What is common law?
Common law is generally uncodified which is, there are no inclusive collation of legal rules and statutes. Common law is dependent on some scattered statutes. This is the decision of the legislation and is largely based on precedent. Precedent is the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. The function of common law as an adversarial system is a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people, who is without legal training, decides on the facts of the case. Then the appropriate sentence is decided by the judge based on the jury’s verdict.
Traditional emerge of common law in UK
Common law is also called Anglo- American law. This is a body of customary law, founded on judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases that have been administered by the
…show more content…
Common law is still important body in the legal system as parliamentary law. Judiciary plays a vital role in the areas that are not covered by statutes. Judicial precedent hails from from decisions made by judges which create law for later judges to follow in the future. This is based on the Latin term ‘Stare Decisis’ which means let the decision stand. This supports the idea of fairness and certainty in law. If the higher court overruled the decision, in the court hierarchy, then new law applies.
• For example; in the case R v R [1991] UKHL12. Is a court judgement delivered in 1991. In 1990, R, the defendant was convicted of attempting to rape his wife. He appealed under common law on the grounds of a purported marital rape exemption. The defendant claimed that it was not legally possible for the husband to rape his wife. The wife had given irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband through the contract of marriage, which she could not subsequently
5.)What is the nature of law as described in Common Sense? Over whom is it binding and why? Common Sense if basically a rant on how badly the English have treated the colonists and why they should attempt to become independent from British rule. In his writing Paine states that in a monarchy the king is the law so in a free country the law should be king. In the colonies the king was the law for the colonists and the law was unfair and cruel.
Id. at 22. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Neven, Nash, and Cox, who is not a named defendant, were “deliberate [sic] indifferent to the Plaintiff’s personal safety by their failure” to create adequate procedures for handling “PREA cases” (Prison Rape Elimination Act). Id. at
Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite
Legal history A system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties, this is the definition of law. Although the definition of law is evident and perceptible,the portrayal and act of law varies. Throughout the justice system there are many inconsistencies such as the type of law, there is common,criminal,civil, and administrative. Throughout these systems of law there are also criminal proceedings. In these criminal proceedings, some will find that the verdict is just.
Onychectomy, or declawing, is a surgical procedure to remove cat’s claws, usually for reasons convenient to the owner. Many people support the declawing of cats for the protection of their furniture and children. Cat claws can quickly tear up furniture and scratches often make people sick. Because scratching is a deeply ingrained instinct in cats, if there is no appropriate spot or post for them to scratch at, they will be forced to substitute furniture or other objects. However, declawing is a dangerous and inhumane practice that is unnecessary for cats.
Laws are universal, although they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. In order to do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it. Presumably, a Justice’s judicial philosophy is at least somewhat associated with his/her political ideology. For instance, if a Justice has conservative beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial restraint”–the theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit (or restrain) the exercise of their own power. Conversely, if a Justice has more liberal beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial activism”–the theory of judicial interpretation that is suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law–or simply, broad(-er) interpretation.
Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts.
1 Introduction Consent can be defined as voluntary agreement, compliance or permission. Consent is a unilateral act, and so consent may be withdrawn by one person. People are allowed to “waive their legal rights” if they choose to do so. This would mean that the victim, by consenting to suffer harm, excuses the wrongful conduct of the person who has inflicted the harm and thereby excuses him/her of being held liable.
Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 243. What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory in finding the defendant liable (Herron, 2011). Under the strict product liability theory, K-Mart (seller) would be held liable for defects in their products even if those defects were not introduced by them; also for failing to discover them during production (Herron, 2011).
The appellant had intercourse with the complainant. The issue raised in this case is did the complainant consent to the sexual intercourse. The appellant did not consider whether she consented and proceeded with it anyway. In the judgment of R v Tolmie , when Kirby P was defining inadvertent recklessness, he referred to the statements in DPP v Morgan and
Definition and Description of Procedural Justice Procedural justice is the act involved in decision making. It incorporates the process of involving transparency and fairness in making decisions. The incorporation of justice in this process is equally essential it entails that all parties allowed to give their views before decision are made concerning a given matter. Some theories state that restorative and distributive justice might not be met but for as long as there is a fair and justice procedure, there is always the possibility of having outcomes that are equitable (Jason &Tyler, 2003).
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
Furthermore, another disadvantage of the doctrine of the judicial precedents is injustice. The harsh rules of judicial precedents might create injustice in individual cases. Indeed, law is created basing itself on past experiences, but we should take into consideration that we are unable to build more experiences if the first case is binding. The doctrine of the judicial precedents restricts the development of the law. Since we live in a dynamic world and things are always changing, it is quite of a disadvantage to stick with a law on the experience of yesterday.
In the article entitled ‘Determining the Ratio Decidendi of the Case’ by Arthur L. Goodhart, I underwent a roller coaster-like journey on exploring the science behind the nature of a precedent in English law. Goodhart started with the attempt to explain the full meaning of ratio decidendi in the simplest terms. He referred to Sir John Salmond’s definition in which I have interpreted ratio decidendi as the principle of law that is found in a court decision and possesses the authority to be binding. Ratio decidendi should be distinguished from a judicial decision, as the latter is a wider concept and contains the ratio decidendi, whereas the former is a principle that carries the force of law. In another reference, Professor John Chipman Gray
The applicant, the mother of the infants, had been divorced by the respondent, the father of the infants. At the time of the divorce, the Kathi had recorded a consent order giving the custody of the infants to the respondent. Since the divorce the applicant had remarried a man not related to the infants. It was contended by the respondent inter alia (a) that the applicant was precluded from making the application as she had consented to the order for custody made by the Kathi; (b) that the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 was inapplicable as the infants were