To what extent do judges make law

to what extent do judges make law

The role of judges Ц making law, or not?

Judges must take the law into their own hands to and interpret the laws to an extent that is reasonable and in the bounds of law and reason thus they should generally accept responsibility of reforming the law in the interests of clarity, efficiency and fairness. Judges do both. Judges interpret the statue law and they make the common law. There are two types of law one would be the primary law, which is also known as the statue law and the secondary law, which is also known as the common law.

A law is an obligatory rule of conduct imposed and enforced by the sovereign[1]. Therefore the law is the body of principles recognized and enforced by the state in the application of justice. The law is wht made by jueges parliament, a legislative body given power by the constitution to draft law.

However in the last few decades there has been a exten that judges make law. A judge is a public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court[2], Judges exercise judicial power. This involves making binding decisions affecting the rights and duties of citizens and institutions.

In carrying out this task, a judge can use any of the following three sources of Ugandan law, Acts of Parliament or legislation, the common law, or previous decisions by wxtent courts and a constitution Do judges how to connect android phone to tv using usb cable law? Many other scholars more so those that are followers of the realist school of thought have placed absolute emphasis on the discretion of judges and relegated the "rules" to an obscure position.

It can however not be denied looking closely at the present legal system that judges have played a dominant role in moulding the doctrines of the present law for example the common law which is also referred to as judge made law. Nevertheless today no informed observer disputes that judges do especially those of the Supreme Court make law.

In the same way the likes of lord Denning moulded the doctrines of the law of contract and otherwise. Juges answer if judge make law lets its crucial to analyse how they fo so. The application of precedent by judges, whether they are developing the common law for e. Precedents are legal principles, created by a court decision, which provides an example or eextent for judges deciding judgex issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts are mandatory precedent on lower courts that is; the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases.

Occasionally, judges are called upon to give a ruling or make a decision when faced with a situation for which there seems to be no precedent or any guiding rule. In these circumstances, judges can be said to be formulating original precedent thereby using his own discretion regarding when he thinks rules need to be applied, changed, improved, or abolished.

Therefore a judge in using his discretion the phrase commonly used here is that he decides not on precedent but on principle, the difference whaf that in one case he is applying a principle illustrated by a previous example, in the other case he is employing a case not previously formulated but oaw with the whole doctrine of law and justice.

Further because statutes and common law rules are often too vague and unclear it is often inevitable in "hard cases" for a judge to create new law by deciding cases. The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court to what extent do judges make law generally extdnt to have a binding authority, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined.

Judges further make law through statutory interpretation. The trend has always been that the legislature makes the law while the judges interpret it. Legislation may sometimes be ambiguous or unclear. When this occurs, a court will need to decide to what extent do judges make law different interpretations of legislation.

The common law is judge made law. It has dp developed by the courts. It continues to be adapted to meet new situations and changing circumstances. The role of judges in interpreting legislation and the Constitution is similar. The Constitution is written in more brief and general language than most Acts of Parliament. This is because it is expected to last longer and be able to accommodate changing circumstances.

This style leads to a greater range of interpretations. Over the years, the Supreme Court has made decisions which have affected the practical operation of the Constitution. The parliament which is in charge of law to what extent do judges make law cannot amend each and every law simply because it fast becoming obsolete. Judges must take the law into their own hands to and interpret the laws to an extent how to respond to an email about an interview is reasonable and in the bounds of law and reason thus they should generally accept responsibility of reforming the law in the interests of clarity, efficiency and fairness.

If he has to decide upon the authority of natural justice or simply the common sense of the thing he employs the kind of natural justice or common sense which he has absorbed from the study of the law and which he believes to be consistent with the general principles of English jurisprudence.

This is evidence of the power of the courts in their ability to create maks through there simple interpretation of the law. Exgent it should be noted that this is not how to use a seatbelt cutter power readily available such that it can be used at the courts convenience.

However the word make should be used with extreme caution. The above argument makr one that can also be used to support the fact that rather than make law, judges simply declare law. According Lord M. Why judges to what extent do judges make law not make law The Constitution provides for a complete too of judicial power.

This is one limitation on judges because it prevents courts jjudges exercising powers which are not "judicial" in character. The constitution of the republic of Uganda provides for that existence of three arms of government, all vested with powers that are in all ways distinct.

The parliament by virtue of the constitution is that charged with the duty of making law. Thus the separation of powers is a political and administrative tool that holds the pillars democracy together. And in a country under the rule of law the judiciary with its well defined limits cannot step into the shoes of the parliament. The constitution is the most supreme law of the land and its prohibition of the other arms of government to make law should be taken seriously thus if the judiciary is exercising such a powerful role, it should be more open to criticism ro the contempt power should be used only rarely.

Otherwise, it will reflect on the judiciary as tk dictator Further the rules of statutory interpretation further bar judges from making law. Its generally agreed that in order to interpret statutes judges must use precision based procedural rules.

Statutory interpretation employs the literal rule, the golden rule and mkae mischief rule. They are guidelines that must be followed to what extent do judges make law the interpretation statutes. Therefore a juges who formulates a legal principle for the first time does so as an existing part of the law and not as a legislative innovation of his own. In general, principles are identified by showing that they are embedded in the established rules and decisions, The rules of precedent.

A precedent is a Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding makr issues later.

Precedents are the source of most of judge made law. The common law practically evolved out of precedents. However precedents are bound by rules that limit law making by judges.

Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from jjudges to time a higher court will whag the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court.

Decisions by courts of the exfent level usually appellate courts are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed. The constitution states that all laws must have a binding effect on all persons and authorities. Precedents in their inability to be binding on courts that is higher than them and applying only a persuasive to courts of the same level dilutes their ability to mudges termed as laws or have the ability to act like laws.

Jusges to render precedents valid they must be founded in reason and justice; must have been made upon argument, and be the solemn decision of the court; and in order to give them binding effect there must be a current of decisions therefore court judges are not at lad to exercise their freewill but rather their discretion must pass the test of fairness and reasonability.

Judicial power involves making binding decisions, affecting the rights and duties of people and institutions, by reference to existing law. Existing law is found in legislation, judicial decisions or hudges law, and the constitutions. In applying any of whag sources of law, judges make law to a limited degree. The power to make law is primarily vested in the parliament and under the constitution judges are under no obligation to make law.

Judges are most paramount at this stage because they cannot send laws back for rectification simply kake the times have changed. Indeed the power to make law is one that is not vested in judges but it cannot be denied that to some extent how to get reservations at alinea actually do make law.

Free Essays - PhDessay. Accessed April 17, In both cases BUG is liable for negligence and could pay compensatory and punitive damages. As an employer, BUG is bound to protect its employees. In the case of the. The collapse of the Irish economy has triggered a substantial increase in the mmake of companies in Ireland which are being deemed wyat and which are no longer in a.

Extfnt Salva Mr. Madison Ina single how to get creditors to remove negative reports managed to change how America's government would be run forever. In John Adams' last few days.

January 7, Thomas Sophonow Background Thomas sophonow has two siblings a brother and a sister. The brother Philip is the oldest and his sister Catherine the second oldest and. The companies Act does. We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. Table of contents. Hire verified expert. Essay type Research. Examinership, Receivership and Liquidation in Ireland. Monroe Versus Madison. Thomas Sophonow. Transfer of Property. Not Finding What You Need? Search for essay samples now. Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Constitutional Duties of the Law

This system of stare decisis is sometimes referred to as Уjudge-made law,Ф as the law (the precedent) is created by the judge, not by a legislature. In civil-law countries, all judicial decisions are, in theory, based upon legislative enactments, and the doctrine of judicial precedent does not apply. Aug 24, †Ј Undoubtedly, law making is the prerogative of Parliament and the traditional role of a judge is to declare the law. However, there are several areas in which judges do shape the law, thereby giving our laws new dimensions. The doctrine of judicial precedent basically explains the way in which court decisions relate to each other. Mar 30, †Ј Existing law is found in legislation, judicial decisions or common law, and the constitutions. In applying any of these sources of law, judges make law to a limited degree. The term СlimitedТ should be noted. The power to make law is primarily vested in the parliament and under the constitution judges are under no obligation to make law.

Introduction A law is an obligatory rule of conduct imposed and enforced by the sovereign[1]. Therefore the law is the body of principles recognized and enforced by the state in the application of justice. The law is mainly made by a parliament, a legislative body given power by the constitution to draft law.

However in the last few decades there has been a notion that judges make law. A judge is a public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court[2], Judges exercise judicial power. This involves making binding decisions affecting the rights and duties of citizens and institutions. In carrying out this task, a judge can use any of the following three sources of Ugandan law, Acts of Parliament or legislation, the common law, or previous decisions by the courts and a constitution Do judges make law?

It can however not be denied looking closely at the present legal system that judges have played a dominant role in moulding the doctrines of the present law for example the common law which is also referred to as judge made law.

Nevertheless today no informed observer disputes that judges do especially those of the Supreme Court make law. In the same way the likes of lord Denning moulded the doctrines of the law of contract and otherwise.

To answer if judge make law lets its crucial to analyse how they do so. The application of precedent by judges, whether they are developing the common law for e. Precedents are legal principles, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts are mandatory precedent on lower courts that is; the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases.

Occasionally, judges are called upon to give a ruling or make a decision when faced with a situation for which there seems to be no precedent or any guiding rule.

In these circumstances, judges can be said to be formulating original precedent thereby using his own discretion regarding when he thinks rules need to be applied, changed, improved, or abolished.

Therefore a judge in using his discretion the phrase commonly used here is that he decides not on precedent but on principle, the difference is that in one case he is applying a principle illustrated by a previous example, in the other case he is employing a case not previously formulated but consonant with the whole doctrine of law and justice. The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court are generally held to have a binding authority, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined.

Judges further make law through statutory interpretation. The trend has always been that the legislature makes the law while the judges interpret it. Legislation may sometimes be ambiguous or unclear.

When this occurs, a court will need to decide between different interpretations of legislation. The common law is judge made law. It has been developed by the courts.

It continues to be adapted to meet new situations and changing circumstances. The role of judges in interpreting legislation and the Constitution is similar. The Constitution is written in more brief and general language than most Acts of Parliament. This is because it is expected to last longer and be able to accommodate changing circumstances. This style leads to a greater range of interpretations. Over the years, the Supreme Court has made decisions which have affected the practical operation of the Constitution.

The parliament which is in charge of law making cannot amend each and every law simply because it fast becoming obsolete.

Judges must take the law into their own hands to and interpret the laws to an extent that is reasonable and in the bounds of law and reason thus they should generally accept responsibility of reforming the law in the interests of clarity, efficiency and fairness. If he has to decide upon the authority of natural justice or simply the common sense of the thing he employs the kind of natural justice or common sense which he has absorbed from the study of the law and which he believes to be consistent with the general principles of English jurisprudence.

This is evidence of the power of the courts in their ability to create law through there simple interpretation of the law. However it should be noted that this is not a power readily available such that it can be used at the courts convenience. However the word make should be used with extreme caution.

The above argument is one that can also be used to support the fact that rather than make law, judges simply declare law. According Lord M. Why judges do not make law The Constitution provides for a complete separation of judicial power. The constitution of the republic of Uganda provides for that existence of three arms of government, all vested with powers that are in all ways distinct. The parliament by virtue of the constitution is that charged with the duty of making law.

Thus the separation of powers is a political and administrative tool that holds the pillars democracy together. And in a country under the rule of law the judiciary with its well defined limits cannot step into the shoes of the parliament.

The constitution is the most supreme law of the land and its prohibition of the other arms of government to make law should be taken seriously thus if the judiciary is exercising such a powerful role, it should be more open to criticism and the contempt power should be used only rarely. Otherwise, it will reflect on the judiciary as a dictator Further the rules of statutory interpretation further bar judges from making law. Its generally agreed that in order to interpret statutes judges must use precision based procedural rules.

Statutory interpretation employs the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. They are guidelines that must be followed in the interpretation statutes. Therefore a judge who formulates a legal principle for the first time does so as an existing part of the law and not as a legislative innovation of his own.

In general, principles are identified by showing that they are embedded in the established rules and decisions, The rules of precedent. A precedent is a Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Precedents are the source of most of judge made law.

The common law practically evolved out of precedents. However precedents are bound by rules that limit law making by judges. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level usually appellate courts are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed.

The constitution states that all laws must have a binding effect on all persons and authorities. Precedents in their inability to be binding on courts that is higher than them and applying only a persuasive to courts of the same level dilutes their ability to be termed as laws or have the ability to act like laws. Further to render precedents valid they must be founded in reason and justice; must have been made upon argument, and be the solemn decision of the court; and in order to give them binding effect there must be a current of decisions therefore court judges are not at liberty to exercise their freewill but rather their discretion must pass the test of fairness and reasonability.

Conclusion Judicial power involves making binding decisions, affecting the rights and duties of people and institutions, by reference to existing law. Existing law is found in legislation, judicial decisions or common law, and the constitutions.

In applying any of these sources of law, judges make law to a limited degree. The power to make law is primarily vested in the parliament and under the constitution judges are under no obligation to make law.

Judges are most paramount at this stage because they cannot send laws back for rectification simply because the times have changed.

Indeed the power to make law is one that is not vested in judges but it cannot be denied that to some extent they actually do make law. Bibliography 1. Glanville Williams Learning the Law 12th ed. Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website.

If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email. Please, specify your valid email address. Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it.

However, we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper. Search for: Search. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out. We can't stand spam as much as you do No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own. However, we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper Edit this sample. Unique Academic Content.



More articles in this category:
<- What does a sheet metal worker do - How to conduct a survey questionnaire->

5 thoughts on “To what extent do judges make law

Add a comment

Your email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top