A Level Law: Underlying Principles and Law Making — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Underlying Principles and Law Making revision notes

---

Section A

1. Describe the stages a Bill passes through in Parliament. [5]

2. Explain parliamentary supremacy and give two limitations on it in practice. [4]

Section B

3. Explain the three types of delegated legislation, and two controls on it. [8]

4. Explain the four rules of statutory interpretation, giving a case example of each. [8]

5. Explain the doctrine of judicial precedent.

(a) Distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. [3] (b) Explain three ways a judge can avoid following a precedent. [6] (c) Explain two advantages and two disadvantages of the doctrine. [8]

---

Answers

1. First reading — the title is read out; no debate [1]. Second reading — the main debate on the principles, followed by a vote [1]. Committee stage — detailed scrutiny clause by clause by a public bill committee, which may amend [1]. Report stage and third reading — amendments reported to the House and a final vote on the Bill as amended [1]. The Bill then goes through the same stages in the other House, and after any exchange of amendments receives Royal Assent [1].

2. Parliament is the supreme law-making body: it can make or unmake any law, no Parliament can bind its successor, and no other body can override an Act of Parliament [1] [1]. Limitations in practice: membership of international treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, since the courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 [1]; devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is politically very difficult to reverse; and the practical constraint that Parliament is controlled by the executive and cannot legislate against public opinion indefinitely [1].

3. Orders in Council — made by the King and Privy Council, used in emergencies when Parliament is not sitting, and to transfer powers between ministers [1] [1]. Statutory instruments — made by government ministers within their departmental area under powers granted by an enabling Act; the most common form, running to thousands each year [1] [1]. By-laws — made by local authorities or public corporations for their own area or function, e.g. parking restrictions or transport regulations [1] [1]. Controls, any two, 1 mark each: parliamentary control — the enabling Act sets the limits, and instruments are subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedure and to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments [1]. Judicial control — delegated legislation may be challenged by judicial review and declared ultra vires if it exceeds the powers granted, is procedurally improper or is unreasonable [1].

4. The literal rule — words are given their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning, even if the result is absurd; Whiteley v Chappell, where impersonating a dead voter was not an offence because a dead person is not “entitled to vote” [1] [1]. The golden rule — the literal meaning is applied unless it produces an absurdity, in which case the court adopts a less absurd alternative; Adler v George, where “in the vicinity of” a prohibited place was read to include being inside it [1] [1]. The mischief rule — the court looks at the gap in the law the Act was passed to remedy and interprets it to suppress the mischief; Smith v Hughes, where soliciting from a balcony fell within an Act aimed at street prostitution [1] [1]. The purposive approach — the court asks what Parliament intended to achieve, going beyond the words to the purpose; R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith, refusing a birth certificate where the applicant might use it to harm his mother [1] [1].

5. (a) The ratio decidendi is the legal reasoning essential to the decision — the point of law on which the outcome turned — and it is this alone that is binding on later courts [1] [1]. Obiter dicta are statements made “by the way”, including hypothetical situations, which are only persuasive [1]. (b) Any three, 2 marks each: distinguishing — the judge finds the material facts of the present case sufficiently different, so the precedent does not apply; Balfour v Balfour distinguished in Merritt v Merritt [1] [1]. Overruling — a higher court declares the earlier decision wrong, so it ceases to be law [1] [1]. Reversing — a higher court changes the decision of a lower court in the same case on appeal [1] [1]. The Practice Statement 1966 allows the Supreme Court to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so [1] [1]. (c) Advantages: certainty and predictability — lawyers can advise clients on the likely outcome, which encourages settlement and saves cost [1] [1]. Consistency and fairness — like cases are treated alike, which is a basic requirement of justice [1] [1]. (Also accept: flexibility through distinguishing; practical detail from real cases.) Disadvantages: rigidity — a bad precedent may bind lower courts until a suitable appeal reaches a court able to overrule it, which may take years [1] [1]. Complexity and volume — there are hundreds of thousands of reported cases and the ratio is not always clearly stated, so finding the relevant law is difficult and expensive [1] [1]. (Also accept: illogical distinctions drawn to avoid unwelcome precedents; retrospective effect of judicial law making.)

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Omitting the committee stage or Royal Assent.
• Confusing overruling with reversing.
• Giving a case name without explaining what it decided.
• Saying obiter dicta is binding.