Secondly there is Common Law, Common law includes legal principles that have been developed and applied by UK courts. The courts interpret and clarify the law where there is no clear statute law. Common law takes legal precedent made by judges, for example, the right of homeowners to tackle intruders who enter their property. Government ministers may clarify or amend common law trough Acts of Parliament. The common law also includes customs and precedents that have become accepted practice.
Sample multiple-choice questions for the English Legal System module for LLB open learning 1. Which of the statements below most accurately reflects the constitutional position between the legislature and the judiciary: a) Parliament encourages the judiciary to make law through the process of statutory interpretation because it does not have enough parliamentary time to enact laws itself. b) Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body and the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply law made by Parliament. c) The judiciary considers itself a primary lawmaking body equal to Parliament. d) It is the role of the judiciary, when interpreting statutes, to fill in the gaps in the statutes.
This section helps judges discover the exact meaning put upon the word by Parliament. The final Intrinsic Aid is the schedules which can be found in the back of the Act, the schedule cannot always be used to help find the true meaning of the Act unless specifically referred to within a section. The schedule provides additional information surrounding the Act and its intentions. Extrinsic Aids are any references that are not concealed within the act that is being interpreted. The most common External Aid which is also used within everyday life is a Dictionary.
It is through laws that policies of government are laid down for implementation. It does however have many constitutional roles to fulfil such as the power of the purse, oversight, foreign policy and legislation. It can be argues that Congress does fulfil its constitutional roles as it may deliver effective over sighting, legislation, money bills, representation and foreign policy that may provide good checks and balances. However, most would argue that Congress may not carry its roles effectively thus leading to poor scrutiny (sometimes over scrutinising) which leads to ineffective fulfilment of constitutional roles. The principle organ of the US state is to legislate, represent and scrutinise the other, safely separated, branches of the government.
This occurs when the language in the statute is ambiguous and the judge has to use the rules of interpretation (i.e. literal, golden, mischief and purposive) to determine the intent of the parliament when it enacted the particular legislation. The human rights act 1998(HRA) as well, has increased the law-making ability of the judiciary. The interpretative provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have had a major impact on judicial interpretative practices. Under Section 3 of the HRA1998 the courts are required to interpret primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the convention rights, 'so far as it is possible to do so'.
This concept entails an understanding of what the “problem of language” is and how the judges use the various methods at their disposal to eliminate the confusion surrounding the wording of a statute and to grasp what the Parliament had intended with the passing of a particular Act. The concept is of great antiquity and is a practice carried out by the judges whereby they use legal reasoning and arguments along with the aid of a variety of approaches to interpret the act in question. Three different approaches to interpretation are employed by the judiciary in deciphering a statute: Literal rule, Golden rule and Mischief rule. The literal rule as the name suggests asserts that the judges should only give the wording of the act their plain and ordinary meaning and should not indulge in going beyond the actual meaning of the word in interpreting the act. The rule is readily applied to any and all statutes that come into force as it is considered by the parliament to promote certainty.
[2] Indeed, this seemingly plainly written text is much more than just a narrative piece of work due to its inherent influence at the sentencing stage. There exists an inherent tension between the two schools of thoughts: one view among the legal academy is that such statements are no more than some maneuver to elongate criminals’ sentences or even encourage votes for death penalty in some extreme cases by evoking unnecessary emotionalism, while some argue that they undeniably convey essential information to sentencing judges and possess other advantageous effects. A literary analysis of a victim impact statement thus becomes essential – exploring the camouflaged narrative techniques as employed to explain their role in court. In this essay, I shall discuss the narrative dimension of victim impact statements in light of Booth v Maryland, followed by an analysis of whether the court should admit such statements in the sentencing phase of cases. II.
In the 1975 Report of the Renton Committee, it was argued that criticisms on the quality of drafting of statutes was common centuries ago and it was claimed that statute law lacked simplicity and clarity, especially on the language, structure and the arrangement of the statutes. Also, as supported by the Statute Law Society, the language of statutes is ‘legalistic, often obscure and circumlocutious, requiring a certain type of expertise in order to gauge its meaning.’ Meanwhile, the sequence and structure of individual statute appears to be illogical and unhelpful to readers. In reforming the legislative process, changes to the drafting technique should be made. Verbal impedimenta should be reduced and should be more general and concise. Meanwhile, a Law Council, which is similar to that played in France by the Conseil d’Etat, can be established.
Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements. The laws and customs of Parliament re also a source of the constitution. Works of authority are also referred to as authoritative sources such as books by Dicey or Bagehot. Finally, European Union Law also impacts the UK constitution as the judgements of the European court of Justice, in general EU law has precedence over that passed by Parliament. A codified constitution is too inflexible and cannot adapt to the changing political circumstance, such as society changing.
The USA also has a complex legal system, having both national and state courts. Federalism in this sense thus leads to confusion, as what is legal in one state may be illegal in another, making it sometimes difficult for the central government and the people to distinguish between state laws and federal laws. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writes “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is.” The federal-state relationship is a continual source of conflict and controversy, and in these times the Supreme Court handles the issues. However, the federal constitution and the state constitution are open to individual interpretation. Federalism thus allows the Supreme Court to dictate the outcome, and without federalism, there may