Help with this 10 mark question?

[cuppo5]

"Our common law system of law making ensures that similar cases with similar fact situations receive similar rulings by judges".

-Describe this key feature of our law making process
-explain another way courts make laws and critically evaluate the effectiveness of this process of law making by the courts.

[michak]

This is what I would say:
- Discussion of what common law is - precedent, the priniciple of stare decisis, binding precedent and the court hierarchy (lower courts must follow the ruling if the material facts are similar)
- Discussion of statutory interpretation as the other way to make law, I would also just through in one example or so about why statutes need interpreting
- Then evaluate how effective it is, you would probs need 3 points how its effective and its downside, could say:
     Having the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and fairness in the outcome of similar cases however this may result
     in an injustice if forced to follow an out of date precedent
     Could also mention that this process is flexible because of RODD so new law can be made but some judges may be
     conservative and not see it as their role to make law

And there are others
Hope that makes sense 
 

[morgs21]

This is what I would say:
- Discussion of what common law is - precedent, the priniciple of stare decisis, binding precedent and the court hierarchy (lower courts must follow the ruling if the material facts are similar)
- Discussion of statutory interpretation as the other way to make law, I would also just through in one example or so about why statutes need interpreting
- Then evaluate how effective it is, you would probs need 3 points how its effective and its downside, could say:
     Having the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and fairness in the outcome of similar cases however this may result
     in an injustice if forced to follow an out of date precedent
     Could also mention that this process is flexible because of RODD so new law can be made but some judges may be
     conservative and not see it as their role to make law

And there are others
Hope that makes sense 

When you talk about statutory interpretation as being the other means to make law, are you talking about one of the effects being parliamentary action (such as abrogating the precedent) ?

[michak]

This is what I would say:
- Discussion of what common law is - precedent, the priniciple of stare decisis, binding precedent and the court hierarchy (lower courts must follow the ruling if the material facts are similar)
- Discussion of statutory interpretation as the other way to make law, I would also just through in one example or so about why statutes need interpreting
- Then evaluate how effective it is, you would probs need 3 points how its effective and its downside, could say:
     Having the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and fairness in the outcome of similar cases however this may result
     in an injustice if forced to follow an out of date precedent
     Could also mention that this process is flexible because of RODD so new law can be made but some judges may be
     conservative and not see it as their role to make law

And there are others
Hope that makes sense 

When you talk about statutory interpretation as being the other means to make law, are you talking about one of the effects being parliamentary action (such as abrogating the precedent) ?

Nah just statutory interpretation in general
When they interpret statutes and give meanings to words, this is making law. So in future cases that may need to look at that piece of legislation unless parliament abrogates their interpretation, the legisaltion and interpretation are now read inconjunction

[morgs21]

This is what I would say:
- Discussion of what common law is - precedent, the priniciple of stare decisis, binding precedent and the court hierarchy (lower courts must follow the ruling if the material facts are similar)
- Discussion of statutory interpretation as the other way to make law, I would also just through in one example or so about why statutes need interpreting
- Then evaluate how effective it is, you would probs need 3 points how its effective and its downside, could say:
     Having the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and fairness in the outcome of similar cases however this may result
     in an injustice if forced to follow an out of date precedent
     Could also mention that this process is flexible because of RODD so new law can be made but some judges may be
     conservative and not see it as their role to make law

And there are others
Hope that makes sense 

When you talk about statutory interpretation as being the other means to make law, are you talking about one of the effects being parliamentary action (such as abrogating the precedent) ?

Nah just statutory interpretation in general
When they interpret statutes and give meanings to words, this is making law. So in future cases that may need to look at that piece of legislation unless parliament abrogates their interpretation, the legisaltion and interpretation are now read inconjunction

Ah ok. I always just thought of it as the interpretation/decision becoming the precedent...
If they used this in the exam I think a lot of people would panic D:

[michak]

This is what I would say:
- Discussion of what common law is - precedent, the priniciple of stare decisis, binding precedent and the court hierarchy (lower courts must follow the ruling if the material facts are similar)
- Discussion of statutory interpretation as the other way to make law, I would also just through in one example or so about why statutes need interpreting
- Then evaluate how effective it is, you would probs need 3 points how its effective and its downside, could say:
     Having the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and fairness in the outcome of similar cases however this may result
     in an injustice if forced to follow an out of date precedent
     Could also mention that this process is flexible because of RODD so new law can be made but some judges may be
     conservative and not see it as their role to make law

And there are others
Hope that makes sense 

When you talk about statutory interpretation as being the other means to make law, are you talking about one of the effects being parliamentary action (such as abrogating the precedent) ?

Nah just statutory interpretation in general
When they interpret statutes and give meanings to words, this is making law. So in future cases that may need to look at that piece of legislation unless parliament abrogates their interpretation, the legisaltion and interpretation are now read inconjunction

Ah ok. I always just thought of it as the interpretation/decision becoming the precedent...
If they used this in the exam I think a lot of people would panic D:

Yeah just be careful
The ratio decidendi of judges decision is what forms binding precedents
And any interpretation of statues also creates law (until parliament gets rid of it if they want)

[meganrobyn]

Because the interpretation/definition of the word in the statute *is* the ratio of that case. That's why it forms precedent, and precedent is law.