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

Critically compare and contrast the extent to which judges in civil law jurisdictions, (such as France), and those in common law jurisdictions, (such as England & Wales), could be said to make law

Extracts from this document...


Critically compare and contrast the extent to which judges in civil law jurisdictions, (such as France), and those in common law jurisdictions, (such as England & Wales), could be said to make law First of all, it would be prudent to clarify the definitions of both civil law and common law. Civil law is defined as: the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political or military matters.1 Common law on the other hand is defined as: a body of law that is based on custom and general principles and embodied in case law and that serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute common law of torts.2 Already it is clear to see that there is a significant difference between the two systems, in that civil law is not based on custom or precedent whereas common law is. However, what does this mean? Is one better than the other? Civil law developed from Roman law and Emperor Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, (Body of Civil Law). It was mainly adopted by places such as Continental Europe, Japan and Latin America. Civil law is older, more widely distributed and in many ways more influential than the common law. Common law on the other hand was formed out of the signing of the Magna Carta by King John in 1215 at Runnymede. ...read more.


decisis means that lower courts and the judges therein, are bound by what a higher court has decided in a previous case. This is known as precedent. Courts are also binding upon themselves, except for the House of Lords, which was bound by its previous decisions up until 26th July 1966 when the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, announced on behalf of himself and all the other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, that in future the House of Lords would regard itself as free to depart from its own earlier decisions.7 However, despite this doctrine no judge, no matter how eminent he or she may be, is entitled to tell another judge how to exercise his or her judgment in any individual case. So, it would appear that there is some leeway in the way in which a judge may interpret a piece of legislation put before him or her. Does this mean, however, that it can be said they are therefore making laws? Indeed, should a judge be able to make laws? Let us now discuss these matters further. The role of the judge is seen by many as being very clear cut and simple. However, if you look at it in more detail, it becomes evident that it is not as simplistic after all. To begin with not all judges carry the same roles. ...read more.


Indeed, a lot of our legislation now has to be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. So, there is a joining of the two systems of civil law and common law when we come to look at and interpret legislation today. According to s3.(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."12 Here it is clear that the civil jurisdiction of Europe is working in conjunction with our common law jurisdiction, without our system feeling as though we have lost the upper hand. In fact, to ensure that we do not feel as though our jurisdiction is being undermined, s3.(2)(b) & (c) even go as far as to say that our primary legislation is still supreme no matter what and s4 allows for a declaration of incompatibility to be decided in areas where our legislation may be incompatible with the Human Rights Act.13 Our judges still have the ultimate deciding factor in how the legislation is interpreted. Ultimately, one feels that as long as there are laws, statutes, legislation and indeed a legal system, one will always require the expertise of a lawyer or a judge to interpret the meanings of those materials and to argue over the minutiae of the meaning of a word. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System 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 University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. Judges ought to remember, that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; ...

    are abandoned, the concept of law itself can scarcely survive.'4 We can therefore deduce that judges should only perform their distinctive role and not be politicised; otherwise, the impartiality of rule of law could hardly be upheld. In varies case laws, judges were condemned for going a step further, not

  2. Precedents are not binding statements which future judges must follow. They are in fact ...

    Therefore there is a greater risk that they will be ill-considered and thus may be bad law. Only points of law are binding. For example, in Qualcast v. Haynes 1959, it was decided that the 'precedent' that employers who failed to give instructions on the use of protective clothing were

  1. Critically analyse the effectiveness of lay people and compare and contrast the roles played ...

    Local knowledge is seen as essential as magistrates must live within a reasonable distance of the court in which they sit, and therefore, being picked from their local constituency, many have a more informed picture of local life and the problems facing the public within it than professional judges.

  2. the law is never static; it is always changing, being interpreted or redefined

    The advantage of precedent is that previous interpretations of laws can be cited ensuring consistency although sometimes this is a disadvantage as it does not allow for change for example in the law concerning marital rape. Judges, who are practicing the law, are able to ensure that a statute is

  1. 'The role of the judge is to declare what the law is, and not ...

    different circumstances which would prevent the Court from having to follow its previous decision. These three exceptions are : * If a previous decision made by the Court of Appeal (civil) conflicts with a later Lords decision, it is obviously the Lords decision that is used as the precedent.

  2. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of using the literal rule. Question . ...

    If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond that you must not go." Lord Reid, Jones v. DPP 1962 "Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities

  1. Discuss Dicey's three propositions on the concept of the Rule of Law in the ...

    one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge" (Hayek, 1994, p.80). For example, in constitutional and criminal law, there is a prohibition on "ex post facto" laws, that is, no one should be punished for a crime not previously defined in law.

  2. The English legal system originates from Norman law and is a common law system.

    However, it must be recognized that equity's role (both past and present) is an addition to the common law and only available if the common law remedy is inadequate. Although during the early stages of its development equity maintained its flexibility and was able to create new principles of justice

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