Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
"Looking at the rules alone is inadequate - It assumes that judges actually do adjudicate in the way in which the rules say they should" - Discuss with reference to the 'rules' and examples of the operation of precedent and statutory interpretation.
Member rating:
(1 vote)
| Words:
| Submitted: Mon Jun 19 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
"Looking at the rules alone is inadequate. It assumes that judges actually do adjudicate in the way in which the rules say they should". Discuss with reference to the 'rules' and examples of the operation of precedent and statutory interpretation. The statement seems at first glance to offer a much generalised and often contested view of the separation of powers embodied in constitutional theory. That is to say that Parliament makes laws and the judiciary as slaves to the rules, should simply apply them to a particular case. This perhaps is what 'ought' to happen, according to the fundamental nature of rules and the impression that word 'rule' renders; i.e. that following a particular pattern cannot lead you astray. However the broader implications of this narrow position is that judge's decisions are straightforward and mechanistic in appearance, which as we shall see in the operation of precedent and of...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
Reviewed by: