Law and Justice
What is Law and Justice?
Justice is basically about whether the law and the legal system are fair. The difficult part is that
people do not always agree on what “fair” actually means.
For OCR A Level Law, justice can be looked at in different ways. Formal justice focuses on
applying the law consistently. Substantive justice looks at whether the actual outcome or law is
fair. Procedural justice focuses on whether the legal process itself is fair.
Justice also links to equality, access to justice, punishment, fairness and the relationship
between law and morality. Cases are useful because they show how courts have dealt with
situations where these ideas come into conflict.
1. R v Dudley and Stephens [1884]
Case facts:
Dudley and Stephens were sailors who became stranded at sea with another crew member
after their boat was damaged. After several days without food, they killed the weakest member
of the group and survived by eating his body. They argued that they had acted out of necessity.
Case principle:
The court rejected necessity as a defence to murder and sentenced them for the killing.
Why remember it?
It shows the difficulty of deciding what is fair when people are placed in extreme circumstances.
It also demonstrates that the law may refuse to justify an otherwise unlawful act simply because
it may have helped others survive.
2. R v Howe [1987]
Case facts:
The defendants were involved in killings where they claimed they had been forced or
threatened by another person.
Case principle:
The House of Lords held that duress could not be used as a defence to murder.
, Why remember it?
It shows that justice can involve protecting the value of human life, even when the defendant
has been placed under serious pressure.
3. R v R [1991]
Case facts:
A husband was charged with raping his wife. Traditionally, English common law had recognised
a marital exemption, meaning a husband could not normally be guilty of raping his wife.
Case principle:
The House of Lords abolished the marital rape exemption and confirmed that a wife could be
raped by her husband.
Why remember it?
It is a strong example of the law changing because social attitudes about equality and individual
rights had changed.
4. R v Jogee [2016]
Case facts:
Jogee was involved in events that resulted in the death of a man. He had been convicted under
the law relating to joint enterprise.
Case principle:
The Supreme Court held that simply foreseeing that another person might commit a crime was
not enough to establish the necessary mens rea for secondary liability. The prosecution had to
prove that the defendant intended to assist or encourage the offence.
Why remember it?
It shows the courts correcting an area of law where the previous approach could produce unfair
results for defendants.
5. R v G and Another [2003]
Case facts:
Two boys set fire to some newspapers outside a shop. The fire spread and caused significant
damage.
Case principle:
The House of Lords changed the law on recklessness. A person is reckless when they are
aware of a risk and, in the circumstances known to them, it is unreasonable to take that risk.
What is Law and Justice?
Justice is basically about whether the law and the legal system are fair. The difficult part is that
people do not always agree on what “fair” actually means.
For OCR A Level Law, justice can be looked at in different ways. Formal justice focuses on
applying the law consistently. Substantive justice looks at whether the actual outcome or law is
fair. Procedural justice focuses on whether the legal process itself is fair.
Justice also links to equality, access to justice, punishment, fairness and the relationship
between law and morality. Cases are useful because they show how courts have dealt with
situations where these ideas come into conflict.
1. R v Dudley and Stephens [1884]
Case facts:
Dudley and Stephens were sailors who became stranded at sea with another crew member
after their boat was damaged. After several days without food, they killed the weakest member
of the group and survived by eating his body. They argued that they had acted out of necessity.
Case principle:
The court rejected necessity as a defence to murder and sentenced them for the killing.
Why remember it?
It shows the difficulty of deciding what is fair when people are placed in extreme circumstances.
It also demonstrates that the law may refuse to justify an otherwise unlawful act simply because
it may have helped others survive.
2. R v Howe [1987]
Case facts:
The defendants were involved in killings where they claimed they had been forced or
threatened by another person.
Case principle:
The House of Lords held that duress could not be used as a defence to murder.
, Why remember it?
It shows that justice can involve protecting the value of human life, even when the defendant
has been placed under serious pressure.
3. R v R [1991]
Case facts:
A husband was charged with raping his wife. Traditionally, English common law had recognised
a marital exemption, meaning a husband could not normally be guilty of raping his wife.
Case principle:
The House of Lords abolished the marital rape exemption and confirmed that a wife could be
raped by her husband.
Why remember it?
It is a strong example of the law changing because social attitudes about equality and individual
rights had changed.
4. R v Jogee [2016]
Case facts:
Jogee was involved in events that resulted in the death of a man. He had been convicted under
the law relating to joint enterprise.
Case principle:
The Supreme Court held that simply foreseeing that another person might commit a crime was
not enough to establish the necessary mens rea for secondary liability. The prosecution had to
prove that the defendant intended to assist or encourage the offence.
Why remember it?
It shows the courts correcting an area of law where the previous approach could produce unfair
results for defendants.
5. R v G and Another [2003]
Case facts:
Two boys set fire to some newspapers outside a shop. The fire spread and caused significant
damage.
Case principle:
The House of Lords changed the law on recklessness. A person is reckless when they are
aware of a risk and, in the circumstances known to them, it is unreasonable to take that risk.
