Lawexchangecouk shared-resource2637

The Need: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],How do we legislate? Acts of Parliament. Types: Delegated Legislation. ,[object Object],UK Parliament: L e g i s l a t i o n (1) ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Influences on law making: The legislative Process: Pre-legislative Process: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Green Paper: Bills: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

*Continuation of Pre-legislative Process* ,[object Object],L e g i s l a t i o n (2) First Reading: The bill is introduced to the HOC – merely notifies the House of the Bill and it’s the subject matter. No debate. Committee Stage: The bill is explained by the Minister and followed by a ‘political’ debate about the principles of the bill, which is then followed by a vote. Second Reading: This follows the second reading, where the bill is examined inclusive of the subject area – bill is scrutinised and amendments can be made. Third Reading: This coincides with the report stage and makes a final debate about the bill in its amended form. Other House: Any amendments will only be effective if agreed by HOC – major function of HOL is to invite HOC to reconsider. If agreement is not reached bill can be sent for royal assent after a year. Royal Assent: The Monarch gives approval of the bill. Parliamentary Supremacy: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Green, Winged, Dragons, Fly, Slowly, Clockwise, Round, The, Old, Ruin. Limitations: ,[object Object],[object Object]

Delegated Legislation What: ,[object Object],[object Object],Why: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Types: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],1.Statutory Instruments: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],2.By Laws: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],3.Orders in Council: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],(Control) Enabling Act: ,[object Object],[object Object],(Control) Negative Resolution Procedure: ,[object Object],[object Object],(Control) Affirmative Resolution Procedure: ,[object Object],[object Object],(Control) Super-Affirmative Resolution Procedure: ,[object Object],[object Object],(Control) LRRA 2006: ,[object Object],[object Object],(Control) Negative Resolution Procedure: ,[object Object],[object Object]

D e l e g a t e d L e g i s l a t i o n (2) JUDICIAL REVIEW: ,[object Object],*CONTINUATION* Void to Substantive Ultra Vires: ,[object Object],[object Object],Void to Procedural Ultra Vires: ,[object Object],Void due to Unreasonableness: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Effectiveness: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Advantages: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Disadvantages:

S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (1) The Need for SI: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Literal v Purposive Approach: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Literal Rule: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Golden Rule: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Mischief Rule: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (2) Purposive Approach: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Intrinsic & Extrinsic Aids: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Rules of language: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Presumptions: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Prevents cases ending in absurdity/injustice (LORD DENNING) Relies on the use of extrinsic aids, especially Hansard which causes delays and adds costs to the case. Allows the court to take account of changes in language (Cheesman) Difficult to find Parl’s intent especially where there have been social and technological changes since Parl. make the law. Allows the court to take account of social and technological advances (Quintavalle) Trying to find intent gives a judge too much power – may be construed as making rather than interpreting law (LORD SCARMAN & LORD SIMMONDS) Avoids problems with broad terms

E u r o p e a n L a w (1) LAW MAKING INSITUTIONS: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],EU Parl: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],EU Commission: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Council of Ministers: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],ECJ: Key Functions of the ECJ: ,[object Object],1. Hears cases – to decide whether MS have failed to fulfil obligations under the treaties – E.g. Re Tachographs where the UK failed to implement a regulation on the use of Tachographs in road vehicles for the carriage of goods. 2. Preliminary rulings – hears references from national courts for preliminary rulings on points of EU law under Art.234. Art.234: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],When must a referral be made? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Discretionary Referrals: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],CASE: Van Duyn v Home Office (1974)

E u r o p e a n L a w (2) Sources of EU Law: ,[object Object],[object Object],Primary: ,[object Object],Secondary: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Treaties: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],EU Constitution: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Vertical & Horizontal direct effect: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Secondary sources: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Directives & Direct effect: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Indirect Effect: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Effect of EU Membership: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Benefit of EU Membership:

Judicial Precedent What is JP & the concept of Stare Decisis: Stare Decisis – ‘ stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established’. Supports idea of fairness & provides certainty. Where past decisions of judges creates law for future judges to follow. Higher courts bind lower courts and in some cases themselves. Created by the ratio decidendi & referred to as ‘case law’. Cases which illustrate stare decisis – Knuller v DPP and Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services (where despite regarding an earlier decision as wrong, refused to overrule using the practice statement, preferring certainty) Accurate law reporting is essential for stare decisis to operate. Stare decisis can be avoided by distinguishing, overruling and reversing Ratio Decidendi & Obiter Dicta Ratio Decidendi Principles of law used to decide a case – ‘reason for deciding’. Sir Rupert Cross: ‘any rule expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion’. The part of the decision that forms the precedent for future cases to follow. Obiter Dicta The remainder of the judgement. ‘Other things said’. Judge in future cases does not have to follow but may be persuasive (Howe & Gotts) Problems Separating the ratio and obiter More than one speech at the end of the case with different reasons for decisions (ration decidendi) Types: Original ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Types: Binding Hierarchy of the Courts Types: Persuasive ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],COURT COURTS BOUND BY IT COURTS IT MUST FOLLOW ECJ All courts None HL All courts in the ELS ECJ CA Itself (with some exceptions) DC & all other lower courts ECJ & HL DC Itself (with some exceptions); HC & all other lower courts ECJ, HL, CA HC County Court; Mags ECJ; HL; CA; DC CC Possibly Mags All Higher Courts MC None All Higher Courts ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Certainty Rigidity Consistency & fairness in the law Complexity Precision Illogical Distinctions Flexibility Slowness of Growth Time saving

Judicial Precedent (2) CA bound by HLs The Privy Council & Precedent Decisions not usually binding but form persuasive precedent. Usually follow decisions of the HL except where the point of law has developed differently in the country from which the appeal has come. Unusual case = A-G for Jersey v Holley – PC refused to follow HL’s decision in Smith (Morgan James). CA in ELS then followed Holley rather than Smith because the decision was made by 6 law lords. The Privy Council & Precedent Distinguishing: The judge finds that the material facts of the case are sufficiently different for him to make a distinction between the case he/she is hearing and the past one. – He is then not bound to follow it. Balfour v Balfour (1919) & Merritt v Merrit (1971) Avoiding Precedent: Distinguishing ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Court of Appeal & It’s OWN precedent: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],CA is bound by the HL and ECJ. Can depart from HL decision in human rights cases where it is different from the decisions of the ECHR Lord Denning: an avid champion of the view that the CA should not be bound by the decisions of the HL. ( Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (1971) LD refused to follow the HL in Rookes v Barnard (1964) Schorsch Meier GmbH v Henning (1975) and Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976) the CA refused to follow HL in Havana Railways (1961) which said that damages could only be awarded in sterling. On appeal to the Lords they pointed out that the CA had no right to ignore overrule decisions of the HL. However the HL then went on to use the Practice Statement to overrule its own decision agreeing with the reasoning of Lord Denning. Avoiding Precedent: Overruling & Reversing ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Reasons for CA being able to depart from HL Reasons Against CA being able to depart from HL ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Lawexchangecouk shared-resource2637

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Lawexchangecouk shared-resource2637

Similar to Lawexchangecouk shared-resource2637 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lawexchangecouk shared-resource2637