Terry Curtis
Sources of Law
.
Judges can avoid precedent by overruling a case, this occurs when the precedent was set in a lower court, so High Courts and Crown Courts can overrule, County Courts and Magistrates Courts. The Court of Appeal can overrule , High Courts, Crown Courts, County Courts and Magistrates Courts. The House of Lords can overrule, Court of Appeal, High Courts, Crown Courts, County Courts and Magistrates Courts, when this occurs the precedent is changed, but the previous ruling is not changed. In cases of economics the European Court can overrule all of the British courts.
Judges can also avoid precedent by reversing the decision this also occurs when a precedent is set in a lower court and so effects the same courts as previously mentioned in the same way, the difference is it involves the same case as dealt with in the lower court and so does effect the out-come of the case.
Judges can also avoid precedent by an obscure ratio, this happens when judges in a case find that the Judges in the previous case had not made it clear as to why they had come to their decision this happened in the case of HARPER-v-N.C.B. 1974 the court of appeal decided not to follow a precedent set by the higher court, the House of Lords, as the previous Judges had not made it clear if in the case of CENTRAL ASBESTOS CO.-v-DODD 1972 whether they awarded the plaintiff because he either knew that his illness was contracted at his place of work but did not know that he was able to sue, or that he knew he could sue but was not aware that his illness had arisen at his previous employment.
Judges can also avoid a precedent by disapproving a case even though the Judges can not overrule a previous courts verdict they can go on record showing their disapproval for a courts previous decision.
Judges can also avoid precedent by distinguishing between similar cases, such as what happened in the case of Lewis v. Averay (1972, C.A.), the judge had two similar cases put in front of them, Phillips v. Brooks Ltd (1919) and Ingram v. Little (1961, C.A.). These cases had two very different out comes, they were both cases where the victims had sold belongings ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Judges can also avoid a precedent by disapproving a case even though the Judges can not overrule a previous courts verdict they can go on record showing their disapproval for a courts previous decision.
Judges can also avoid precedent by distinguishing between similar cases, such as what happened in the case of Lewis v. Averay (1972, C.A.), the judge had two similar cases put in front of them, Phillips v. Brooks Ltd (1919) and Ingram v. Little (1961, C.A.). These cases had two very different out comes, they were both cases where the victims had sold belongings to someone who was purchasing the goods under an alias, therefore committing forgery, but in the first case ( Phillips v. Brooks Ltd) the Judges had found that the contract of ownership had carried over to the buyer, even though it was under deception, and so when he re-sold the goods the new owner could keep them, and in the second case (Ingram v. Little) the judges ruled in favour of the seller saying that no contract had passed between the previous owners and the offendent, and so even after reselling the goods they in fact were still the property of the original sellers and had to be returned. The Judges were quite clear about their decision and found in favour of following the case of Phillips v. Brooks Ltd (1919) , Lord Denning showed his disapproval of INGRAM v. LITTLE (1961,C.A.) and said that 'he could not see no valid distinction of fact between the two cases'. So by distinguishing between the cases the Judges are allowed to follow a case and not be bound to what they consider to be the wrong decision.
2.
A Bill is a proposal of a new law, or an amendment to a current law, for it to become an Act of Parliament, it must go through eleven stages. A Bill can be addressed in either House, except for a few, that must come from the House of Commons.
The first stage is called, 'The first reading', at this stage the Bills title is read out to the House and then printed and published, this gives parties on all sides a chance to read what the proposed Bill is about.
The second stage is called, 'The second reading' at this stage the Minister in charge of the Bill will explain the purpose of the law or why the current law should be amended. A debate on this matter will then take place, this will be followed by a vote, if the bill passes the vote it will move to the third stage, if not it can be amended and brought back at a later date.
The third stage is called, 'The committee stage', as the name suggests a committee is formed, this can either be the whole House sitting as a committee, or a standing committee of 20-50 MP's can be formed, the number of members from each party will depend on the constituencies that party holds, the Bill will be examined in detail by the committee and any amendments to the Bill will be made.
After this House will move on to the fourth stage, this is called 'The report stage', the Bill is 'reported' to the House and amendments that were made at the committee stage are considered, following this the House will move to the fifth stage.
The fifth stage is called, 'The third reading' at this stage there will be a debate again and small amendments may be made, then a vote will take place, if the Bill wins this vote it will move to the other House, where stages six to ten will take place.
Stages six to ten are the same as the first five stages only they take place in the other House, once the Bill passes through these five stages it is presented to the reigning monarch for their approval, this is called 'The Royal Assent', once this is given the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and becomes legislation.
An example of this would be The Further Education and Training Bill, it was introduced by Lord Adonis, Department for Education and Skills, on the 20th of November 2006 from the House of Lords, and has passed through all ten stages and is now awaiting Royal Assent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caudle, A., 1999, Leading Questions And Student Evaluations. Retrieved on 6 February 2008 from clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/112.asp
Ehrhardt, C., 1996, Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination. Retrieved on 19 February 2008 from www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/232/ehrhardt.html
Green, M., 2004, Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable. Retrieved on 5 February 2008 from www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
Johnson, P., 2006, Post-conviction DNA testing: the UK's first 'exoneration' case?. Retrieved on 5 February from www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1351149
Lafferty, K., 2002, Testing the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony. Retrieved on 29 January 2008 from www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/HumBeh_p014.shtml
Loftus, E., 1975, Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Retrieved on 12 February 2008 from www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/loftus75.pdf
Martindale, H., Criminal Law: Could This Happen to Your Spouse or Child?. Retrieved on 19 February 2008 from www.truthinjustice.org/lawstory.htm
N/A, 2008, Wyoming lawmakers approve DNA testing bill. Retrieved on 22 February 2008 from www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog.php
