Search |
Why study the hard way when you can do it the smart way?Online Legal Coach was built for law students preparing for their exams. Discuss your tutorial questions in our forum and have them answered by legal experts, and prepare for your exams with our study guides and videos on every law subject. |
Sign up for your free membership today!As a member you get access to our study guides, student forum, form your online study groups and participate in contests. Get the head start in your law exams! Sign up now for free. |
User login |
well .. . it depends on the attitude of the judges when they are interpreting a statute ...
if we take precedents as law, are they not making law?
when you see the word "law" bear in mind that uk law derives from :
a)statutes(acts of Parliament)
b)common law(principles established in previous cases)
so when you are dealing with the question, look at the role of judges interpreting statutes and common law.
bear in mind that common law has always been 'judge made law'. we cannot say that judges do not make common law, as it has been so for the previous few centuries. stress on the importance of the rationale when judges decide to follow/ignore precedents.
whilst statutes are already made by Parliament, but the Question is, are the courts upholding the intention of Parliament? is it rational to read it in the purposive approach instead of the literal approach? look at how judges extend and stretch the words used in statutes(eg: DPP v Bull)
*if it is not obvious, i like this topic very much.hee...if you have any further questions on this topic,just post it here, i'll try my best to help you. all the best!
llflll....rather than juz posting a question and expect others to answer it, i'd be better if you could post your own views first, then let others take up on it.
Luckily for you this is not www.swarb.co.uk law discussion forum.