Unit 4 - AC1.1 - Law making in court ( Judicial Processes)

Statutory Interpretation

They sometimes have to interpret the law- because parliament cannot define each and every possibility, or explain every term in statute. This is based usually on literal interpretation unless this leads to absurd results

They sometimes need to ‘fill in the gaps’ in laws - the situation may arise in which there is no express law. So they may have to fill in the gaps using their own knowledge of both statue and common law

\

Whitley V Chappell (example case) (SI)

A statue made it an offence to impersonate any person who entitled to a vote. The defendant used the vote of a dead man , the literal definition of a person entitled to vote would require them to be alive. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted.

Judicial Precedent

Courts form a hierarchy. When a case is put before a judge they make judgements based on the evidence and the verdicts of the Jury. Particularly in the case when a decision is made by a higher court. Judgements are able to be overturned , but only from a higher court on appeal. This is to ensure law is consistent and is called ‘common law.’ Therefore, statutory interpretation of judges is very important.

Donoughe V Stevenson ( example case ) (JP)

Mrs Donogue was in a case and had some ginger beer with her ice cream and her friend had paid. Her drink had a snail and she ended up suffering both shock and gastric illness. This lead to her putting in a claim , which was successful . This case established the modern law of negligence.