Generally, one would assume that the whole purpose of law is to promote justice. However, there are may varied theories on this relationship and first, it is necessary to consider them in terms of procedural and substantive justice.

nature while St Thomas Aquinas sees God as the natural souse of law. The logical extension of this is that it is permissible to break the legal rules if they fail to conform to moral laws (excluding the case when it would lead to social disruption). Thus, the law in a philosophy view would promote justice. Followers of this idea would include Professor LL Fuller, Lord Devlin or against it like Lord Hart who link the idea of justice to that of morality (R v. Reeves 1964). Here, the overlap between justice and the reflection of law in morality would come in. Should the law reflect morality but ignore justice?Utilitarianism is a philosophy that developed in the 19th Century predominantly from Bentham and John Stuart Mill whereby the fundamental object of justice is the maximisation of human happiness. On this basis, it is unjust to prohibit private acts of immorality since they cause harm to no one and increase pleasure. From an economic point of view, a Government that supports capitalism will tend to interfere with individual rights in a minimal way and be protective of property rights whereas, the Marxist views of justice are based on the redistribution of wealth to everyone. In ‘Anarchy State and Utopia’, Nozick claimed that a just society was one in which individual rights were accorded the respect due to them. States evolved for the purpose of protecting its members’ natural rights. Clearly, all economic views of justice present problems. The problem of trying to balance purely economic considerations with notions of justice is that what may be just for society may be unjust for individual and vice versa (Re B 1996). Basic rights can also be affected by economic considerations (R v. Gloucestershire County Council ex Parte Barry 1997).So, to what extent does the law achieve justice? Although it would be an aim for all legal system, the law does not always achieve justice. Clearly, the ability of legal system to do so depends on certain potentially conflicting factors i.e. procedural justice and substantive justice. The former can be seen in a number of areas such as sentencing policy or the means of assessing quantum of damages in civil law. However, the need to give justice to meet individual’s situations or at least to avoid injustice is one of the principles behind the introduction of the Practice Statement 1966. B R Board v. Herrington (1972) and R v. R (1991) are two examples of it being used for this purpose. Equity is another example where rules developed when the common law would lead to injustice. The problem with these two factors is that they tend to be mutually exclusive. Injustice may be created by ignoring the individual situation like Ahluwalia (1992) – applying the law of provocation.Criminal law has to meet the concept of justice all the time or else no one would show any respect to it. The pursuit of justice then is displayed in a number of ways. One of them is to grade crimes according to their seriousness. In this way, by taking considerations of factors such as Mens Rea, the extent to which it damages social benefits or interferes with personal right. Thus, murder is the worst due to its wickedness or battery that causes ABH is worse than causes bruises only. Another way is through the sentencing policy that reflects both the seriousness of crime and the factors such as first offence or repeated one. For example, retribution directs to most serious crimes whereas rehabilitation seeks to reform the criminal if possible. Sentencing represents the view that if the criminal is to reform, he must be dealt with fairly and proportionately, based on the nature of crime committed. The development of crime surveys and the use of victim impact statements demonstrate that there is a need to be fair to the victims also. The use of strict liability in crimes illustrates the fact that Parliament recognises the standard of proof is not appropriate to achieve justice in every situation. In contrast, it may lead to injustice in certain cases (Sweet v. Parsley). Another example of injustice is the case of E v. DPP (2005). By prosecuting the D, the state was criminalising his behaviour and treating the girl as victim when it was not, in fact, the situation. This is also an example of procedure justice.Besides, there are problems that lead to injustice in the law caused by the factors that are thought to be fair e.g. the jury. The risk of racial bias (Gregory and Sanders) or the secrecy of the jury room (Young case) is questionable. Also, the influences of media on the jury (Bowyer and Woodgate trial) may result in injustice.In tort, before the judgement of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), the ‘contact fallacy’ rules and there was no generally Duty of Care (D.O.C) and little chances of remedies. The case not only did secure a remedy for claimant but the ‘neighbour principle’ also helps to identify other D.O.C situations and the development of tort of negligence leading to justice in many individual cases. The tort of nuisance allows for protection and justice against the unreasonable use of land and etc.Nevertheless, one way in which tort very often produces injustice or not real justice is in the remedies available. Sometimes, money is not an appropriate way to bring justice. Indeed, remedies such as injunctions are clearly aimed at representing justices in certain cases. This is also true with contract law in the case of Hadley v. Baxendale 1854 or Victoria Laundry v. Newman industries 1949. Moreover, those who see capitalist as unjust would prefer the Acts in contract law such as the Sale of Goods Acts 1974 or the Unfair Contact Terms Act 1977 as a just way to protect the customers. What is interesting about Consumer Protection is that it comes from Europe which is capitalist based. These laws are clear examples of substantive justice.It is true that important aim of law is to ensure justice for both society and individuals. However, it is an obvious fact that one can not please all. The way the court use to achieve justice may be, in fact, depends on the Government i.e. the political party that is in power. For instance, the ‘new’ Labour party led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown is toward procedural justice.