AC 1.1 Flashcards
The Commons
Most important part of the parliament, elect MPs to represent an area of the country
Bill
Proposal for a new law
Green Paper
Initial report to trigger public discussion. Get individual and organisations to respond to
White Paper
Draft version of the bill to be put before the parliament
The First Reading
Government introduces the bill into the commons. Formal announcement of the bill
The Second Reading
Debate in the house of commons and a vote is taken. If a majority of MPs agree the bill goes to the next stage
The Committee Stage
The bill is looked at by MPs from different parties and changes may be made.
The Report Stage
Give the MPs an opportunity to look at the changes that have been made and vote if they agree with the changes.
The Third Reading
Final chance for the commons to debate the bills content. No further changes are allowed to be made
The Lords
Goes to the House of Lords, the lords go through the same stages as the commons and if they make amends to the bill it goes back to the House of Commons.
Royal Assent
Ones passed by both houses it is then signed by the monarch. This then turns the bill into a law.
What are the judicial processes of law making
-Judicial precedent
-Statutory interpretation
What is judicial precendent
Past decisions of judges create laws for future judges to follow
Exceptions to precedent
-Distinguishing
-Overruling
Distinguishing
The precedent only binds to the present case if the legal principle involved is the same and if the facts are similar in both cases. When you distinguish the case the judge finds that the facts in the present case are different from the previous case and will allow them to reach a different decision and not follow precedent
Overruling
A higher court in the heirarchy states that a legal decision in an earlier case is wrong and overturns it
Statutory interpretation
Judges can make laws by the way they interpret the statutes or Acts of Parliament.
A statute is a written law.
Judges need to interpret the meaning of words and apply them to the cases they are judging.
Interpretation rules
•The literal rule
•The golden rule
•The mischief rule
The literal rule
Judges should use the everyday meaning of the words in a satute BUT words can have several meanings.
Eg. R v Maginnis (1987)-case involving illegal drugs-different meanings were found for the word supply.
The golden rule
The literal rule can sometimes lead to absurd result.
E.g. Under the Official Secrets Act (1920) it was an offence to obstruct Her Majesty’s Forces in the vicinity of (near to) a prohibited place, such as a naval base.
In the case Adler v George (1964) Adler stated he had not broken the law because he was not literally in the vicinity of a prohibited place but was actually in it. The court chose to apply the golden rule to avoid an absurd result and Adler was convicted.
The mischief rule
Allows the court to enforce what the statute was intended to achieve, rather than what the word actually says.
Eg Licensing Act (1872) makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a carriage on the highway.
In Corkery v Carpenter (1951), Corkery was found guilty even though he had been in charge of a bicycle
