• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Judicial Creativity

Extracts from this document...


Judicial Creativity Essay Judicial Creativity is where judges develop and shape the law. This occurs as a result of their interpretation of statutes and following of the rule of precedent whilst deciding cases - either departing from decisions in earlier cases or applying existing principles to new situations. Under the rules of precedent, decisions from the appellate courts (House of Lords, Court of Appeal and High Court) have a binding influence over the judges in lower courts - they must follow the higher courts over previously decided principles. Persuasive precedent also exists through obiter dicta statements from the HL or CA, from courts in other jurisdictions as well as rulings from the Privy Council. It was held in the 19th century that judges didn't make law; they simply declared it. (Lord Esher - Willis v. Baddeley [1892]) However, this was dispelled by Lord Reid in 1972, who stated that "we don't believe in fairy tales anymore so we must, for better or for worse, accept that judges do create law" Judges are creative in many ways, primarily though, through the interpretation of statutes. Usually, judges apply the statute law to the case they're dealing with, especially if it is clearly worded and unambiguous, and then it'd be applied word for word. ...read more.


This gives judges another opportunity to exercise some creativity whilst presiding over cases through: overruling, reversal, new issues and extending the legislation. Overruling is a privilege enjoyed only by judges of the higher courts and is where and old case is replaced by another which better represents what would be the best for the public. Holley replaced Smith in terms of which characteristics could be used for the reasonable man in provocation cases, whilst Herrington superseded Addie v. Dumbreck in negligence. Reversal is where a higher court decides that the previous ruling on the case that has come before them on appeal was wrong. The arrival of a case that deals with a completely new concept gives the judge the chance to work on a blank canvas, no precedent exists for such a case and the judge can pass any decision he likes, within reason. Cases which exemplify this are Bland (Severe brain damage), Re. A (conjoined twins) and Gillick (distribution of contraception to underage girls.). All of the above were completely new cases in the English legal system. Despite all of this, there are limitations on what judges can do. ...read more.


Berriman and Clegg emphasise this, the judges didn't apply any further principles that would benefit the greater good. Negligence cases have also seen the neighbour principle applied to numerous new situations instead of overhauling the law to deal with them. It is also argued that judges shouldn't even be involved in decisions on policy which should be left to Parliament, the elected body. The cases of R v. R, Brown and Majewski are all examples of contentious public policy cases. Public policy does influence decisions where there is no legal principle to cover the situation, in these instances judicial activism is welcome and acceptable, so long as the judge makes his decision in accordance with society's views and opinions or else they shouldn't be made at all. Ultimately, the greatest limit on judicial creativity is the personality of the judges themselves. Only the most dynamic are bold enough to make decisions that could arouse controversy; Lords Denning is a perfect example of this, recognising co-habiting partner's rights and equality in divorce law. Despite this, the dangers of too much judicial legislation can be shown through Denning again who often came out with controversial and racist statements, not what is wanted from a law maker. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher


    4 star(s)

    Not until 1991 (n R v R) was rape in marriage accepted as a crime. Restricts the development of the law. It leads to distinguishing and hair splitting decisions which rules the law unnecessarily complex e.g. the law on automatism and voluntary intoxication which has led to some diabetics having

  2. Judicial Precedent

    William Blackstone introduced the declaratory theory, stating that judges do not make law but discover and declare the law that has always been. Blackstone does not accept that precedent ever offers a choice between two or more interpretations of the law and where a bad decision is made he states

  1. AS LAW - Judicial Precedent

    Decisions of court in other countries ...especially where the same idea of common law are used, commonwealth countries e.g. Australia McLoughin v O'Brian (1983) Nervous Shock in Negligence. Civil Cases. Criminal Cases European Court of Justice European Court Of Justice House of Lords House Of Lords Court of Appeal Court

  2. Statutory Interpretation

    The court ruled that the Act was attempting to prevent danger to pedestrians from drunk people in some sort of transportation and that would include bicycles. Even though the mischief rule does make leeway for some cases, it is

  1. Statutory interpretation

    As Susan was situated in the local high street I believe the judge would then only need to identify whether she was there for the 'purposes of prostitution'. If a judge ruled she was there for the purposes of prostitution then a conviction would be likely and if the judge

  2. Critically evaluate the partial defence of Provocation.

    He was convicted of murder and appealed on the ground that the judge should have directed the jury on provocation, the provocation being R's reaction to Johnson's own aggressive behavior. His appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter was substituted.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    the house of lord may follow a decision from the court of appeal although not bound to do so as in the case of R v R 1991 where they decided to make marital rape a criminal offence. Other sources can be from decisions made by the judicial committee of

  2. Indigenous peoples, almost without exception, have been dispossessed and disregarded by those who 'discovered' ...

    There does exist precedent for a Communication to the HRC on this basis, and the elements of a possible Gorgian claim will be considered with respect to relevant views previously expressed by the HRC in relation to article 27. Ilmari Lansman et.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work