The rulings for this trial will now be applied to future cases, similar to this. Judges look at a previous case, which is similar and in an equal or higher court and they will then use this information to decide on the verdict. Precedents can be avoided if higher courts have not dealt with a similar case and therefore the lower courts can’t rely on them to determine the outcome. Another reason they may be over-ruled is if the previous case is very old and no longer right to apply. Task 2 UP – Describe the process when making an Act of Parliament: http://www. Reliant. UK/about/how/laws/passage-bill/ A bill is the application for a new law or change to an existing one. It is then oaken to the government where it will go through a process and a decision will be made whether it becomes a law or not. The bill will start in one of the houses (Lords or Commons) and it will then go through a number of stages and readings. There is also the opportunity to make amendments, which means it will have to go through the houses again before it reaches the royal assent.
This process can take weeks, months, or years for a law to be created or changed, depending on the importance and whether amendments have to be made. Task 3 UP – Explain the rules of statutory interpretation: 1. The Mischief Rule a. If the act does not fall clearly into a specific legislation, the judge can apply the Mischief Rule. This means it takes into account what parliament actually meant when it was made. They will look at the law before the statue was made and take this into consideration when making their judgment. 2. The Literal Rule a.
This is the first rule that judges should apply in court as the words are given in their ordinary meaning and are applied without the judge explaining them in order to make better sense of the statue. 3. The Golden Rule a. This rule can be applied if the literal rule could lead to an illogical outcome. The court can then apply a second meaning. An example of this rule being used was Growths 1 935; He murdered his mother, who hadn’t made a will and therefore he was to inherit everything, but the judge applied the Golden rule and he was entitled to nothing, due to the circumstances.
Task 4 MM -? Compare and contrast the methods of law making: Laws can be created two ways, either via precedents or through the Acts of parliament. Precedents will take in consideration past cases which are similar and then they will then use the case as a guide to determine the outcome. Laws made through Acts of Parliament are new laws or changes to existing ones. They will go through many stages before they are made a law. In court judges use precedents to help them make their decision and if there isn’t a previous case similar then they will use the case for future cases and this is known as an original precedent.
Acts of parliament start off as ‘Bills’ and are made by either the government or public and they will be approved by both House of Lords and the House of Commons, before finally being approved by the Royal Assent. Once the Act has officially been made into a law it will apply to everyone in the UK. Bills vary in how long they take to become an official awe and it usually weeks to years, depending on the importance and whether there needs to be any amendments or not. Precedents on the other hand, do not take long as they will be made after the court case has finished and the offender has been found guilty or innocent.
Precedents can be good as they use previous cases as a GUID and therefore it makes it easier for a judge to make a decision, based on this. It also means if it is a pretty rare case that doesn’t happen very often then then the judge may find it very hard to give a verdict as they won’t have any previous experience, so by looking at a precedent it is a lot easier. However, precedents are sometimes very old and outdated so they may no longer apply, but they can then update them to suit the present time. Acts of Parliament are new laws or changes to existing ones which are in the publics interest.
The benefits of these are that they are new and made in the present, they also have to go through many stages and can be altered before they are made into a law to ensure they will be fully effective. However, the process can be very time consuming. Also because there are so many stages it means there is a higher chance someone will want to amend the law in omen way, making the process even longer. Precedents are fairly easy to interpret as the judge will read it and then compare it to the current case and then use it to decide the outcome.
However, because some precedents are very old, the judge may find it difficult to understand some parts, if they aren’t familiar. Laws made through the Houses of Parliament are going to me written in a more modern way and so they should be easier to understand, however to the normal public, they may find the wording too advanced and confusing. Believe that both are very important, but the Acts of Parliament are slightly ore important as they affect the whole UK population and are put in place to benefit them.
However, Precedents are also important as they help judges make rational decisions and they are a good GUID. This being said some Of them are very old now and there are still statutory rules the judge has to follow. Task 5 MM – Apply the rules of statutory interpretation: “One spring morning a panther escaped from a local zoo. It was found a little while later on a farm some 10 miles away. It had chased and killed two animals. The farmer wanted to sue the zoo. The Rolland v Fletcher case would help with the situation as, although the zoo id not purposely let the animal it out, it still did damage. During the Rolland v Fletcher case, Rolland paid contractors to build a reservoir which unintentionally ended up flooding and causing damage to Flincher’s mine. This was due to the builders not correctly blocking the passages. At first Ireland’s was favored, however Permeable 8 argued that Fletcher had the right to enjoy his land free from water and interference, which resulted in Rolland being found guilty of trespassing and commissioning nuisance.
This applies to the situation as the Zoo would have safety measures and gate/ encase in place to prevent animals escaping, however one accidentally did and this part of the first rule and second rule of the tort law, ‘A bringing on to land’ due to its escape and ‘Of a thing which is likely to do mischief, if it escapes’ The reason for fences in a zoo is to keep the animal in as there is a possibility it could case harm or do damage.
It was found on someone else’s property, which is trespassing and the panther chased and killed 2 animals on the farm. This is the fourth rule ‘The thing actually escapes, causing damage’ Therefore, according to Rolland v Fletcher, the zoo should be help expansible and is guilty for the damage caused. The literal rule applies to this situation as it is the same circumstances, with a worse outcome, due to the death of 2 animals. The Jude does not not have to explain the reasons or give their own opinion.
Task 6 DO – Evaluate the role of the judiciary in the formulation and interpretation of legal rules: Donahue V Stevenson was a case in 1932, and was because Mrs. Donahue found a snail in the drink her friend bought her in a cafe. She had already drank half her drink before seeing the decomposed snail and suffered personal injury as a result. Rolland V Fletcher was a case in 1 868, where a reservoir flooded a working mine and caused a lot of damage. The is s tort law, which means it is a type of law used in civil law, but has caused harm. This law was used in the Donahue V Stevenson case.
There are 5 requirements which have to be met in order for the victim to win the case. 1 . Accumulation – “The defendant much bring hazardous material onto their land and keep it there. If the the thing is already there or is naturally there, there is no liability under Rolland v Fletcher. ” According to the cafe owner he did not put the snail in the drink and so it was already there, meaning he was not liable. 2. A thing likely to do mischief – “The thing not need be inherently hazardous, it need only be a thing likely to cause damage if it escapes. This rule does apply to the case as the snail caused injury due to its escape. Stevenson did not deliberately put the snail in the drink, however if the snail was to escape and someone drank it would be unhealthy and they could choke which is hazardous. 3. Escape – “There must be an escape from the defendants land. An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability under Rolland v Fletcher. The snail did escape as the woman found it in her glass, she also suffered personal injury. . Non-natural use – The snail was in the drink because of the supplier and therefore it was not the cafe owners fault. Don’t think Stevenson could not be liable as it was already in the drink when he accepted it from the supplier and so he had no control over it. He did not put the snail in on purpose so it wasn’t his fault. However, Donahue should be compensated as it was not right that she had that in her drink, she also received personal injury, so the supplier should be held liable and pay compensation.