THE LEGAL SYSTEM Flashcards
even though wales isnt referred to in ‘english law’ and ‘the english legal system’ - is it implied that englanf and wales operate under the same legal system
yes
note - the welsh leg body, the senedd, also has limited powers in relation to local taxation
scotland and northern ireland have different legal systems - there no such thing as ‘uk law’ or ‘british law’
english law is derived from primary and secondary legislation - give examples of both
primary - passed by parliament
secondary - passed under powers contained in the primary leg, judicial case law decisions (including in common law and equity) and customs and conventions (which are off lesser importance)
an additional category of law is retained EU law (REUL) - the extent and importance of this category within english law is to be reduced by the REUL (revocation and reform) act 2023 - with effect from the end of 2023, what does this act revoke
certain instruments of REUL and provides for the assimilation of all remaining REUL, which will be known as assimilated law
legislation means the laws passed by parliament. primary leg refers to acts of parliament (laws or statutes passed through parliamentary procedure) - it’s used for matters of national importance where it’s appropriate for both houses of parliament (HOC and HOL) to scrutinise a bill as it makes its way through the process. once a bill has been passed by both houses of parliament and given royal assent, what will it become
it will become the law and be called an act rather than bill - will come into force on the date set out in the act
all secondary leg is made under powers in the primary legislation - true or false
true
who are orders in council made by
privy council
what are statutory instruments
regulations, rules and orders passed by ministers
eg passing more detailed industry-specific rules and publishing detailed guidance on regulation or setting the date on which particular sections of the primary leg come into force, where the overall framework of the regulation is set out in the primary leg
the power to pass statutory instruments is given to ministers under the primary leg
who makes by-laws
LA’s can make local by-laws which need to be affirmed by ministers under the local government act 1972
other quasi-public bodies such as the national trust may also make by-laws under statutory powers given to them
parliament is sovereign and its acts are authoritative, the courts can’t contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, instead it’s the role of the courts to interpret and enforce legislation - true or false
true
if the drafting of an act is ambiguous, unclear or contradictory or will not apply to a new or unexpected situation - what rules will the courts apply
rules of interpretation
note - you may see interpretation described as construction - this doesn’t mean how the law has been constructed, it means how the law should be construed ie interpreted
in legal sense interpretation and construction are essentially the same
which rules of interpretation are judges free to use
literal, golden, mischief and purposive
courts have discretion in how they interpret and apply the law, and do not have to rigidly stick to rules - these rules are more like general approaches to understanding statute that the court might adopt
the literal rule
words should be given their plain, ordinary, natural meaning
if the words of the statute are clear, they must be applied as they appear on their face, even if the results are overly harsh or undesirable
the golden rule allows courts to presume that the leg was intended to have a wider meaning than that of the precise words used - this approach is appropriate to avoid a literal interpretation which would lead to..
- an absurd or inconsistent result or
- a result which would be an affront to public policy (such as allowing a murderer to inherit a parents possessions)
the mischief rule - where a statute is ambiguous the courts may interpret is by looking at..
the reason why it was enacted
what was the mischief or problem that the leg was intended to address
this isnt a wide ranging free hand for the courts to interpret and create new law - it must be possible to determine presicely the mischief the leg easn intended to remedy that parliament had failed to deal with it, and the words that parliament would have inserted if the issue had come to its attention
the purposive approach - takes a broader approach to interpretation of legislation in light of the purpose of that legislation
the judges assume the legislation is a basic frame and flesh out the precise meaning of the law over time through their judgements
in addition to the rules of construction and language, various presumptions are made when interpreting legislation - true or false
true
presumption that grammatical reading is what was intended
the starting point for the courts and if the meaning of a statute is clear from the words, then the courts will give effect to that meaning
presumption against alteration of the common law
parliament can expressly alter the common law, but the courts shouldn’t imply an intention to change the existing law
presumption against retrospective operation of statute
parliament can expressly state that an act comes into force on an earlier date, but if not, the courts should presume that statutes do not operate retrospectively
presumption against deprivation of liberty, property and private rights
parliament is presumed not to intend to deprive anyone of their liberty or their property, nor to interfere with their personal property without compensation
parliament can expressly impose a deprivation, but this will not be implied and and will be interpreted narrowly so as to interfere with the subjects liberty or property as little as possible
presumption against ousting the jurisdiction of the courts
parliament is presumed not to intend to oust the jurisdiction of the courts (for example ousting the courts from judicially reviewing gov decisions)
even where an ouster clause appears to clearly oust the court, the court will interpret that ouster clause very narrowly so as to have minimal effect on the court
presumption against binding the crown
acts of parliament are presumed not to bind the monarch unless the act expressly states as much, or it is a necessary implication of the words of the act