Do judges make law or merely

It allows the judges to escape the precedents which they few that is inappropriate to the case they are dealing with.

Bevor Sie fortfahren...

The bill must pass through the house of parliament before it can become a statue. When considering the system of precedent its first disadvantage to the system is there are over high ranking judges and every sentence of every judgment that are made by these judges could be a potential precedent and be binding to the future judges so then it is extremely difficult to keep track of all this Do judges make law or merely precedent.

The mischief rule is basically a rule that the court uses when the defendant tries to take advantage of the statue when there are loopholes in it or when the meanings of the statue is not clear and have different meanings. The court would use any of the approaches that seems best suited to achieving justice in the case it is hearing and the approaches should be treated like guiding principles.

When the judges are interpreting a statue, they uses canons of interpretation. Now we are considering the advantages of the system of precedent. In my opinion, these 3 rules are extremely good guidelines to follow, as they are fair to a certain extent and all the crimes that are committed would be brought to justice.

Intrinsic aids would include interpretations sections of the Act, which state the meaning of words used in the Act. For those busier and less experienced courts judges could use it as a guideline and do not have to give the same consideration as to whether the principles of law involved are right or wrong.

For example when a defendant uses an absurd way of interpreting a certain act or law to defend himself, the judges would instead use the golden rule to make it as simple as the statement as it is. He therefore claimed that he did not commit the offence.

Fourth, what was the reason for providing the remedy? Second, what mischief or problem did the act seek to rectify? This is because they realize that if they were to use the literal rule the result of the ruling would be absurd and they would wish to avoid this result they would choose to use the golden rule instead of the literal rule.

Usually the court would use the literal rule in the trial first before they would decide to use the golden rule. The second approach would be the golden rule, which is also known as the purposive approach. The primary function of the court is not to make law but to adjudicate.

Some courts usually have more than one judges attending for example, the appellate courts and it is usually a odd number of judges as all these judges will have their own statement and they would decide on the case individually and if the decision is unanimous for example all of them agreed that the defendant is guilty or the appeal is successful, only one of the judge is required to provide the facts and it can be used as a binding part.

The judge can say that the fact of the case he is considering are materially different from the facts of the case by which he appears to be bound its gives the judges a degree of flexibility to the system.

For example a judge who is lower down the hierarchy can refuse to follow an apparently binding precedent if he distinguishes it on its fact. Extrinsic aids to interpretation include dictionaries, previous statutes concerning the same subject matter, and the Interpretation Act These are the advantages of the system of precedent.

This approach focuses on why the law was created and what did the parliament meant and is trying to achieve with the particular law when it was created. For example a judge who is lower down the hierarchy can refuse to follow an apparently binding precedent if he distinguishes it on its fact.

In conclusion, the literal rule is applied when the statue does not have different meanings and are interpreted in their ordinary and literal meanings even if these leads to a decision that is unjust or undesirable.

Usually the court would go start with the first approach, which is the literal rule, and when the defendant defends with an absurd argument the golden rule would be applied.

This is so that they could be consistent with their ruling and it would be fair. The court is guided by three approaches. At the second reading the principles that the bill is trying to provide are being debated.

After it passes through both houses it will be sent to the royal assent where it will become a statue, which the court must enforce. The government department, which consists of business, innovation and skills, propose legislation for approval.

Some courts usually have more than one judges attending for example, the appellate courts and it is usually a odd number of judges as all these judges will have their own statement and they would decide on the case individually and if the decision is unanimous for example all of them agreed that the defendant is guilty or the appeal is successful, only one of the judge is required to provide the facts and it can be used as a binding part.

Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? Essay

The mischief rule is basically a rule that the court uses when the defendant tries to take advantage of the statue when there are loopholes in it or when the meanings of the statue is not clear and have different meanings. In my opinion, these 3 rules are extremely good guidelines to follow, as they are fair to a certain extent and all the crimes that are committed would be brought to justice.

The parliament has the power to enact, or revoke, any new law it pleases and that the courts cannot question the validity of this law.Judges do make law; they make law all the time and they always have. Laws do change as new situations abound and based on the Realistic theory, it has to be accepted that that judges do indeed make new law and that this is necessary where there are no existing rules to cover the situation, as Professor Hart asserted.

For the secondary law, which is the common law, the judges make this common law base on the cases and it is developed extremely slow and cautious and incremental bit by bit.

Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws?

as they would need to consider the principle and the loopholes in the law that they might be create or they could also make it so that it only applies in that particular case.

Apr 05,  · Well, judges do not merely interpret the law, they also make laws. This is because, in the course of interpreting the law, they might be faced with a situation on which the law is silent.

They can't merely dismiss the case and wait for the legislature to make laws, they have to come to a conclusion and give the reasons for the decision. Do judges make law or merely play a role in interpreting law?

Discuss Judges do both. Judges interpret the statue law and they make the common law. There are two types of law one would be the primary law, which is also known as the statue law and the secondary law, which is also known as the common law.

A judge-made law is when a judge applies or extends an established rule to new facts, or decides that the particular rule do not take effect on certain situations, thus, making a change in the law.

However, when it comes to this, it does not mean that the judges have the power to change the law, nor make new laws. Some judges also do not agree that they make laws. 13 Nkobogo J They only declare what had been the law and they do not introduce new mi-centre.com lord Esher stated ‘‘there in fact no such thing as judges made law.

Download
Do judges make law or merely
Rated 4/5 based on 57 review