Law & Justice

• Introduction & Paragraph 1 - Definitions & Theories of Justice (A01)

  Justice is broadly defined as fairness or equality.

  (1) Marx - Defines justice as a fair distribution of wealth based on need. This idea is embodied in the Contributory Negligence Act which reduces the damages paid. This seeks a fair distribution as it means that everyone pays according to their culpabiltiy.

  (2) Rawls - Supports this idea by presenting a left wing approach. He furthers an idea of an equal distribution, and uses a though experiment (veil of ignorance) to state that if people were to choose a society, without knowing our position, we would choose a viel of ignorance (resoruces distributed widely). Appoach seen in Chadwick v BRB as this case was decided on the basis of being a good citizen.
• Introduction & Paragraph 2 - Definitions & Theories of Justice (A01)

  (3) Aristotle - Would critique both as he believed distribution based on merit. Marxs approach would lead to lazy being rewarded as much as the hardworking (no proportionality). Aristotles approach could lead to social injustice.

  (4) Bentham - More utilitarian approach & developed the greater happiness principle. Justice is concerned with the greatest number of happiness for the greatest number. The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) shows this approach in action as it protects the whole of society from dangerous threats however some individuals privacy is sacrificed.
• Paragraph 3 - Is Justice Achieved in Procedural Law? (A03)

  (1) Natural Justice means that the dispute resolving process is fair, impartial and both sides are heard. It is a pinnacle of the ELS & shows justice is achieved.

  (2) Judges should have no personal interest in the case being tried & public must see them as impartial. This was seen in Re Pinochet; when the case was first heard, the Law Lords were biased as one of them had ties with Amnesty, which had been campaigning to get the defendant extradited. The case was retried with a different panel (ELS upholds principles of justice)

  (3) Not fair as it has breached rules of admissibility & defendants have been convicted on the basis of flawed evidence. This was seen in R v Miller.

  (4) Mr Miller was coerced and threatened into a confession, despite proclaiming his innocence over 300 times. This was a breach of PACE as confessions obtained by oppression cannot be used.

  (5) Despite this, most cases are achieve natural justice - Rawls approach as everything is fair and treated similarly.
• Paragraph 4 - Is Justice Achieved through Corrective Justice? (A03)

  (1) Miscarriages of justice are when people serve prison sentences for crimes they did not commit, e.g Sally Clark & Cardiff 3.

  (2) Clark was convicted of the infanticide of her children after autopsy results were not disclosed to the defence & an expert witness in the case gave a false statistic swaying the jury. She served 3 years of her prison sentences before being acquitted.

  (3) This could be evidence of the CS being unjust. However, these are a minority and there are commissions created to combat miscarriages of justice, such as the CCRC.

  (4) This will review cases and miscarriages of justice and find evidence that may cast doubt on the safety on the verdict, as in the Sally Clark case.

  (5) This demonstrates a Bentham approach, as it shows that on the whole the justice system achieves justice - greater happiness.
• Paragraph 5 - Is Justice Achieved through Substantive Justice: CL? (A03)

  (1) The law gives more favourable treatment to those who kill while suffering responsibility than those whose life is threatened or free will is overpowered by an external threat.

  (2) Can be seen with the defence of duress. R v Howes established that duress was not a defence to murder, and R v Gotts established that it was not a defence to attempted murder.

  (3) It seems unjust to not allow the defence as the defendant only committed the offence due to his father's threats. This can be contrasted to the case of R v Byrne (DR). The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of DR for murdering a woman and mutilating her body. Because of his condition, he was unable to his desires.

  (4) Objectively, people would feel more sympathy for Gotts, however he received a life sentence. This is unjust, and could be said to be an Aristotle approach as he argues for a balance between extremes (& proportionality), and this could be seen to be the law balancing extremes.
• Paragraph 6 - Is Justice Achieved through Substantive Justice: TL? (A03)

  (1) The 'tort' of vicarious liability is arguably unjust. It imposes liability on employers for torts committed by their employees. This tort could be a Bentham approach as it is fair on employers for public policy reasons.

  (2) It encourages employers to maintain higher standards and minimise risks, as should've been done in Century Insurance v Northern Ireland. This demonstrates the greater happiness principle. Though the employer may not want to pay compensation for the tort committed, this is for the greater good of society. It ensures the public is protected - one sacrifice for the good of society.

  (3) A Marx approach can be seen in the way compensation is allocated. Businesses are more resourced to pay compensation, and so it is their burden. This shows a Marx approach as his idea of justice was a fair distribution of wealth, based on 'each according to ability'. An employer has the ability to pay.
• Conclusion - Is Justice Achieved? (A03)

  (1) It is clear that justice is achieved in principle and somewhat in practice.

  (2) As there are different ways of achieving justice, it is difficult to say that the justice system completely achieves, but it can be seen in various parts of the law, despite its limitations.

  (3) Thus, it is clear that justice is achieved to some extent, however reform is always possible.