Muhammed Awais
M1- Comparing and Contrasting Law Making
In this report I will talk about the differences and similarities between MP’s in the House of Commons and the
judges in the court. These differences are between making laws. Some of the things I will include in this report
is the length of creating a law. The length of amending a law, who pays for the different form of law making,
how people are selected in the body, the level of people who are making the law, the background of the judges
and MP’s, who will they consult when making the law, the influences there are on the body and when the judges
and MP’s can make the laws.
Firstly I will talk about how long it will take to create a law or a case. Parliament can take a long time to make
an Act of Parliament as it will need to go through several stages before it can actually become an act. The stages
it will need to go through are; first reading to the third reading. Then it will need to be passed onto the next
house. It can go from the House of Commons to the House of Lords or opposite. This can take several years to
become an act. When the bill is passed from one house to another it can be time consuming. The queen will also
need to sign for the law to become an act. This can be long as the queen might want information before deciding
on signing the papers. But sometimes parliament can make act of laws quickly. An example for this is the
‘Election Act 2001’. During this time the act became a law in 7 days. This is because there was a dangerous
disease which was at large. The disease was Foot and Mouth disease. This occurred in 2001. Due to the outcry
the prime minister at the time Tony Blair said that the election would be postponed from May 3rd to June 7th
2001. The act was created on 3rd April 2001 and received Royal Consent on 10 April 2001. Similarly in the
cases which are made by judges. They also take a long time as they need to start from the bottom of the court
hierarchy and slowly go up the hierarchy. Once a case is made the judges in the court cannot change it until a
similar case comes into court. The cases take a long time to go through the appeal court process. For example
the case of Begum V Denbigh. This case had taken 3 years to go to the Supreme Court. Too add on there was
another case, this case was about a women who was campaigning against a clinic. Mrs Gillick said that it was
wrong for the clinic to provide contraception for a girl who is under the age of 16 without the permission of their
parents. Victoria Gillick on 5th August 1982 went to the High Court which was here first court. On 26th July
1983 the judge had refused to accept what was set by Victoria Gillick. Victoria then went to an appeal court and
on 20th December 1984 the appeal had listened to Victoria and granted her request. But the clinic was not happy
and they appealed the decision to the Supreme Court which decided to grant the clinic. So overall the Clinic had
won. This case shows that it could take a long time for a matter to be solved. The case was valid from 5TH
August 1982 to 17th October 1985.
Secondly I will talk about how long it can take to amend an existing law. Parliament can quickly make changes
to laws which they had already made. But they will still need to debate the case before it can be amended to the
act of law. Amending a law is fairly quicker than creating a new law. An example of a case which was changed
quickly is Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It had taken parliament 3 weeks to amend this law. This was changed by
using statutory instrument. The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 received royal assent on the 25th July 1991 after some
dogs were terrorising children. The children were being terrorized by pit bull terriers. Parliament wanted to ban
some dogs. Some of the one’s on the list of band dogs was a Pit Bull Terrier and a Japanese Tosa. The law was
first introduced on 25th July and had received royal assent on 12th August 1991. It took just 17 days to amend the
law. On the other hand judges cannot amend a binding precedent they can only amend it after another case of
similar facts comes into court. For example it had taken 22 years for the case of R V Caldwell to be overruled. It
was overruled by R V G and R. The case of R V Caldwell was about when a drunk man had burnt a hotel he
was sacked from. He was charged with subjective recklessness. But 23 years later R V G and R came into court
which was about two children who burnt a newspaper and threw it into the bin next to a supermarket. The
supermarket had caught fire and had £1 million worth of damage. This was then changed subjective recklessness.
The payments which are made for both courts are funded by different groups of people. In parliament the people
who make the laws are funded by the public. The public pays for their wages through taxes. On the other hand
in the court which is run by judges this is generally paid for by the person who will go to court. They will be
privately funded. Due to the costs not everyone will appeal to the courts due to the costs involved in doing so.
M1- Comparing and Contrasting Law Making
In this report I will talk about the differences and similarities between MP’s in the House of Commons and the
judges in the court. These differences are between making laws. Some of the things I will include in this report
is the length of creating a law. The length of amending a law, who pays for the different form of law making,
how people are selected in the body, the level of people who are making the law, the background of the judges
and MP’s, who will they consult when making the law, the influences there are on the body and when the judges
and MP’s can make the laws.
Firstly I will talk about how long it will take to create a law or a case. Parliament can take a long time to make
an Act of Parliament as it will need to go through several stages before it can actually become an act. The stages
it will need to go through are; first reading to the third reading. Then it will need to be passed onto the next
house. It can go from the House of Commons to the House of Lords or opposite. This can take several years to
become an act. When the bill is passed from one house to another it can be time consuming. The queen will also
need to sign for the law to become an act. This can be long as the queen might want information before deciding
on signing the papers. But sometimes parliament can make act of laws quickly. An example for this is the
‘Election Act 2001’. During this time the act became a law in 7 days. This is because there was a dangerous
disease which was at large. The disease was Foot and Mouth disease. This occurred in 2001. Due to the outcry
the prime minister at the time Tony Blair said that the election would be postponed from May 3rd to June 7th
2001. The act was created on 3rd April 2001 and received Royal Consent on 10 April 2001. Similarly in the
cases which are made by judges. They also take a long time as they need to start from the bottom of the court
hierarchy and slowly go up the hierarchy. Once a case is made the judges in the court cannot change it until a
similar case comes into court. The cases take a long time to go through the appeal court process. For example
the case of Begum V Denbigh. This case had taken 3 years to go to the Supreme Court. Too add on there was
another case, this case was about a women who was campaigning against a clinic. Mrs Gillick said that it was
wrong for the clinic to provide contraception for a girl who is under the age of 16 without the permission of their
parents. Victoria Gillick on 5th August 1982 went to the High Court which was here first court. On 26th July
1983 the judge had refused to accept what was set by Victoria Gillick. Victoria then went to an appeal court and
on 20th December 1984 the appeal had listened to Victoria and granted her request. But the clinic was not happy
and they appealed the decision to the Supreme Court which decided to grant the clinic. So overall the Clinic had
won. This case shows that it could take a long time for a matter to be solved. The case was valid from 5TH
August 1982 to 17th October 1985.
Secondly I will talk about how long it can take to amend an existing law. Parliament can quickly make changes
to laws which they had already made. But they will still need to debate the case before it can be amended to the
act of law. Amending a law is fairly quicker than creating a new law. An example of a case which was changed
quickly is Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It had taken parliament 3 weeks to amend this law. This was changed by
using statutory instrument. The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 received royal assent on the 25th July 1991 after some
dogs were terrorising children. The children were being terrorized by pit bull terriers. Parliament wanted to ban
some dogs. Some of the one’s on the list of band dogs was a Pit Bull Terrier and a Japanese Tosa. The law was
first introduced on 25th July and had received royal assent on 12th August 1991. It took just 17 days to amend the
law. On the other hand judges cannot amend a binding precedent they can only amend it after another case of
similar facts comes into court. For example it had taken 22 years for the case of R V Caldwell to be overruled. It
was overruled by R V G and R. The case of R V Caldwell was about when a drunk man had burnt a hotel he
was sacked from. He was charged with subjective recklessness. But 23 years later R V G and R came into court
which was about two children who burnt a newspaper and threw it into the bin next to a supermarket. The
supermarket had caught fire and had £1 million worth of damage. This was then changed subjective recklessness.
The payments which are made for both courts are funded by different groups of people. In parliament the people
who make the laws are funded by the public. The public pays for their wages through taxes. On the other hand
in the court which is run by judges this is generally paid for by the person who will go to court. They will be
privately funded. Due to the costs not everyone will appeal to the courts due to the costs involved in doing so.
