The role of Judges in our court system is one of the most important roles within our relative communities, they are the main point of interpretation when it comes to the law. Be it civil or criminal, they assess the evidence, and hopefully have an unbiased mind towards the pursuit of justice. Despite legislature being made through Parliament, Judges are able to teach the people through the means of precedent what laws actually mean. They help the general public to know to what extent they are abiding by the law and punishable offences under the law. The question that is being asked is whether or not Judges have the right to be creative in their rulings, or should they simply apply the law just the way it is? My answer to that is yes they
…show more content…
This law was brought about by King William also known as William the conqueror in 1066. His main goal was to unify the law of the country; He knew that in order to rule over the people there had to be some form of stability within the laws that preside over the Nation. For many years William the conqueror through his Curia Regus and his trusted advisors went around the United Kingdom presiding cases for the general public. When issues arrive with common law system, Equity was then put into place mitigate the constraints of the Common Law. It was through King Henry II and his adaptions of Equity that the Court of Chancery was deemed fit. Here people who have a deep understanding of the law, assist the king in making decisions over cases. The chancellor decision where base on what was morally right, seemed fair, and still up holding equitable maxims in his decisions. This method was more fluid and flexible with dealing with grievances making it more appreciated by the populace because it was quick and …show more content…
The same laws that could be applied directly in 1988 are harder to apply directly in 2015. We see this allot with intellectual law and piracy. The laws in this particular field are lacking leaving Judges to interpret the law the way they deem fit. This essential aids the legislature in making law and policies that are a direct need for the populace. In criminal law we saw in the case of R v Brown that Lord Mustill also mentions how the legislative body where out date and aimed at different evils due to the century it was passed. He goes on to say that it simple wouldn’t be just to base his ruling on outdated law. The same would apply with sexual harassment claims in the late 80’s, early 90’s sexual harassment was hard to prove and often times that not it was the victim that was blamed. In the same Lord Mustill continues by comparing the act of sadomasochism to boxing and simple says that they are under different contexts because society chooses to tolerate the latter. The same thing could have been said for rape victims. The way society sees certain grievances has changed over time and even though law changes, the law does not change as fast as society sense of
This law was brought about by King William also known as William the conqueror in 1066. His main goal was to unify the law of the country; He knew that in order to rule over the people there had to be some form of stability within the laws that preside over the Nation. For many years William the conqueror through his Curia Regus and his trusted advisors went around the United Kingdom presiding cases for the general public. When issues arrive with common law system, Equity was then put into place mitigate the constraints of the Common Law. It was through King Henry II and his adaptions of Equity that the Court of Chancery was deemed fit. Here people who have a deep understanding of the law, assist the king in making decisions over cases. The chancellor decision where base on what was morally right, seemed fair, and still up holding equitable maxims in his decisions. This method was more fluid and flexible with dealing with grievances making it more appreciated by the populace because it was quick and …show more content…
The same laws that could be applied directly in 1988 are harder to apply directly in 2015. We see this allot with intellectual law and piracy. The laws in this particular field are lacking leaving Judges to interpret the law the way they deem fit. This essential aids the legislature in making law and policies that are a direct need for the populace. In criminal law we saw in the case of R v Brown that Lord Mustill also mentions how the legislative body where out date and aimed at different evils due to the century it was passed. He goes on to say that it simple wouldn’t be just to base his ruling on outdated law. The same would apply with sexual harassment claims in the late 80’s, early 90’s sexual harassment was hard to prove and often times that not it was the victim that was blamed. In the same Lord Mustill continues by comparing the act of sadomasochism to boxing and simple says that they are under different contexts because society chooses to tolerate the latter. The same thing could have been said for rape victims. The way society sees certain grievances has changed over time and even though law changes, the law does not change as fast as society sense of