Crosswords2 mins ago
why the courts have no role in law making
why the courts have no role in law making
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by distucks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you are in the UK then the courts do have a huge role in law making - it is called case law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
No Buildersmate, not the candles/forks one. The 'Mastermind' sketch. Ronnie Barker in the guise of Magnus Magnussen asking the questions. Ronnie Corbett specialising in the subject of answering the question of the question pt to him previously. Super sketch!
Sorry questioner. Try again. We'll try to help!
Sorry questioner. Try again. We'll try to help!
aww.... Builders mate I can see that already, I sed to use aol when chat rooms only allowed 18 people and no wireless exsisted lol..... stands upright with chest out and says I can take it like a woman!
Ethel... Thank you for your answer but I actually do agree with you.... I as probably notices have started to study law... along with runing a hotel and having a complex life lol
Ethel... Thank you for your answer but I actually do agree with you.... I as probably notices have started to study law... along with runing a hotel and having a complex life lol
Politicians sometimes complain that 'judges are making law' when all the judges are doing is interpreting a statute.If Parliament doesn't like the interpretation it should change the statute so that the interpretation is no longer possible (and should have seen that the statute would or could be interpreted as it is).
Much of our law was not created by any act of Parliament.What we call 'the common law' is the creation of judges and courts. It's 'judge made' if you will.The crime of murder is an obvious example.It provides an example of common law and a comparatively recent one of judicial interpretation of the common law and then an amendment made by Parliament. What constitutes murder was established a very long time ago and recited in a textbook of 1797. In 1961 in DPPv Smith, the judges in the House of Lords, decided (they would say confirmed) that someone who intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, but hadn't the specific intent to kill them, was guilty of murder if the victim died as a direct consequence of the action (that may seem odd, but that's what they ruled ) In those days the victim had to have died within a year and a day of the assault, that being the common law.In 1996 Parliament passed a law to change that part of the definition so now the death may occur at any time and murder still be the charge.
So there you have an example of a crime not created or defined by statute, the common law being later interpreted by judges and later yet amended by statute law.
Much of our law was not created by any act of Parliament.What we call 'the common law' is the creation of judges and courts. It's 'judge made' if you will.The crime of murder is an obvious example.It provides an example of common law and a comparatively recent one of judicial interpretation of the common law and then an amendment made by Parliament. What constitutes murder was established a very long time ago and recited in a textbook of 1797. In 1961 in DPPv Smith, the judges in the House of Lords, decided (they would say confirmed) that someone who intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, but hadn't the specific intent to kill them, was guilty of murder if the victim died as a direct consequence of the action (that may seem odd, but that's what they ruled ) In those days the victim had to have died within a year and a day of the assault, that being the common law.In 1996 Parliament passed a law to change that part of the definition so now the death may occur at any time and murder still be the charge.
So there you have an example of a crime not created or defined by statute, the common law being later interpreted by judges and later yet amended by statute law.
Fredpuli thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply, I myself have reseached and come up with the same examples but its great to know I was on the right track. As I havent had to write an essay for years..... no it wasnt on a tile with a stone! i know the make up of what is required but I just cant get my head around an introduction to the essay it sounds so boring jusy repeating the question!
Thanks for all your help
Di x
Thanks for all your help
Di x
If that's the title of the essay, I'd be tempted to begin 'Who sez?' More seriously I'd find a particular combative quote from, say, Jack Straw or a Daily Mail headline about judges making the law and contrast with a quote from one of the great judges, like Denning, or from something like Coke's (pronounced Cook's) Institutes about common law and the importance of the judiciary. Then put 'Who is right?' ...
Let's face it, Rule 1 in Opinions, Grounds of Appeal, Opinions in support of grounds, law essays and exams, is to wake the reader up at the very opening and get them interested . That's where the fun starts.In Opinions (and essays) argue the pros and cons, with the authorities needed, but always decide definitely for or against . They want your reasoned opinion, not your doubts
Let's face it, Rule 1 in Opinions, Grounds of Appeal, Opinions in support of grounds, law essays and exams, is to wake the reader up at the very opening and get them interested . That's where the fun starts.In Opinions (and essays) argue the pros and cons, with the authorities needed, but always decide definitely for or against . They want your reasoned opinion, not your doubts
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.