Different to the vast majority of the European Countries the legal system in the United Kingdom is not based on a constitution. English law is uncodified, this means that the laws of certain areas of law are not systematically bundled into one specific code.
Basically, the English law is composed of three elements: directly enforceable EU law, common law and legislation created through Parliament whereas the latter is the highest form of UK law. Under British Constitutional Law the Parliament is sovereign. Following the traditional interpretation of Parliament Sovereignty "it has the power to make any statutes on any subject matter, and British courts are bound to enforce that laws" without questioning their validity. Contrary to countries with a written constitution, UK courts do not have the power to overrule statutes that appear to be unconstitutional.
Characteristically, judges have a significant role within the English legal system. Unlike the, for example, German legal system judges in the United Kingdom do not only decide on cases according to existing laws but also are able to create and influence laws. Due to the unique role of judges in the English court system the Doctrine of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation were manifested as principles of the national court system.
Consequently, this paper will discuss the following statement in the light of the Doctrine of Precedent, the rules of Statutory Interpretation and whether judges should be creating new law. "It is not for the judge to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its [legislation] plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral."
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Part 1
- Introduction
- The Quote's Background
- The Doctrine of Precedent
- The Interpretation of Statutes
- Should judges create new law?
- Part 2
- Introduction
- Tare v David
- Sally v David
- Lin v David
- Raphael v David
- Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper examines the role of judges in the English legal system, specifically focusing on the interpretation of legislation and the creation of new law. It analyzes the statement by Lord Diplock in the case Express Newspapers Ltd. v Macshane, which emphasizes the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of legislation, even when consequences might be considered unjust.
- The Doctrine of Precedent and its implications for judicial decision-making
- The rules of Statutory Interpretation and their application in practice
- The controversial issue of judicial law-making and its potential for conflict with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
- The balance between consistency and flexibility in legal interpretation
- Ethical considerations in judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving life-or-death situations
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- Part 1: Introduction This chapter introduces the unique characteristics of the English legal system, including its reliance on common law and the significant role of judges in interpreting and developing legislation.
- The Quote's Background This chapter examines the context of Lord Diplock's statement in the Express Newspapers Ltd. v Macshane case and explores the principle of the Literal Rule within the framework of Statutory Interpretation.
- The Doctrine of Precedent This chapter delves into the Doctrine of binding Precedent, also known as stare decisis, which is a fundamental aspect of the English legal system. It highlights the influence of precedent on judicial decisions and the potential for judges to create new law through precedent.
- The Interpretation of Statutes This chapter discusses the process of interpreting statutes and explores the different approaches taken by judges, including the Literal Rule. It addresses the challenges of balancing the need for clear and stable law with the need to adapt to evolving societal values.
- Should judges create new law? This chapter examines the debate surrounding the role of judges in creating new law, particularly in light of Lord Diplock's statement. It explores the arguments for and against judicial law-making, considering its impact on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and its potential consequences for justice and morality.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This paper focuses on key concepts and terms relevant to the English legal system, including the Doctrine of Precedent, Statutory Interpretation, judicial law-making, parliamentary sovereignty, the Literal Rule, and the case of Express Newspapers Ltd. v Macshane. It explores the balance between consistency and flexibility in legal interpretation, particularly in cases involving ethical dilemmas and the potential for judges to create new law.
- Quote paper
- Karl Luis Neumann (Author), 2015, The role of judges in the English legal system. Should judges create a new law?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/427398
