it on my doorstep
I'm the same. I just want to wake up in the mornings and go to a job I really enjoy. If my job has the huge salary attached to it; great, but if it doesn't, then it does not bother me at all.
London is a good place to be. I'm happy that being at Reading, I have it on my doorstep
He is totally naive on all things. He is so stupid that he thought Canada was ruled by the USA! He neither understands basic intellect nor basic ideas of life.
I think I would like a relatively good salary so that I can do some travelling (to Italy and France, not to chavvyyy Ibiza haha) and live comfortably. But if I earned a very large salary then I would give large amounts away.
King's College is literally in the very centre of Westminster on the river, so if there are any more violent protests in the future I might be in danger haha
Original post by pinda.college
That would be great
Thank you.
Thank you.
Here is the law and morality essay:
The law is the “formal glue that holds fundamentally disorganised societies together”, according to Thomas Hobbes. It is the system which acts as both the guarantor of individual freedom from tyranny and oppression (as shown by the Human Rights Act 1998) and the authority which all are subject to in order for equal punishment to exist. For the system to be free from injustice and infringement, there must be an enforcing body - such as the police - and the existence of the Rule of Law; the latter was argued by Aristotle: “The Rule of Law is better than the rule of any individual”. This principle was later advocated by Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury whose outspoken advocacy influenced the creation of the Bill of Rights 1689 - a significant development in the law governing freedom of individuals. Thus, as Glanville Williams has alleged, the law is the “cement of society” as it profoundly influences the conduct of those who are bound by it.
Morality, however, is not subject to a formal and universal definition. Specific regional customs and cultures determine its interpretation; this can be seen with the example of a majority of Italians conceiving ‘morality’ to involve celibacy due to their Catholic heritage, in contrast to a majority in Northern Europe who generally reject this notion on the grounds of atheism and liberalism which are more developed in that region. Therefore, religion plays a significant role in an individual’s concept of right and wrong. Upon contemplating this, it is arguable that ‘morality’ is an optional code of rules and conditions which one voluntarily follows, whereas the law is a compulsory institution which all are required to respect and adhere to lest they should incur its wrath.
Early philosophers - most notably Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - endeavoured to link morality with law, alleging that ‘an unjust law is not a true law’. Thus, the theory of Natural Law argues that laws are invalid if they contradict morality. This chiefly relates to religious groups who allege that there is a higher authority than mere man-made law, namely God’s Law. At his trial for high treason in 1535, Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) defended himself by stating that “no temporal man may be the head of the spirituality”, thereby rejecting the law of the Treasons Act 1534 on the grounds of religion. Therefore, Natural Law theorists believe that there ought to be a relationship of substantial proximity between law and morality so that what citizens obey is in direct accordance with a higher law (external law).
Legal positivism, on the contrary, argues that there should be an exclusion of morality from the law, thus rendering a relationship between the two void. John Austin (1790-1859) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) argued that the law is the command of the sovereign and so should be obeyed by all, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral. Subsequently, HLA Hart (1907-1992) demonstrated this by alleging in the 1958 Harvard Law Review that law and morals are clearly separate. Moreover, he commented that the law should have a limited role in the enforcement of morality following the publication of the 1957 Wolfenden report. Culminating from this was the Hart-Devlin Debate.
Lord Devlin (1905-1992) assumed a socially conservative stance and denounced the report by alleging: “Without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics, no society can exist”. Thus, Devlin argued in favour of a populist moral view, advocating a relationship between law and morals to ensure social cohesion. Hart, however, advocated legal positivism by criticising the law’s interference with allegedly immoral conduct, such as homosexuality. He reflected on John Stuart Mill’s (1806-1873) ‘harm principle’ and saw that homosexual activity does not put an individual in any physical danger. Nevertheless, the debate highlighted that law and morality were still linked, and would only begin to significantly separate with the decriminalisation of homosexuality under the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
Utilitarianism was most prominently argued by John Stuart Mill. He theorised that a moral’s usefulness is determined by its contribution to utility in society. Therefore, the consequence of physical harm is conclusive proof of the moral’s validity in the law according to Mill‘s ‘harm principle‘. This has been subject to profound criticism, especially from Schur who argued that there exist some crimes which have no victims, such as abortion and pornography. Therefore, this theory enables a remote relationship between law and morality.
Arguably, the relationship between law and morality has significantly declined following the Sexual Offences Act 1967. The Warnock Committee 1984 made a statement which can debatably be seen as utilitarian: “The law itself, binding on everyone in society, whatever their beliefs is the embodiment of a common moral position. It sets out a broad framework for what is morally acceptable within society”. Although claiming to be acting under what is ‘morally acceptable’, the report was controversially justifying scientific research on embryos which is an abomination to those who advocate a strong and healthy relationship between law and morality. The case of R v R (1991) further weakened the relationship between law and morality by criminalising rape in marriage, thus negating the morally religious maxim of Genesis 3:16: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. This, therefore, is conclusive proof that secularisation has substantially diminished the relationship between law and morality.
However, there are arguably some remnant moral elements in the law which negate the ‘harm principle’ proposed by Mill. It can be assumed that the decision in R v Brown (1993) was a contradiction of the maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (‘to a willing person, no harm is done’). The sado-masochistic acts of the defendants caused harm which was comparable with that of ‘personal adornment’ in R v Wilson (1996), yet the latter was acquitted; this manifests the existence of at least a remote relationship between law and morality as the decision in Brown was arguably motivated by a moral belief that the defendants’ actions were wildly unconventional and unusually dangerous sexual endeavours in the eyes of most people. That fact that both parties consented thus meant that no harm was caused, so by prosecuting them the Law was seeking to impose a specific sexual morality unto individuals, as argued by Peter Tatchell: “The State has no legitimate business invading the bedrooms of consenting adults and dictating how they should have sex”.
Moreover, the Law still retains some links with morality in its attitude towards death. The legalisation of suicide in 1961 saw some degree of separation of morality from law, but the decision in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) showed that the State had retained some moral perspective as to the power of an individual over his/her life. Subsequently in Pretty (2002) it was held that assisted suicide is illegal, thereby revealing a link to morality. The official religion of England and Wales -- Christianity -- advocates the immorality of suicide as wicked and ungodly characters such as Judas performed the deed. Furthermore, it claims that individuals should not have the right to decide their fate. This enables one to infer that the Law’s decision to disallow euthanasia is influenced by morality. It also implies that HLA Hart’s influence is not wholly substantial as there is a clear limit to individualism; Lord Devlin manifestly emerged more successful in the Hart-Devlin debate in influencing the Law in its attitude towards death because the traditional viewpoint towards assisted suicide partially remains.
Conclusively, the debate concerning law and morality is of the uttermost importance in the 21st century. To those who advocate the exclusion of morality from the Law, the debate is pivotal in increasing their freedom from an increasingly unpopular and controversial State. To those who argue the contrary, the debate is profoundly influential towards their recognition of the Law’s validity, which may culminate in an increase of social conservatives forsaking the Law to follow their morality as the State further bends its inclination to the liberal cause.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- A level law
- AQA A Level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A Level Law Study Group 2022-2023
- Regarding a level law
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- AQA A-level law example essays
- AQA A Level Law Paper 1 (7162/1) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Biology A level
- What online resources can I use to guarantee I get an A in A-Level AQA Physics?
- A Level Law help!
- Year 10 mocks/should I be revising now or in year 11
- AQA A-level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Revision tips
- OCR A-level Law Paper 2 (H418/02) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Tort revision,
- GCSE'S HELP (Please Read)
- AQA Economics A-level
- GCSE RE or GCSE Business
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
