Legal maxims have a way of sticking around. They are often not translated, only half-remembered, and rarely ignored. They sit in the background of judgments, lectures, and submissions. Their Latin makes them seem far away, as if they belong to a different legal century, but the ideas they hold on to are still very much alive. Long after laws have changed and procedures have gotten better, these short statements of principle keep coming up.
In law schools, they are often introduced early, and sometimes too early. Students learn the phrases before they really understand the situations that led to them. At first, they seem like decorations, like a kind of professional shorthand from a time when things were more formal. It is only later, usually when they are put to use or read closely, that their practical power becomes clear. A maxim lives on not because it sounds nice, but because it still makes sense.
Take audi alteram partem, which means that the other side must be heard. It seems obvious, but it’s not really legal; it seems more moral. But the fact that it isn’t there is what usually makes people the most anxious in modern cases. This saying comes back to mind whenever a choice has been made too quickly, without asking for advice or getting an answer. The courts may not always say it, but they can feel it.
Another long-lasting rule, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, says that an act alone does not make someone guilty unless they have a guilty mind. This difference is still important in criminal law. The words are old, but the arguments are new. Questions about intention, recklessness, and knowledge are still very important, especially since technology makes it harder to know what it means to act on purpose.
The flexibility of legal maxims is what makes them last. In a strict sense, they are not rules. They do not determine results. Instead, they set the stage for reasoning. Judges use them to see if a conclusion is based on legal tradition or has gone too far in the name of convenience. In that way, they work more like reference points than orders.
In the UK, legal maxims have always been next to common law, not above it. They come from ways of thinking, not from one source that everyone agrees on. This makes it easy for people to misuse them. If you quote them carelessly, they can sound like answers when they are really prompts. A good judge knows that a maxim can’t decide a case on its own, so they are careful with them.
One night, while reading a Court of Appeal decision, I noticed that a single maxim was used less to decide the case than to keep the reasoning around it steady.
There is a lot of law, rules, and advice in today’s courtrooms. Some people think this doesn’t leave much room for old ways of doing things. But when laws are unclear or when they have unintended effects, judges often turn to first principles. Legal maxims provide a lexicon for that action without asserting moral superiority or legislative power.
Think about ubi jus ibi remedium, which means that if there is a right, there must be a way to fix it. This principle has changed how courts think about how easy it is to get justice and how enforceable it is. It doesn’t guarantee success, but it fights the idea that rights can only exist in name. Its impact is evident in both judicial review and civil claims whenever courts deliberate on the issue of whether a legal injustice should remain unaddressed.
Maxims like “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in their own cause) also have a quiet discipline built into them. It is important for more than just formal adjudication. It supports rules about bias, conflicts of interest, and fairness in public decision-making. The maxim is doing its job, even if it’s not said out loud, every time a tribunal member steps down or a decision is overturned because of bias.
Skeptics say that legal maxims are nothing more than intellectual security blankets. They say that using them can hide weak reasoning or give false authority to choices that are up for debate. This criticism has some truth to it. Maxims, like any other tool, can be used too much. They lose credibility when people treat them as conclusions instead of starting points.
But the fact that they are still there shows that they meet a real need. Law, especially at the appellate level, is not only about results. It has to do with explanation. Maxims help make complicated ideas easier to test, question, and remember. They are part of the common language that lawyers and judges use to argue with each other over the years.
Legal maxims often serve as bridges between abstract theory and real-world decision-making in the basics of jurisprudence. They show what people have learned over time about what usually goes wrong in legal systems. Not caring about fairness. Power that isn’t checked. Responsibility became unclear. Each maxim serves as a reminder of a problem that happens often enough to be given a name.
Their survival also shows how conservative legal reasoning is. Courts don’t often throw away tools that still work. They change them quietly instead. A maxim can be made more specific, put in context, or compared to other maxims, but it is rarely thrown away completely. The law likes to add meaning instead of taking it away.
As new areas of law emerge, such as data protection and automated decision-making, traditional principles are being reevaluated. Does the right to be heard apply when algorithms make choices? What does “intention” mean in a system that runs on code? These are modern questions, but they are based on ideas we already know.
Legal maxims that UK lawyers use today are not just old sayings. They are ideas that are still useful, even if they are worn out or stretched. Their Latin may seem far away, but their worries are still very real in the world of law.
To comprehend the enduring relevance of legal maxims, one must perceive law as a dialogue transcending temporal boundaries. Not everything lasts, but the things that do usually deserve to be there. These short statements of principle still help people find their way when things are unclear, which is why they are still an important part of legal reasoning, even though people keep saying they are no longer useful.
