The English Legal System: Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: The English Legal System revision notes

---

Section A

1. Name the main sources of English law and give an example of each. [4]

2. Explain the difference between the civil and criminal courts in terms of the parties and the outcome. [3]

Section B

3. Explain the three tracks in the civil courts and state which cases go to each. [6]

4. Explain four forms of alternative dispute resolution and give two advantages of ADR over litigation. [10]

5. Explain the aims of sentencing, giving four aims with an example of a sentence that serves each. [8]

6. Explain three types of sentence available in the criminal courts and one factor a judge takes into account in aggravation and one in mitigation. [8]

7. Explain the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, and describe two ways a court can avoid an earlier precedent. [6]

8. Explain the literal rule and the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, and state one advantage and one disadvantage of each. [8]

---

Answers

1. Legislation (Acts of Parliament) — e.g. the Theft Act 1968 [1]. Delegated legislation — e.g. a statutory instrument or a local by-law [1]. Case law / judicial precedent — e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson establishing the modern law of negligence [1]. International treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect through the Human Rights Act 1998 [1].

2. Civil cases are brought by a claimant against a defendant, criminal cases by the prosecution on behalf of the Crown [1] [1]. In civil cases the outcome is a finding of liability and a remedy such as damages or an injunction; in criminal cases it is a conviction and a sentence [1].

3. Small claims track — claims up to £10 000, heard informally in the County Court, usually without lawyers, with costs not normally recoverable [1] [1]. Fast track — claims between £10 000 and £25 000, with a strict timetable, a trial of no more than one day and limited expert evidence [1] [1]. Multi-track — claims over £25 000 or of unusual complexity, heard in the County Court or High Court with active case management by the judge [1] [1].

4. Negotiation — the parties, or their solicitors, discuss the matter directly and reach their own agreement; it is private, cheap and immediate [1] [1]. Mediation — a neutral third party helps the parties reach their own solution but does not impose one; useful where a continuing relationship matters [1] [1]. Conciliation — similar to mediation, but the conciliator plays a more active role and may suggest a solution, as ACAS does in employment disputes [1] [1]. Arbitration — the parties agree to submit the dispute to an arbitrator whose decision (the award) is binding and enforceable in court, often under the Arbitration Act 1996 [1] [1]. Advantages, any two: it is far cheaper and quicker than court proceedings, which can take years [1]; it is private, so commercial reputation and confidential information are protected [1]; it is less adversarial, so it is more likely to preserve an ongoing business or family relationship [1]; the parties can choose a decision-maker with relevant technical expertise [1].

5. Any four, 2 marks each: Punishment (retribution) — the offender receives their just deserts; e.g. a custodial sentence proportionate to the offence [1] [1]. Deterrence — discouraging the offender and others from offending; e.g. an exemplary sentence for a prevalent offence [1] [1]. Rehabilitation — reforming the offender so they do not reoffend; e.g. a community order with a drug treatment or education requirement [1] [1]. Protection of the public — e.g. a long custodial sentence, an extended sentence or a driving disqualification [1] [1]. Reparation — making amends to the victim or society; e.g. a compensation order or unpaid work [1] [1].

6. Any three sentence types, 2 marks each: Custodial — immediate or suspended imprisonment, for offences so serious that only custody is justified [1] [1]. Community order — with requirements such as unpaid work, a curfew, or supervision, for offences serious enough to warrant restriction of liberty but not custody [1] [1]. Fines — the most common sentence, calculated with reference to the offender’s means as well as the seriousness of the offence [1] [1]. Discharge — absolute or conditional, where punishment is inappropriate or the offence is very minor [1] [1]. Aggravating factor, any one: previous relevant convictions, offending on bail, an offence that was planned rather than spontaneous, vulnerability of the victim, or hostility based on race, religion, disability or sexual orientation [1] [1]. Mitigating factor, any one: an early guilty plea, which attracts a reduction of up to one third, genuine remorse, no previous convictions, youth or mental illness, or a minor role in a joint offence [1] [1].

7. Ratio decidendi is the legal reason for the decision — this alone is binding on later courts [1] [1]. Obiter dicta is everything said “by the way”, which is persuasive only, not binding [1] [1]. A court can avoid an earlier precedent by distinguishing it, holding that the material facts of the current case differ so the earlier decision does not apply [1] [1], or by a higher court overruling it, declaring the earlier decision wrong [1] [1].

8. Literal rule — words are given their plain, ordinary meaning, even if the result is absurd [1]. Advantage: it respects parliamentary sovereignty, since judges apply the words Parliament actually enacted rather than substituting their own view [1]; disadvantage: it can defeat Parliament’s evident intention and produce an unjust or absurd outcome [1]. Purposive approach — the court asks what Parliament’s purpose was in passing the Act, and interprets accordingly [1]. Advantage: it achieves a just result that reflects Parliament’s real intention, particularly where the literal wording has not kept pace with circumstances [1]; disadvantage: it risks judges legislating, substituting their own view of what Parliament should have intended for what it actually enacted [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Confusing conciliation with mediation.
• Giving the small claims limit incorrectly.
• Listing aims of sentencing without an example.
• Treating an early guilty plea as an aggravating factor.
• Treating obiter dicta as binding.
• Describing a rule of interpretation without a linked advantage or disadvantage.