Since the thirteen’s century the common law became more self-conscious about what to do and became more systematic. There is much talk now about the proper way of doing things, of not being able to do this or that and much clever reasoning.
As I mentioned before The English Legal System has slowly been evolving over the years and its became much easier and much clever for everybody. Certain characteristics help to distinguish this law system from any other, such as the law of precedent, which is the basis of common law. So this shows that society needs a system of law, and if we didn’t have a legal system there would be more time and money spent on cases and everything would be as much complicated, as it was thousands years ago before the Norman Conquest.
2. But the fact is that English law changes as people and society change and it needs to be flexible to meet the needs of a changing society.
Lord Denning (1952) gave a lecture called “The need for a New Equity”. He argued that judges became too fearful and hesitant about adapting the law to changing conditions of society. Lord Denning felt that the judges were leaving the law to the Parliament, which was too slow and unwieldy to do he job properly.
Lord Scarman, in McLoughlin v O’Brian (1982) felt that the risk was not that case law might develop too far, but that it stood still, and didn’t adapt to the changing needs of society.
Paterson’s survey of 19 Law lords (1967-1973) found that the Law Lords had a duty to develop the common law in response to changing social conditions. Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd (2000) is a case where judges showed themselves willing to change the law in the light of social change. The case concerned a homosexual man, Mr Fitzpatrick, who lived with Mr Thomson (his partner) for 18 years. Mr Fitzpatrick was nursing and caring for Mr Thomson after he had an accident that caused irreversible brain damage and paralyse. After Mr Thomson died in 1994 his partner applied for the tendency of Thomson’s flat in which they lived together, which gave the tenant certain protection under the Rent Act. The landlords refused.
The Rent Act 1977 states that when a statutory tenant dies, the tenancy by a husband or wife, or a member of the family who was living with the tenant. Mr Fitzpatrick was in a close relationship with Mr Thomson, so his case sought to establish that he was a member of Mr Thomson’s family.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the couple could be a family and they pointed out that discriminating against same-sex relationships was out of step with the values of modern society. They also recognized that the law on succession to relevant tenancies was firmly rooted in the idea that families were based on marriage or kinship, and had only been concentrated on heterosexual couples living together as if married. The Court of Appeal concluded that it would wrong to change the law by interpreting the word family to include same-sex couples. All three judges agreed that these certain changes should be made, but it should be made by parliament. However, the House of Lords diverged the Court’s decision. It ruled that the appellant could not be a spouse of the dead tenant, but as a matter of law a same-sex partner could establish the familial link for the purposes of the legislation.
So, this moral case is one of the examples that show how English law changes as people and society change. And the law does change within the years.
E.g. many years ago being a homosexual was absolutely illegal, but it has changed now. Even in 1994 Parliament voted to change the age for homosexual from 21 to 18.
Lord Delvin saw new ideas within society as going through a long process of acceptance. He felt that there will be a dispute at first, but therefore people will accept certain ideas, or will at least become prepared to put up with them. And there will be a general agreement. We can see this process in the way that views have changed in this century (e.g. sex before marriage).
3. So, since the last century law has changed and it also amended to become more reliable. But it also needs certainty too. We cannot have our legal system in a continual state of flux. We must know that our actions, which are legal today, will not be illegal tomorrow. This should be kept in mind when charges of ‘being out of date’ are levelled at the law. As always, the line must be drawn between certainty and reform and the position of the line will have proponents and opponents.
The law has been reformed with the connection between moral, political and religious values.
The connection between political value and the law is that Parliament has the right to make or change any law and the court must enforce it and this right is unfettered. MPs are responsible to the voters and must reflect the views of the voter. Sometimes they can fail to gauge public opinion correctly, such as with the Poll Tax (1979), and the law doesn’t work. Sometimes, their reaction may be too quick to gauge public opinion, and the law may not be as carefully considered as it might have been. An example is the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in response to attack on children by pit bull terriers. So, it is to Parliament that we must all turn for reform of those areas of the law that are in the most pressing need to change.
An example of connection of the moral value and the law is the recent decision of House of Lords, that a man can be guilty for marital rape. This single decision overturned a very different centuries-old, judicial perception of the laws governing the relationship between husbands and wives.
An example of connection between religious values and the law is Marriage. For marriage to be valid, a licence (law) and a formal ceremony (religion) are necessary. So to get married in the Church of England the couple need to have a certain licence from civil authorities etc.
4. However, nothing can stand still. Law, religion, politics, people are changing as society changes and they all must adapt to social change if they are to retain the respect of at least most of society, without which they cannot survive. The English legal system is undergoing profound changes.
Within both branches of the legal profession (the solicitors and the barristers) there is a generalised acceptance of the need for reform and change. Debate is now over the pace of change and the type of reform.
At the same time, the legal system is under scrutiny by the public as never before. Clients are asserting their rights. They want to know about cost, efficiency, where and how to complain if they are dissatisfied with the way their case their case is handed.
So pressure groups from both within and without the profession keep up the demand for change. Enlightened judges and lawyers realize that yesterday’s concept sometimes has little relevance to todays. So, and expectations from the legal system and their requirements for justice have to be met.
The government’s role in bringing about change also cannot be overemphasized. An example is in the area of legal aid. The bill for legal aid has grown to £1,100 million a year. Both braches of the profession have tried to resist the cuts proposed in the legal aid system. Nonetheless, both branches will have to adjust to learner times.
The great division of law is into two separate branches - the civil and the criminal. The criminal law is enforced by the state in trials, which are initiated by the Crown Prosecution Service. Even with rising crime figures, only a minority of people are involved in the criminal justice system.
However, the civil law involves us all from our birth to our deaths. It governs our relationship with our families, our environment, our homes, and even our pets! The more we know about the law, the more we can understand the world around us and how to handle the problems we encounter in everyday lives.
