A lot previous past papers ask you about whether the harm principle is successful, or what the criticisms are in Mills argument in favour of interference. Most are worded slightly differently yet they're essentially asking the same thing.
Some examples are: Assess whether Mill succeeds in establishing the limit of state interference in the actions of the individual (June 2012)
OR 'Actions that do not harm ohers should not be the subject of interference either from the state or society' Assess whether Mill succeeds in defending this view. (June 2013)
Something really useful for revision is the AQA resouce on J.S Mill's on liberty.
What actions by the state citizens justifies state interference?
Mill answers broady that the state may only interfere when an individual has infringed another persons 'constituted rights'. These are rights that we all have against physical harm, interference with our legitimate acquired propety, fraud etc. But, state power should not go further than this, and should not prevent individuals from engaging in behaviour that harms themselves individually.
To illustrate- Society may not punish someone soley for being drunk. However, if…