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

Separation of Power

Extracts from this document...


Under the theory of separation of power, Parliament makes UK law while the role of judges is to apply the law to the cases. However, in reality, do judges make/develop the law? Like Lord Radcliffe said in 1968 "there was never a more sterile controversy than upon the question whether a judge makes law. Of course, he does. How can he help it?" Judges in the UK do develop the law through both the operation of the doctrine of judicial precedent and statutory interpretation. In precedent, judges were thought to not make new law. However, it is now recognised that they do use precedent to create new law or extent old principles in various areas. In criminal law, judges have played a major role in developing the law on intention (Vickers 1957 - intention for murder includes intention to cause GBH, later was confirmed in Cunningham 1982; or Moloney 1985, Nedrick 1986 and Woolin 1998 and the law on foresight of consequences in relation with intention). Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) - offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. ...read more.


overruled Havana Railways (1960)). From Young case (1944), Court of Appeal (CoA) can overrule its own previous decisions and most other courts are also not bound by their own previous decisions. Since the precedent refers to the legal principle based on material facts (ratio decidende), all judges can use distinguishing. This means if the judge finds a material fact that is sufficiently different to draw a distinction from the previous cases, he is not bound by those cases. It has been used in the law on duress (Shephred 1987 was distinguished from Sharp 1987) or in intention to create legal relations in contract law (Merrit v. Merrit 1971 and Balfour v. Balfour). Distinguishing is often used in tort cases. Read v. J Lyons & Co. (1977) was distinguished from Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) in that nothing escaped from the land and Evans v. Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd (1938) from Donoughue v. Stevenson (1932) as there was other potential causes of the failure of the product. In statutory interpretation, judges are asked to decide the precise meaning of words in an Act of Parliament. Some follow the literal rule which states that the words should be given their plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning as in Oxford Dictionaries. ...read more.


The rules have allowed judges for flexibility to decide the cases but they are often criticised as giving too much freedom to change the law to suit policy consideration e.g. R v. O' Grady (1987). Although judicial creativity allows judges to respond immediately to the problems before them (R v. Children 2000) which might take years for Parliament to make new law, or helps to develop the law to catch up with technology development (intellectual properties law) or protects the individual (R v. R 1991), since judges are not democratically elected by public, their roles should just be to apply the law (Bellinger v. Bellinger 2001). Another problem with judges involving in making law is that the decisions are given in a short time period and they do not involve in the lengthy debates/consultation by the Parliament. Thus, they may not make rules appropriate to all situations (Morgan v. Launchbury 1972). More importantly, judicial creativity appears to be lack of consistency. Judges can overrule or reverse the previous decisions (Pepper v. Hart (1993) reversed Davis v Johnson (1974) on the use of hansard.) Whether judges should make law or not, they inevitably do. However, generally their decisions help to develop the law correctly and they do respect the sovereignty of Parliament and are content to leave the policy matters to the elected legislature. ...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 Law of Tort 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 Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    The Equality act 2006 gives the government powers to create rules banning the discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to the provision to goods and services, meaning that hotels, GPs or anything in the public sectors cannot refuse to serve gay people or offer them a lesser services than to heterosexuals.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Lord Atkin emphasised the need for a relationship of proximity between the parties in addition to the notion of foresight and reasonable contemplation of harm. Once a claimant has shown that there is a duty of care it is necessary for them to prove that the defendant was in breach of that duty.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    This was shown in the case R v Allen (1988), the defendant had consumed home made wine and did not know it was extremely strong. He then committed sexual offences. He stated he did not realise what he was doing as he was so drunk.


    Contrast, however, Rennaway -v- Thompson (1980) where the nuisance complained of was noise from motorboat racing and water-skiing. The Court of Appeal held that a nuisance existed and they granted an injunction, which limited the number of days on which large-scale activities could take place, and limited the noise level on other occasions.

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    Mens rea is either Intention (direct intent or indirect intent) or Recklessness. s20 is hybrid offence, 5 years max. penalty. More serious injuries than for s 47 Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides that Grievous Bodily Harm is an offence triable either way with a maximum custodial sentence of 5 years.

  2. Q, believe that the pistol which he was about to clean was loaded, pointed ...

    * R v Seymour [1983], the necessary mens rea for reckless manslaughter was Caldwell recklessness as to some harm. There must be an obvious and serious risk of some harm, and (a) either the defendant must have realised that risk and decided to take it, or (b)

  1. negligence in tort

    The defendant's were held liable in negligence because it was held that a duty of care was owed to him even though the illness he suffered was extremely rare. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Therefore Titus and his employer were not liable for the damage of Maria?s shop or Anthony?s restaurant. On the other hand, Sam?s employer could be held vicariously liable for the damage of Hugh because Sam has made a negligence that he didn?t take care of Hugh as duty of a police.

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