Hence most reforms are made by Parliament. They can repeal old and obsolete laws by enacting a new statute, create new law to meet new needs. They can also consolidate law by bringing all successive statutes under a particular area of law and bring them to form 1 single statute. They can also codify law where all rules under a single statute is compiled and put under a newly created statute. This makes law more certain, consistent and accessible. However, if the statute is too rigid, the interpretation might be very narrow, If the statute is too vague, the interpretation may be too broad.
There are several problems with parliament reforms. The legislative process makes it slow and cumbersome. Parliament does not sit all the time hence there may not be many reforms. Also the whip system makes the process very biased as officials have to ensure that the MPs vote for their own parties. It is unlikely that the Bill would not go through. These problems hinder the effectiveness of the Parliament.
Other major reforms can also be made by Law Commission, which is a permanent body set up in 1965, which consists of a Chairman(High court judge), A Queen Counsel with expertise in criminal law, a solicitor with expertise in land law and equity and 2 legal academics. Their job is to remove anomalies, repeal consolidate simplify and modernize law. They handle projects recommended by Lord Chancellor, government department or where they think needs reforms.
They usually first identify the defects in the law and examine foreign legal systems to see how they deal with it. Then a consultation paper is released which contains shortcomings of the present system, possible ways to reform and opinions to reform. A final document is sent to the government department to decide whether to approve or reject proposals and passes any necessary bills to parliament.
The Royal Commissions is temporary, consisting of a wide cross section of people (minority legally qualified, majority people with expertise in relevant area). They are independent and non-political. They may commission research to find out the effects of reform. Final reports are sent to government who may accept or reject proposals. Examples are Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lord.
However, there are some criticisms on such agencies. There is a lack of power. Government is not obliged to follow the proposals if they are not in line with political priorities. In the case of President of India v La Pintada, there was a proposal of no interest payable not on contract debt unless parties agree otherwise. Lobbying from consumer organisation and CBI made it that government did not implement the policy.. However, If they do accept reforms, they could turn out to be completely different having been radically altered.
There is also a lack of influence due to things like lack of funding. For example the Royal Commission of the Criminal Procedure stated that under the PACE, individuals are entitled to free legal advice. However, lack of legal funding frustrated such aims.
Another problem is waste of expertise as the Royal Commission is disbanded after the proposal is made. There is no one single ministry that is responsible for law reform.
Other agencies that participate in law reforms are pressure groups such as AGE UK, Shelter, Law Society and JUSTICE. Their effectiveness is based on size persistence and power. Public opinions also contribute to law reforms- people may write to their MPs or newspapers.
There should be a single ministry that is responsible for law reforms. There would be higher level of expertise and accountability developed over time. It should include non-legal and legal experts for different perspectives and the government should be required to take into account proposals. The current agencies of law reform in England and Wales are effective in some ways but this effectiveness in hindered by many problems. It would be better to have one single ministry responsible for law reform.
by
zhilinglim27gmailcom (student)
