AQA A-Level Law: Law Making and the Legal System — 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: Nature of Law revision notes | Rule of Law, Law Reform, the EU and Civil Justice revision notes | Nature of law practice questions

These questions cover the law-making and legal-system parts of AQA A-level Law (7162) section 3.1, plus law and society and the rule of law. The companion nature of law practice page covers law and morality, justice and access to justice. Each section 3.1 question on the papers is short-answer or extended writing, so the answers below show both recall and evaluation.

---

Section A

1. Explain the difference between a Green Paper and a White Paper. [2]

2. Identify the three types of delegated legislation. [3]

3. State the four functions of the Law Commission. [4]

4. Explain the difference between a regulation and a directive in EU law. [4]

5. Explain the role of magistrates in criminal courts. [4]

Section B

6. Explain the role law plays in society and how it balances competing interests, giving one example. [6]

7. Explain how the rule of law applies to the legal system, using one example. [5]

8. Evaluate the influence of pressure groups and the media on parliamentary law making. [10]

9. Explain the parliamentary and judicial controls on delegated legislation. [8]

10. Explain the mischief rule and the purposive approach, and the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on statutory interpretation. [8]

11. Explain how judicial precedent operates through following, overruling and distinguishing, and outline the reasons for law reporting. [8]

12. A claim for £8,000 is disputed between a builder and a homeowner. Explain which track the claim would be allocated to, how it could be appealed, and whether mediation might be preferable. [6]

13. Explain how the independence of the judiciary is achieved and why it matters. [8]

14. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using juries in criminal courts. [10]

---

Answers

1. A Green Paper is a consultation document setting out proposals for discussion [1]; a White Paper sets out the government’s firm proposals for legislation, usually after consultation [1].

2. Orders in Council [1]; statutory instruments [1]; bylaws made by local authorities and public bodies [1].

3. Reform [1], codification [1], consolidation [1] and repeal [1].

4. A regulation is directly applicable: it becomes law in every member state automatically, without national legislation [1] [1]. A directive binds the state as to the result to be achieved but leaves the method to the state, which must implement it in national law by a deadline [1] [1].

5. Magistrates are unpaid lay justices who sit in benches of two or three, advised on law by a legally qualified clerk [1]. They try summary offences and either-way offences kept in the Magistrates’ Court [1], hold early hearings for indictable offences and deal with bail [1], and sentence within their limited powers, sending more serious cases to the Crown Court for sentence [1].

6. Law maintains order and social control, protects people and property, regulates relationships such as employment and family life, and provides a peaceful way of resolving disputes [1] [1]. It creates enforceable rights, such as the right to compensation after negligent injury [1]. It must balance competing interests, such as public against private interests [1]. For example, in nuisance the court balances one landowner’s use of land against the neighbour’s enjoyment of theirs, and may refuse an injunction where there is a strong public interest, as in Miller v Jackson (1977) [1] [1].

7. The rule of law requires that people can enforce their rights through fair procedures, so access to justice is part of it [1] [1]. In R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017), the Supreme Court quashed employment tribunal fees because they prevented people bringing claims [1] [1]. Linked ideas: equality before the law in the courts, and fair trial procedures such as the presumption of innocence [1].

8. Levels-based. Pressure groups: sectional groups (e.g. trade unions) and cause groups lobby MPs, run campaigns and give evidence to committees [1]; the Snowdrop Campaign after the Dunblane shooting contributed to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 [1]. Advantages: they bring expertise and raise issues parties ignore [1]; disadvantages: groups with money and access have more influence, and a vocal minority can distort priorities [1]. Media: campaigns after high-profile cases, such as “Sarah’s Law”, led to the child sex offender disclosure scheme [1]; the media can quickly bring public concern to Parliament’s attention [1], but can provoke rushed, poorly drafted law, as critics said of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [1] [1]. Evaluation of whether these influences are democratic and a reasoned conclusion [1] [1].

9. Parliamentary controls: the enabling Act sets the limits of the power [1]; the negative resolution procedure, where an instrument becomes law unless annulled within a set period [1]; the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring approval by Parliament [1]; scrutiny committees such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which can draw attention to problems but cannot change an instrument [1]. Judicial controls: judicial review on the ground of procedural ultra vires, where the required procedure (such as consultation) was not followed (Aylesbury Mushrooms, 1972) [1] [1]; substantive ultra vires, where the body went beyond the powers granted [1]; and unreasonableness, where no reasonable body could have made it [1].

10. Mischief rule (Heydon’s Case, 1584): the court considers the common law before the Act, the mischief it did not provide for, the remedy Parliament chose, and interprets the Act to suppress the mischief, e.g. Smith v Hughes (1960), where prostitutes soliciting from balconies were “in a street” [1] [1]. Purposive approach: the court seeks the purpose of the Act as a whole, e.g. R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003) on cloned embryos [1] [1]. Human Rights Act 1998: s3 requires legislation to be read compatibly with Convention rights “so far as it is possible to do so” (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza, 2004) [1] [1]; where impossible, a s4 declaration of incompatibility (Bellinger v Bellinger, 2003), which does not invalidate the Act [1] [1].

11. Following: a court applies a binding precedent from a higher court (or itself, where bound) because the material facts are sufficiently similar [1] [1]. Overruling: a higher court decides a legal rule in an earlier case was wrong, as when the Supreme Court used the Practice Statement 1966 in R v Jogee (2016) to correct the law on joint enterprise [1] [1]. Distinguishing: a court finds a material difference in facts, so the precedent does not apply, as when Merritt v Merritt (1970) distinguished Balfour v Balfour (1919) because the spouses had separated [1] [1]. Law reporting: precedent depends on accurate, accessible records of the ratio decidendi; official reports such as the Law Reports allow lawyers and judges to find and rely on past decisions [1] [1].

12. A £8,000 claim falls within the small claims track (up to £10,000) [1], heard in the County Court by a district judge, informally, without the need for lawyers, and with costs not usually recoverable [1]. An appeal lies to a circuit judge, with permission, on grounds such as an error of law [1]. Mediation may be preferable: it is cheaper and quicker, private, and the parties control the outcome, which may help if the builder and homeowner want to agree remedial work [1] [1]; but it depends on both being willing and produces no binding decision unless they agree terms [1].

13. Security of tenure: senior judges hold office during good behaviour and can be removed only by an address of both Houses of Parliament [1] [1]. Immunity from suit: judges cannot be sued for acts done in their judicial capacity [1] [1]. Independence from the Executive: appointments through the independent Judicial Appointments Commission; the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 separated the Lord Chancellor’s roles and created the Supreme Court separate from Parliament, and s3 imposes a duty on ministers to uphold judicial independence [1] [1]. Why it matters: judges must decide cases, including judicial review against the government, without fear or favour, which protects the rule of law and public confidence [1] [1].

14. Levels-based. Advantages: public participation and confidence in trial by peers [1]; jury equity, the ability to acquit against the law where conviction would be unjust (R v Ponting, 1985) [1] [1]; randomly selected jurors may be less case-hardened than a single judge [1]. Disadvantages: deliberations are secret, so reasons are not given and perverse verdicts cannot be checked (Contempt of Court Act 1981, s8) [1]; jurors may misunderstand complex evidence, especially in fraud trials [1]; risk of bias and outside influence, including internet research (R v Mirza, 2004, on secrecy; Attorney General v Dallas, 2012, contempt for research) [1] [1]; jury trial is slower and more expensive [1]. A reasoned conclusion [1].

---

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between procedural and substantive ultra vires? Procedural ultra vires means the body did not follow the procedure the enabling Act required, such as consulting interested parties. Substantive ultra vires means it made rules beyond the powers the Act gave it.

Which courts are bound by the Supreme Court? Every court below it in England and Wales. The Supreme Court itself may depart from its earlier decisions under the Practice Statement 1966.

What track is used for a small civil claim? Claims up to £10,000 normally go to the small claims track, with lower limits for most personal injury claims.

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Naming a control on delegated legislation without explaining how it works.
• Defining statutory interpretation rules with no case.
• Including “reversing” in the operation of precedent, which the specification lists as following, overruling and distinguishing.
• Describing jury disadvantages without evidence or examples.