KKDP: 9 Factors that affect the ability of the courts to make law
Doctrine of Precedent
Key definitions
Locus Standi
straight latin translation is “place to stand”
is standing basically
a party must be directly affected by an issue to take legal action
Judicial Activism
judges taking a range of values into account when deciding a case (political values, social values)
Special Interest (standing)
when challenging the cmwlth law in conserv the high court, the party affected must prove they are more impacted than a regular citizen
Ex post facto
straight latin translation is “out of the aftermath”
limits the courts ability to wait for a case to be brought before them
the ability for courts to make laws using relevant precedents
Strengths
precedents allow for consistency in the law
judges can overule/reverse which enables the law to be flexible.
they can distinguish if they believe teh material facts are different to the case they are hearing
courts can disapprove of precedents which pressures gov or sup courts
precedents/ common law allow gaps in legislation to be filled by the courts
occasions that parliament does not act on a certain issue they believe to be too controversial, leads to lost votes in election.
Weaknesses
lower courts must follow binding precedents (even if they do not agree)
judges in sup courts may be reluctant to overule existing precedents made in lower courts or not to follow precedents made in the same courts. may prefer parliament to do this
sup courts can only make precedents when a case is brought before them and a loss has already happened
Judicial Conservatism & Judicial Activism
Judicial Conservatism
judges taking a ‘narrow interpretation’ of a law. (doesnt take societies values into account)
S&W of Judicial conservatism
Strengths
judges are aware they are not democratically elected and prefer parliament to make law
can reduce appeals
parliament as teh soverign law maker can excersise its primary role
allow for stability when laws are applied
Weaknesses
some claim if cases are broughtto courts, then the judges should consider social and political factors, especially if the parties may be impacted by a conservative judgement
reduces the courts ability to make major and controversial changes, especially if parliament is hesitant to change certain laws due to voter backlash
Judicial Activism
judges taking a range of values into account when deciding a case (political values, social values)
S&W of Judicial Activism
Strengths
judges can consider a range of poltical and social factors when they practice
judges can uphold rights of the people
judges can make law in areas that parliament may be hesitant to (due to controversial)
Weaknesses
The ‘radical changes’ that could be made may not reflect societies values
there may be more appeals due to question of law
judges can only ‘progressive’ if a case if brought before them
parliament can abrogate any law made by court (except for constitutional issues)
Costs and Time
Costs
legal rep, court fees, filing fees, expert witness fees (aka disbursments)
Time
gathering evidence, expert witnesses, backlog of cases, pre trail procedures, complexity of a case, judgement can take a long time
The Requirement for standing
S&W of Standing requirements
Strengths
This requirement reduces backlogs and delays as only ppl who are genuienly impacted by an issues can take legal action
The requirement of a standing (special interest) provides parties with an intellectual interest in a case but are not impacted by the law, the ability to peruse other means of law reform such as: lobbying politicians, protests, petitions etc.
Weaknesses
requirement may reduce ppl acting for the ‘good of society’
may reduce cases being herae and laws being changed. relevant in cases where minority groups are those who have a standing such as: prisoners or refugees