Cambridge BA: Jurisprudence Paper

Archie is a senior judge in the Court of Appeal. He is deciding a case concerning the liability of a local authority for failing to prevent harm caused by a third party. There is a House of Lords authority — decided in 1987 — which clearly establishes that local authorities owe no duty of care in such circumstances. However, Archie notes that the European Court of Human Rights has since ruled, in a case against the United Kingdom, that the blanket immunity granted to local authorities under the 1987 authority is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Archie also notes that two subsequent Court of Appeal decisions have distinguished the 1987 authority on narrow factual grounds. Archie believes that the 1987 authority was wrongly decided as a matter of principle and that justice requires him to impose liability on the local authority. He proposes to depart from the 1987 precedent. In a separate but related matter, Parliament enacted legislation in 2022 specifically to preserve the 1987 rule. Advise Archie on (a) the extent to which the doctrine of precedent obliges him to follow the 1987 authority, (b) the relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR jurisprudence to his decision, and (c) whether the 2022 Act affects his analysis. Discuss with reference to leading jurisprudential theories of adjudication and relevant case law.

Beatrice is a barrister advising a client, Caspian Ltd, in a commercial dispute. The written contract between Caspian Ltd and Delta Corp contains a clause that, on its literal wording, would expose Caspian Ltd to unlimited liability. Beatrice believes that a purposive or contextual interpretation of the clause would limit liability to £500,000, but she acknowledges that the literal reading is linguistically possible and commercially reasonable to Delta Corp. A House of Lords decision from 1999, applying a strictly literal approach to an identically worded clause, favoured the broader liability. Beatrice discovers, however, that in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, Lord Hoffmann restated the principles of contractual interpretation in ways that arguably undermine the 1999 authority. Beatrice also discovers that in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, the Supreme Court resiled from what it saw as an over-contextual approach. Beatrice must advise Caspian Ltd whether: (a) the court is likely to adopt a purposive or literal reading, (b) how the conflicting judicial statements on interpretation should be reconciled, and (c) what jurisprudential theory of legal interpretation best explains the court's likely approach. She is also asked whether a clause purporting to exclude liability for negligence would be enforceable. Advise fully.

Evelyn is the Chief Constable of a fictional county police force. Under a statutory instrument made pursuant to the Police Act 1996, Evelyn has issued internal guidance directing officers to arrest and detain for questioning any person who has been in contact with a known criminal suspect within the preceding 48 hours, even if no specific ground for suspicion exists in relation to that individual. Farid, a journalist, is arrested and detained for 36 hours pursuant to this guidance after being spotted talking to a suspect he was interviewing for an article. Farid was not informed of the specific legal basis for his arrest. During detention, Farid's mobile phone and journalistic notes were seized and examined. Farid was eventually released without charge. Advise Farid on (a) the legality of his arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the common law, (b) whether the statutory instrument itself is intra vires the Police Act 1996, (c) his remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998 with reference to Articles 5, 8 and 10 ECHR, and (d) the jurisprudential implications of executive action that conflicts with individual rights. Cite relevant case law and statutory provisions throughout.

'The distinction between primary and secondary rules is the most important contribution Hart made to legal philosophy, but it cannot sustain the weight Hart places upon it.' Critically evaluate this claim with reference to Hart's account, Dworkin's critique, and at least two other jurisprudential responses.

'Natural law theory is incompatible with the existence of unjust law: if a norm is sufficiently unjust, it is simply not law.' Critically assess this claim with reference to classical and contemporary natural law theories, the positivist response, and the judicial treatment of morally controversial statutes in UK courts.