There are two main sources of English Law- legislation and cases. When interpreting legislation judges must ascertain the intention of Parliament and, except insofar as they apply the mischief rule of interpretation, they do not make law. Traditionally and due to the doctrine of the separation of powers judicial role is really not properly legislative at all, but consist merely in stating what the existing law actually is, and interpreting authoritatively doubtful points as they arise.
This traditional approach of common law, which insisted that the judges had no power whatever to make law but simply ‘declared’ it as it had always been. Judges were regarded as specially qualified exponents and interpreters rather than the creators of the law.
The assumption was that the common law was a complete system of legal rules and principles sufficient to meet any fresh combination of facts that might be presented to the court, and that judges did not make new law.
By the (18th century), it was manifestly understood that the idea of judges doing no more than declare the law was a hollow pretence, and this idea was roundly stigmatised by both Benthem and Austin as a childish fiction.
To suggest that Judges make law is to endow them with an unrestricted power of laying down abstract principles, but they have no such unlimited power. Such legislative power as a judge may possess is necessarily limited to the facts of the case before him, and as a corollary, his decision will be law only in so far as it may be necessary for his actual decision. The ration decidendi is the essence and the rule and all else is obiter dicta and will not bind Judges in future cases. A Judge has no freedom of choice, since statutes or precedents must limit his action and although a Judge may have Power to regard either he has no right to do so and in so far as he does, he violates the law.
Judges help to develop law but cannot be said to legislate since the common law is not made but has grown and “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”. If we agree that, in a sense, Judges may make law, the same may agree they can alter it, make a decision, another court reverses the decision and that is law, eventually it reaches the H.O.L. and then that is the law. In each of these steps the law is made – ‘a judgement once declare is a new stock of descent’.
Even Pollock points out that Case Law can no longer be cited as an instance of fictions, for the courts, so far from pretending that they do not add to and alter the law, constantly and freely use language admitting that they do. Justice, moral fitness and public convenience when applied to a new subject, make common law without a precedent; per Willies J in MILLER vs. TAYLOR 4Bon 2312.
It is argued that the prerogative of Judges is not to make law by declaring it and formulating it – this is for the legislature – but to make the law by applying it to cases as it comes before them. It is however, being increasingly accepted that judges are capable of “making law” through the interpretation of statutes, particularly the mischief rule and the doctrine of precedent. Furthermore, it is clear that when an act of Parliament makes no special provision for the case in question and there is no existing precedent, the Judge must and necessarily ‘creates new law’.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Common law is found in the decisions of the courts rather than statutes; judge- made law…
- 1529 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
* Law is determined by what rules the courts are willing and able to enforce…
- 989 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Judges can only develop or change the law when a relevant case is brought before them. A case will be brought by a person who feels aggrieved or injured and has decided to have the issue resolved in court. A person bringing a case must have ‘standing’, that is, be directly affected by the case.…
- 342 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
It is essential for them to be independent and impartial for sake of rule of law. The Rule of Law claims that no governmental figure shall be above the law. Keeping judges as unbiased mediators of the law helps this – dicey claimed “equality before the law- equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law. It is vital that the courts serve as an unbiased body independent of the legislature which is made the law, and that they act independently of the executive in interpreting the meaning of laws. Central to the general idea of the rule of law is the specific proposition that it involves a rule of law, rather than the rule of people. From this perspective , judges are seen as subservient to, and merely the instrument of, the law; and the outcome of judicial process is understood as being determined through the straight forward application of legal rules, both statute and precedent, to particular factual situation. In applying those rules, the judge is expected to act in a completely impartial manner, without allowing his personal preferences to affect his decision in any way. A further assumption is that in reaching a decision, the judge is only concern with matters of law and refuses to permit politics, economics and rather non- legal matters to influence his decision. The law is assumed to be distinct from, and superior to, those…
- 1997 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
On a deeper level – means to be fair and just; you may need to…
- 1161 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Thorpe, M. (2012). U.S. Law and the History of English Common Law. Retrieved from http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/CommonLaw.htm…
- 1080 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Common law – the body of law that developed from custom or judicial decisions in English and US courts, not attributable to legislature.…
- 5394 Words
- 22 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The common law of England was one of the three main historical sources of English law. The other two were legislation and equity. The common law evolved from custom and was the body of law created and administrated by the king’s courts.[7]…
- 2052 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
A court may depart from a precedent if the precedent is no longer valid. TRUE…
- 1581 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
The Honourable Michael Kirby’s pro-activism article centers around the view that judicial method must divert from the traditional method of legalism that Justice Kirby defines as “strict logic and high technique”. It starts by outlining the need for the judiciary to make this transition into judicial activism due to societal changes, where strict legalism is put under pressure. Justice Kirby then goes on to explain that the method of judicial activism should not be abused by the judges, where it should “be anchored in legal authority” and be “neither wholly mechanical or excessively creative”. He describes that “restraint” be used when using judicial activism to ensure that a total ignorance of the written law does not occur .…
- 1148 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
A. Common law is a legal system that is largely formed by the decisions previously made by courts and not imposed by legislatures or other government officials. The reasoning used to interpret this type of law is known as casuistry, or case-based reasoning. It is a strict, principle-based reasoning that uses the circumstances of a case to evaluate the laws that are applicable. Decisions that were made about similar cases are valuable, and the case in question is evaluated on the basis of past cases. The strength of the similarity among the cases, in turn, strengthens the reasoning based on them.…
- 1366 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
previous cases and the application of their judgement to a present case, basic way judges make their decisions in the common law system…
- 900 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Judges are members of the judiciary, and so their role is to question, apply and interpret the law made by Parliament. For this reason, some have suggested they need more power in order to perform their task properly, others have suggested they cannot. Let us explore these arguments in more detail.…
- 1318 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The judiciary plays a unique and pervasive role in American society because of its influence in establishing legal precedent, regulating industry, and crafting social policy. The judiciary is the arbitrator of disputes involving nearly every aspect of human experience, and in many cases these disputes cannot or will not be resolved by the executive, the legislative, and the electorate. Unlike the other branches, the judiciary has no choice but to make some type of decision on the presenting issues. Even a decision not to hear a case has significant repercussions on the relevant issues,…
- 3787 Words
- 16 Pages
Powerful Essays -
* Legal system derived from common law: settles disputes on a local level with judges…
- 2365 Words
- 10 Pages
Powerful Essays