English Legal System

‘It is well accepted that it is the role of the legislature to make law whilst it is the role of the judiciary to apply it.’

Critically consider how the judiciary ensure that this principle is maintained in situations where a court is required to interpret statute.

   Podcast: the Ugly     

The parliament is there to make law. It does this by getting the go-ahead from the House of Commons, the Supreme Court and the Queen. If the queen says no, then the law will not become law. It takes a long time to make law. Once it is made everyone must follow it. (1) The first paragraph provides no evidence that the writer has thought about the value of providing a strong introduction. It fails to create a link between the essay and the question set, or to use appropriate terminology. It is also inaccurate and suggests that the writer has confused the legislative function of the House of Lords with the judicial function of the Supreme Court. It also suggests weak communication skills.

Judges are not there to make law. They are there to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent and then decide what to do with them. The courts are the Supreme court, the Appeal court, the High court and other courts like the county court and the magistrates. Judges are usually solicitors or barristers who have been promoted.  When they make law it is called common law. (2) Again there is little to link this paragraph with the specific question set. It is poorly punctuated and does nothing to induce a feeling of confidence in the writer's work. Again it contains inaccuracies, which suggest confusion over the role (and composition) of the judiciary.

The common law has always been there. It was not written down until the courts started to do this. This is how the courts make law.  This is called by a latin name: stare decisis. When the courts make law and write it down they will say what the law is and this is known as stare decisi. It is difficult to know what the law is by reading what the courts have said and so they have to interpret it. (3) These paragraphs would appear to confirm a lack of seriousness in regard to completion of the essay. Not only do they further demonstrate that the writer has failed to properly analyse the requirements of the question but once more they demonstrate lack of care in terms of spelling and structure. In addition the paragraphs are extremely vague in regard to the assertions made and fail to provide any supporting legal or academic authority.

There are different types of precedent. Sometimes the courts have to follow it but not always. The more important the court the more it has to be followed. The Hourse of lords always has to be followed but the magistrates does not.  The only time that a case has to be followed is when there is another case beign heard with the same facats. (4) These paragraphs would appear to confirm a lack of seriousness in regard to completion of the essay. Not only do they further demonstrate that the writer has failed to properly analyse the requirements of the question but once more they demonstrate lack of care in terms of spelling and structure. In addition the paragraphs are extremely vague in regard to the assertions made and fail to provide any supporting legal or academic authority.

So whats wrong with the courts making law? Well, it is parliaments job under the British constitution. If the courts could make law then no one would know whose job it was. (5) These paragraphs would appear to confirm a lack of seriousness in regard to completion of the essay. Not only do they further demonstrate that the writer has failed to properly analyse the requirements of the question but once more they demonstrate lack of care in terms of spelling and structure. In addition the paragraphs are extremely vague in regard to the assertions made and fail to provide any supporting legal or academic authority.

Statutory interpretation

Although Acts of Parliament are debated and discussed in detail and are very carefully written by experts, there are occasions when the wording is not clear. If this occurs then the courts have to provide a definition as there is no time for referral back to Parliament for amendment. In these cases, the job of the courts is to determine Parliament's intentions and to put these into practice. This links back to the idea that the UK Parliament is the supreme law-making authority and therefore it is the courts' constitutional role to implement what they think Parliament actually intended. (6) This paragraph is the most worrying, as it would appear to constitute an assessment offence. It would seem to have been taken directly from the Open University's website with no attempt made to clarify that these are not the words of the writer. In addition, there is no attempt made to provide a conclusion.