Before a new law is made a proposal is put forward in the form of a Bill. If this is approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords then it will become a law. There are three main types of Bill:
Public Bills
Private Bills
Private Members Bill
There are a number of stages to a Parliamentary Bill becoming a law which you will need to be able to explain:
Green & White Papers
First Reading
Second Reading
Committee Stage
Report Stage
Third Reading
'Ping Pong' between houses
Royal Assent
For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85. Also in Shaw v DPP the House of Lords held that a crime of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed. This was followed in Knuller v DPP [1973].
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on stare decisis. That is the standing by of previous decisions. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case, that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts.
In order for the doctrine of judicial precedent to work, it is necessary to be able to determine what a point of law is. In the course of delivering a judgment, the judge will set out their reasons for reaching a decision. The reasons which are necessary for them to reach their decision amount to the ratio decidendi of the case. The ratio decidendi forms the legal principle which is a binding precedent meaning it must be followed in future cases containing the same material facts. It is important to separate the ratio decidendi from the obiter dicta (other things said).
There exists a hierarchy of the courts. The basic rule is that a court must follow the precedents from a higher court, but they are not bound to follow decisions from courts lower in the hierarchy.
You need to know all four of these including how they work, at least one reference case per rule and their advantages/disadvantages
Language itself can pose certain difficulties whenever we try to interpret it’s meaning. Words may be spelt the same but mean different things. Consider for example, the two meanings of the word ‘Bat’ and how that might affect a piece of law. Does a law that uses the word ‘he’ only apply to men? What if the meaning of a word included in a piece of legislation has changed over the years?
Because of these kinds of difficulties the need for methods of interpreting laws becomes apparent when judges are dealing with Acts of Parliament that are often complicated and/or old.
This focuses on the words used and requires the judge to apply the words used, even if the outcome is not that intended by Parliament.
Case Example :
A modification of the Literal rule. Starts with the literal meaning of words but when these lead to repugnant (unjust) outcomes the courts will modify the meaning of words.
Case Example:
This rule seeks to understand the original issue a relevant Statute sought to address (the ‘mischief’) and then apply the law to fill any gaps.
Case Example:
The judge seeks to interpret the words of the statute to give effect to Parliament’s intentions.
Case Example:
R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle [2003]