Statutory Interpretation And The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent

929 Words4 Pages
• 'There is, in fact, no such thing as judge-made law, for the judges do not make the law, though they frequently have to apply existing law to circumstances as to which it has not previously been authoritatively laid down that such law is applicable’. Lord Esher MR in Willis v Baddeley [1892] 2 QB 324 (CA) 326 With reference to the rules of Statutory Interpretation and the doctrine of judicial precedent, discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement. CONSIDER STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ONLY FIRST 1000 WORDS IN structure; Introduce statutory interpretation, Explain it – 3 riulesm aids etc Explain as you go alon which is for which is against, evaluate these Arguments for: Only apply existing law to cases Statutory Interpretation; intrinsic and extrinsic aids and rules to follow to interpret statues – no judicial law making. Though they apply existing law, due to ambiguity in statutes or languae used – can be out of date, attitudes have changed, interpret statutes in different ways could lead to 2 different decisions on the same case, no scientific formula or consistency and precison in interpreting statutes- the rules leave too much to the judges own interpretation which may not be taking into account the intention of parliament – effectively creating new law? Within the Separation of powers in the UK, Parliament (the legislature) make the law via statutes, and the Courts (the judiciary) interpret these statutes and apply the law
Get Access