Compare and contrast the methods of law making
1.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.1. On Tuesday 23rd of February …asked me to create a report which compares
and contrasts the different methods of law making.Therefore it must be included the
advantages and disadvantages of judicial precedent, avoiding precedent and
creating an Act of Parliament (support each point which case and Act examples) and
providing similarities and differences between statute and precedent.
2.0 PROCEDURE
2.1 In order to write this report I will use the following information: -
- the notes from my classroom
- the information from P6 and P7
- the internet sources about the statute and precedent
3.0 FINDINGS
Parliament (legislature) is a body with the highest legislative authority in the United
Kingdom as it checks and examines the work of government.Therefore it is debating
and approving the new laws that are offered by the government. The Parliament is
consisted of The House of Commons (elected MPs) and the House of Lords.
A Bill can only become an Act of parliament when the House of Lords and the MPs
both vote to support it.However through the Act of Parliament 1911 and 1949 the
House of Lord power to reject a Bill was limited. A Bill can still become a law if
rejected by the Lords provided it is re- introduced into the HOL.
3.1 Judicial precedent
Judicial precedent is the system that involves common law and where the majority of
judges are created laws in order for the future judges to follow.Therefore it stand
from ‘what went before let it stand or to stand by the decision’.Also there are three
types of precedent which are binding precedent ,persuasive precedent and original
precedent.
A binding precedent is the part of a judgement that other judges have to follow from
an earlier case.In addition the inferior judges must follow these precedent even if
they do not agree with the made decisions but the fact are enough similar to the
cases that was heard earlier by the judge who is superior therefore who made the
decision.In contrast to the binding precedent, the persuasive precedent need not be
followed, but it may be helpful to a judge making a decision. If a judge decides to
follow a past decision that was not binding, the decision is said to be
persuaded.Furthermore the persuasive precedents consists of :
- a decision of a lower court (R v R, 1991 case that was heard by the House of
Lords. The case involved a defendant who was charged with the attempted rape of
1.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.1. On Tuesday 23rd of February …asked me to create a report which compares
and contrasts the different methods of law making.Therefore it must be included the
advantages and disadvantages of judicial precedent, avoiding precedent and
creating an Act of Parliament (support each point which case and Act examples) and
providing similarities and differences between statute and precedent.
2.0 PROCEDURE
2.1 In order to write this report I will use the following information: -
- the notes from my classroom
- the information from P6 and P7
- the internet sources about the statute and precedent
3.0 FINDINGS
Parliament (legislature) is a body with the highest legislative authority in the United
Kingdom as it checks and examines the work of government.Therefore it is debating
and approving the new laws that are offered by the government. The Parliament is
consisted of The House of Commons (elected MPs) and the House of Lords.
A Bill can only become an Act of parliament when the House of Lords and the MPs
both vote to support it.However through the Act of Parliament 1911 and 1949 the
House of Lord power to reject a Bill was limited. A Bill can still become a law if
rejected by the Lords provided it is re- introduced into the HOL.
3.1 Judicial precedent
Judicial precedent is the system that involves common law and where the majority of
judges are created laws in order for the future judges to follow.Therefore it stand
from ‘what went before let it stand or to stand by the decision’.Also there are three
types of precedent which are binding precedent ,persuasive precedent and original
precedent.
A binding precedent is the part of a judgement that other judges have to follow from
an earlier case.In addition the inferior judges must follow these precedent even if
they do not agree with the made decisions but the fact are enough similar to the
cases that was heard earlier by the judge who is superior therefore who made the
decision.In contrast to the binding precedent, the persuasive precedent need not be
followed, but it may be helpful to a judge making a decision. If a judge decides to
follow a past decision that was not binding, the decision is said to be
persuaded.Furthermore the persuasive precedents consists of :
- a decision of a lower court (R v R, 1991 case that was heard by the House of
Lords. The case involved a defendant who was charged with the attempted rape of
