Law Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Law identification - Essay ExampleIt is in this context that the parliament makes laws in order to govern the citizens of a normalwealth suitably, which atomic number 18 recognized as statue laws. The parliament comprises elected representatives entrusted with the certificate of indebtedness of making laws in order to reckon that the states and the societies argon governed effectively in such cases (Brassil & Brassil, 2000). Nevertheless, such courtroom practices have also been alleged of altitude various ethical issues concerning the practical application of the enacted regulations and the various facets of the particular event being scrutinized. These arguments and skepticisms demand for a more(prenominal) organized and cautious judgment in cases, so that ethical conflicts force out be avoided when ruling a particular case. The statement, Judges should be cautious (in terms of making law or following precedent) non because the principles adopted by the Parliament are mor e satisfactory or more enlightened, but because it is impossible constitutionally that there should be two independent sources of law-making at work at the same metre postulates a similar notion, which will be critically discussed henceforth, with reference to relevant case laws. Factually, common laws are formed with the sole intention to direct or steer the decisions made by judges are to be followed in future identical cases presented before the court. Case laws are identified as the of import sources of common law, whilst the prior formulated laws are still considered important in the present day context. there are two important sources that assist in the overall development of common law, which include the principle of precedent and the parliament. The doctrine of precedent is an important source of law in accordance with which, judges can make their decisions in present cases based on the decisions delivered in previous instances. The doctrine of precedent ordinarily imp lies the deontological belief that lower courts are required to make their decisions in presented cases on the basis of decisions that are delivered in landmark cases presenting similar legal conflicts and issues. Contextually, the judges are assigned with the tasks of having a better understanding of the facts as well as information in relation to certain cases. Moreover, the judges are also required ensure that the decisions made can be applicable to later cases ascertaining that on the identification of similar facts as well as information, the judges are able to make their decisions effective, based on the decisions made in previous cases. In this context, the doctrine of precedent can be regarded as an important source of common law assisting judges in taking appropriate decisions ensuring the omission of mentionable ethical conflicts (Pearson Education Ltd, 2014). For an example, the decisions made in the case Shaw v DPP 1962 AC 220 have been used by the judges in the case of Knuller v DPP 1973 AC 435 following the Parliamentary norms (e-lawresources, n.d.). On the other hand, there were cases like Jackson and others v. Her Majestys Attorney world(a) 2005 UKHL 56 (House of Lords, 2006) and British Railways Board v Pickin 1974 UKHL 1 (United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions, 1974) where judges ruled with the application of the purposive methods, delivering dissenting judgments to the propounded norms by the Parliament. This further raises a noteworthy question and a degree of confusion regarding the applicable laws and the independency of judges in ruling any particular case. Worth mentioning, the parliament is entrusted with the responsibility of making laws on the basis of which, people are to be