Consist of recommendations that something be done because it is necessary in order to secure some social goal.

Arguments of principle will require that something be done because it secures some individual or group right.

They protect individuals from interference by society in its pursuit of certain goals.

The courts are important vehicles for the protection of rights, and in the process of adjudication, judges should base their decisions on principles that specify rights, rather than on policies, which are propositions about social goals.

Where a judge is confronted with a 'hard case', i.e. a case to which no specific rule of law applies clearly, then the judge will search through the various other standards available in the law in order to determine the question 'who has a right to win?'

These standards constitute the moral fabric of society and the court will always be able to find the right answer and use this to protect the rights of individuals.

Rights, once established, cannot be extinguished and strong rights should always override any considerations of policy where there is a conflict.

However, the operation of certain rights may be restricted where some major benefit is to be acquired for all the members of society.

Students too can criticise precedents and the consequences of applying the precedents to the given problem.

It may be useful to use the three Ps;

P1: Does the decision conflict with a principle of law?

P2: Does the decision run counter to a declared policy objective?

P3: Will the decision cause problems in practice?

The characteristic approach to problems of public policy was pragmatic, as demonstrated in legal development by the common law and in the constitutional sphere by incrementalism.

The ‘building’ which Jennings described as ‘added to, patched and generally reconstructed’ was not architect designed, but was put together by different builders at different times, called in to carry out repairs or to construct extensions.

There had been no grand plans.

Both the defence and prosecution wanted the trial to proceed on the basis of diminished responsibility, and were backed by well-respected psychiatric experts. But the judge refused and Sutcliffe was eventually convicted of murder.

Since Sutcliffe has spent his sentence in solitary confinement in a mental hospital, it looks as though the lawyers and psychiatrists were right, but as Helena Kennedy QC has pointed out, it appears that public policy demanded that a man accused of such a notorious string of crimes should, if guilty, bear the label of murderer.

Other Judges are of the opinion that this is a matter for Parliament, not the courts. For an example of this viewpoint we may refer to the dissenting judgement of Lord Slynn in the Brown case [1993].

"It is a matter of policy in an area where social and moral factors are extremely important and where attitudes can change. In my opinion it is a matter of policy for the legislature to decide. If society takes the view that this kind of behaviour, even though sought after and done in private, is either so new or so extensive or so undesirable that it should be brought for the first time within the criminal law, then it is for the legislature to decide."

Here was a policy decision pure and simple.

Failed claim against wife who owned car involved in accident when friend was driving. It was said that it was not for the courts to make law where social policy matters are involved.

Ashton v Turner and Another (1980)

A participant to a crime does not owe a duty of care as a matter of public policy to a partner in the crime.

Claimant and defendants had been drinking together and the second defendant allowed Turner to drive his car without insurance. Ashton and Turner later committed burglary and when driving away from the crime had an accident, which injured Ashton (the passenger).

Turner pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and driving while drunk. Ashton claimed damages against both defendants and the court held that, as a matter of public policy the claimant was not owed a duty of care when injured during the commission of a crime. The court also held that Turner could successfully plead the defence of volenti non fit injuria.