Discussion Concerning the Principle Sources of Law in the UK

Discussion Concerning the Principle Sources of police in the UKThis hear testament consider the principle sources of police constrict in the UK, and how constabulary is do through Parliament which is considered the supreme integrity making body, common natural natural practice of law or law make by judges, and European Union law (EU law). It will explain the different processes by which law hatful be changed and how law reform is produced by parliamentary and judicial activity. It will so show how Parliament takes into account social, technological and economic changes when dealing with particularities of law reform through the right guidance, empurpled Commissions, and various member bills. It will also show how the workbench use variation of the law to apparatus reform it in an expedient way causal agent by case. term will be given to EU law and how this stirs the law making process.The British constitutution, unlike other constitutions through off the world i s an un indite constitution. It is a creation of historical progress and while m both of its sources be write it remains uncodified. The constitution sets out how billet should be balanced amid the g eachplacening bodies.In the UK there argon three main sources of law, parliamentary law ( polity law), Common law and EU law. Parliamentary law in the form of make believes, begin in a variety of ways as Bills, these are proposals for a parvenue piece of commandment present(a)ed to Parliament and must go through various stages of agreement, by both(prenominal) the accommodate of commonality and the hold of Lords before being form every last(predicate)y approved by the belief sovereign, in the form of kinglike Assent in order to aim part of the UK Law.Public Bills presented by a governing body minister affect the entire population and broadly speaking become proceeds of Parliament, while Private genus Phallus Bills although similar are presented by non government mi nisters such as system of macrophages or Lords. Many of these do non become law, but do raise humanityity around the issues they are concerned with. The Children chip 2004 created a Childrens Commissioner for England in response to issues raised from a Private Members Bill (The surface University, 2011, p.101). A Private Bill is presented by other organisations such as private companies and affects scarcely a minority of society. Bills may be passed because of a national emergency or in reaction to many new technology. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security behave 2001, was created in direct response to the events of terrorist attacks on America on 11 September 2001. It go forths for the indefinite detention without foot race of foreign nationals who are suspected of posing a threat to the credentials of this country (The Daily Telegraph, 2003). However, this may be incompatible with the European congregation on homo Rights (ECHR).During the law making process there ar e many influences on Parliament in the form of Law Commissions, Royal Commissions, and various pressure groups. The Law Commission was established by The Law Commission make up 1965 as an independent body to reassess the subsisting law, recommend reforms and abolish old laws or amend existing laws. Royal Commissions are advisory groups set up by Government to generally deal with non political issues. The introduction of the Criminal collecting achievement 1995 came active from recommendations from the commission when the Birmingham Six successfully had their convictions overturned.In the UK historically, the judiciary make law by way of contributing to the development of the common law. The ratified principles are built on through the courts by judges case by case over time, through an established practice of causation cognise as stare decisis meaning to stand by decided cases. In the case of R v R 1992 1 AC 599, the House of Lords, which was the highest court until 2009, de cided to over get previous precedent by recognising the offense of marital rape, however the House of Lords felt constrained to say they were changing the law, but were simply removing an error as to the true meaning of the law. stainless law reporting through Year Books, The Law Reports, Weekly get Reports and European Law Reports, allows for this legal belief to be collated, identified and accessed.The doctrine of vertebral column precedent refers to the hierarchical structure of the court system, and means that a decision made in a higher court is binding on the courts below it, however, this idler lead to the judiciary overstepping their constitutional parting by really making law instead of applying it. Judges toilet ensure that a statute is interpreted properly, giving flexibility without hold for Parliaments prolonged processes. By the use of statutory interpretation the judiciary can influence the law using finds developed over time, however, each rule can result in different decisions.Statutory interpretation is made up of four rules that the judiciary use when deciding on the end point of a court case. By applying the literal rule, the judge considers what the statute actually says in its every day meaning and applies this, unless this would produce an outcome that was absurd, accordingly the golden rule which allows the judiciary to look for other meaning for the voice communication in the statue. The mischief rule gives more discretion as the judiciary can look at the law before the statute was created, in order to discover what mischief the statute was intended to deal with. With the nonrandom rule the court is not just looking at what the statute intended but also what they think Parliament meant to achieve.The UK courts are divided into a hierarchy which practices law at all levels, in both civil and criminal matters. The lowest court is the Magistrates motor inns, followed by the Crown greet and County Courts, the steep Cour t, the Court of Appeal and the highest court is the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords). The hierarchy system means that decisions can be checked or tip overd by higher courts to take into account changes to political, social or technological conditions. Decisions made in the Supreme Court are binding to all UK courts. Other influences come from the European Court of adult male Rights (ECrtHR) and the Court of justness of the European Union which overrides domestic precedent.EU law has power over UK law, even without having been approved by the UK Parliament and, where applicable, the UK is bound by that law and cannot make conflicting laws. The UK was the first country to ratify the ECHR in 1951, and it has been introduced into slope law covering basics such as the mature to life, and the right to marry and found a family. Any new laws must be compatible with the ECHR.The Human Rights work on 1998 is classed as one of the most distinguished pieces of legislation in the UK, it allows the ECHR to be part of British law, and allows citizens to use the domestic court system when breaches of their rights are in dispute. Whilst this does not allow the courts to overrule an telephone number of Parliament, they can make a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Act. Parliament then decides whether the law should be changed, but this allows the judiciary some discretionary powers under s.8 allowing them to award remedies.Law making in England and Wales is ground on a democratic Parliament so that the public can curb an effect on law reform. Through general elections every five years it ensures that the government does not remain in power against the wishes of the people, however most people vote based on a partys proposals, and the winning party are not legally bound to celebrate these promises. As the first past the post election system is not a balanced representation system, a government may not have a majority of public support through votes, condescension winning a majority of constituent seats. This allows for a powerful government with overwhelming Parliamentary power to push through its take legislation whilst having the support of a minority of the people. Legislation can be passed during measure of crisis, following a breakthrough in science on gracious embryo cloning The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 came into force within nine days. The Law Reform Act 1965 codifies all areas of law, including corporate law, family law, and reproductive rightsThe introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) came about(predicate) in response to societys frustration with the lack of successful corporate pursuances such as the POs Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in 1987, R v PO 1991 in which 190 people were killed, when the bow doors were left contribute after setting sail. The current law at the time lacked viands for negligence where death occurred, as the common law offence required an individual to be responsible, even though the coroners report gave a ruling of unlawful killing. In such a large corporation the prosecution were not able to identify the individuals responsible for obvious and serious risk of exposure of the ship setting sail with its bow doors open (Bergman, D. 1990).The Law Commission with pressure from the health and Safety Executive and the Centre for Corporate office proposed reform for the creation of the 2007 Act. Parliament took more than ten years to follow out the legislation, and while showing some positive reforms, is limited. New prosecutions can only be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and only in the High Court. The judiciary powers under s.6 only allow for indictment of a charming if a corporation is convicted of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide, with ss.9 and 10 providing the authority of remedial orders for them to remedy the breach. In 2011 the successful conviction of a telephoner under the CMCHA 2007 led to a large fine for Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd, on conjure up the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but no real precedent was set as it was small family run business with a sole director. The judiciary will have to wait for prosecutions of larger organisations before any interpretation of the Act will become clear.Family law in the UK has been takings to substantial modification over the years, through social changes encompassing mating, divorce, non-marital cohabitation, very(prenominal) gender partnerships and adoption. These changes in ideas about family can affect legal issues such as taxation, inheritance and other civil and criminal laws. The Marriage Act 1949 was challenged in the European Court of Human Rights in the case of B and L v united Kingdom 2006. UK law did not allow a father-in-law to marry his daughter -in-law, even though both were split up and had formed a relationship. The ECrtHR found this incompatible wi th Article 12 of the radiation diagram and consequently the UK Parliament reformed this law in the Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007.The concept of common law economize or wife does not exist in the UK legal system, couples who live together, whether same sex or straight person, and are not married do not have the same legal rights as those that are. The Odysseus Group, a pressure group for get even rights for all called for changes in the law to allow these couples to have the same legal rights as married couples. This and the case of Anna Homsi (The sensory(a) University, 2011 p.54) led to the creation of The well-behaved Partnership Act 2004 allowing same sex couples to register their partnership and be afforded the same rights as a married couple. Parliament left out recommendations from The Law Commission to include heterosexual couples in the Bill, during the parliamentary term. It maintains that heterosexual couples can marry if they want to whereas same sex coup les cannot under the present law.Technological and medical advances have occurred in a relatively short-change period of time, and the necessity to regulate these practices became an issue of statutory code as they are in the public interest. The legal issues with reproductive technology brought about the creation of the Human fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990). The Act sets out the principles, prohibitions and created the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to regulate and assist the judiciary in applying the law. This Act however was implemented based on technology and science from 1984. discussion section 12 of the HFEA 1990 sets out the conditions for licensing, and requires compliance of section 3, the requirements for effective consent of interposition (The generate University, 2012 p.91). This was challenged by Diane Blood who wanted to have fertility intercession using the sperm of her dead husband. However, the sperm had been taken while her husband was in a coma and he had not given written consent to its use. The HFEA refused to authorise treatment without consent, and it was ruled in the Court of Appeal that she could exercise her rights under s.10 of the ECHR to have fertility treatment in another EU state. This illustrates that the law was open to interpretation, as written consent was not specified in the Act. The court stated that as Parliament had delegated office to the Authority, then the courts should not interfere, however they did point to considerations with regards to the EC Treaty and Diane Bloods enforceable rights. The Government acknowledged this position and no amendments have been made to the Act.In the case of R (on the application of Quintavalle on behalf of Pro-life Alliance) v depositary of State for wellness 2001 EWHC Admin 918 the courts ruled, after using a purposive interpretation that the embryos created through cell nuclear replacement (CNR) could be used for experiment without the limitation of time or any other restriction. In the Court of Appeal reference was made to the case of Royal College of Nursing of the unit of measuremented Kingdom v Department of health and Social Security 1981 AC 800, and concluded that the legislation would have imposed the same restrictions on embryos from CNR as embryos from a person. They interpreted that although the technology did not exist when the Act was created, Parliaments regulation of the use of embryos was clear. The Government created The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001.In conclusion, this essay shows how the law making process and law reform is delimit through technological, social and economic developments. Parliament as a public elected body deals with the particularities of reform through the various commissions, pressure groups and members bills as they are accountable to the public. The judiciary can be seen to reform the law through the common law system, using principles of interpretation, and they do this in an opportunistic way through cases as they are presented to the courts. Although the implementation of The Human Rights Act 1998 gives judges the power to declare incompatibilities with the current law, it is still opportunistic, and piecemeal.BibliographyStatutesAbortion Act 1967Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001Children Act 2004Civil Partnership Act 2004Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007Criminal Appeal Act 1995The European Convention of Human RightsFamily Law Act 1996Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001The Human Rights Act 1998The Law Commission Act 1965Marital Causes Act 1973Marriage Act 1949Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007 (2007 No. 438)CasesB and L v United Kingdom 2006 1 FLR 35R v Human Fertilisation and Emryology Authority, ex parte Blood 1997 2 All ER 687R v PO European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72 1991 C rim R 695R v R 1992 1 AC 599R (on application of Quintaville on behalf of Pro-life Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health 2001 EWHC Admin 918Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security 1981 AC 800Course UnitsArthur, R. (2011) Unit 7 unconventional Conduct, W100 Block 2 Legal Personality, p57-67, Milton Keynes, The dissipate UniversityArthur, R., Goodey, J., and Howells, C. (2011) Unit 3 do Law (1) Parliament, W100 Block 1, Rules, and rule making, p.89-113, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityHowells, C. (2012), Unit 25 Law, judge and social change (3) law and reproductive technology, W100 Block 7, Justice, p.90-124, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityHowells, C. and Slapper, G. (2011) Unit 4 Making Law (2) common law. W100 Block 1, Rules, and rule making, p.141-192, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityHowells, C. And Zambellas, A. (2011) Unit 5 Making Law (3) Europe, W100 Block 1 Rules, and rule making, p.207-230, Milton Keynes, The O pen UniversityMontgomery, H. (2012), Unit 24 Law, justness and social change (2) marriage and family, W100 Block 7 Justice, p.47-74, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityWeait, M. and Goodey, J. (2011) Unit 3 Making Law (1) Parliament, W100 Block 1 Rules, and rule making, p89-138, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityZambellas, A. and Voiculescu, A. (2012) Unit 23 Law, justice and social change (1) corporate manslaughter, W100 Block 7 Justice, p.13-32, Milton Keynes, The Open University ratifier ArticlesBergman, D. (1990) Recklessness in the boardroom, New Law Journal, 140, 6477, p.1496, construe 28 subscriber 3, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityCommunity Legal Service Direct Information pamphlet 7 (2005), The Human Rights Act, Legal Services Commission, Reading 7 lector 3, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityCorporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (extract), 2007 Chapter 19, Reading 35 ratifier 3, W100 Ru les, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityThe Daily Telegraph (2003) Desperate times need fly-by-night measures, Daily Telegraph, London, 19 December 2003, p.23, Reading 5 endorser 1, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityForlin, G. (2007) Worth the wait?, New Law Journal, 157 NLJ 1165, Reading 36 reviewer 3, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityGerry, A. (2005) Happy birthday human rights, New Law Journal, one hundred fifty-five NLJ 1469, Reading 8 Reader 3, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityMuylle, K. J. (2003) Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary legislative procedures, Statute Law Review, 24 (169), Reading 7 Reader 1, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversitySlapper, G. (1996) Should the judges or MPs make the laws?, The Times, London, The Times Newspapers, 2 July 1996, Reading 23 Reader 1, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityWeait, M. (2003) The Civil Partnerships Bill, Family Law News, January 2003, Reading 38, Reader 3, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityDVDThe Open University (2008), Organisations and Justice, W100 DVD, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open University (DVD)The Open University (2008), The case of Diane Blood, W100 DVD, W100 Rules, rights and justice, Milton Keynes, The Open UniversityOther ReferencesSlapper, G, and Kelly, D. (2011) The English Legal System (12th edn), Abingdon, Routledge, p.153), Milton Keynes, The Open University