RSS Feed for the unit Judges and the law

Introduction

This unit considers the way that judges make law, how the common law system works and the advantages and disadvantages of a system like the British one that relies heavily on such rules and rule making. The unit will set out the basic differences between ‘civil code’ systems and ‘common law’ systems, and consider the relationship between judge-made law and statutory law.

Learning Outcomes

After studying this unit you should be able to:

understand what is meant by a common law system;
demonstrate a good knowledge and understanding of what is meant by the common law and how its rules are made and changed;
demonstrate an understanding of how the common law has developed;
describe what is meant by a system of binding precedent;
explain the court hierarchy;
discuss how a precedent can be altered or avoided;
identify the ratio decidendi and obiter dictum of a court case;
explain the role of the judiciary in statutory interpretation
discuss the rules of statutory interpretation;
understand the difference between a common law- and civil law-based justice system;
read and analyse legal materials (cases, statutes and academic commentary).

The role of the courts and the judiciary

This unit will explore the role of the courts and the judiciary in England and Wales. The English legal system is often referred to as a ‘common law’ legal system. Before medieval times the law in what we now call Great Britain was largely regional. Different regional kingdoms had different law. Over time, the same law was applied by judges across the single kingdom established after 1066 and so became common to all parts of the country. This was known as ‘the common law’. (The common law is a system that is followed in many countries – Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and the USA, to name but a few – but we will concentrate on its development in England and Wales.)

This means that many of our primary legal principles have been made and developed by judges (rather than by Parliament) from case to case in what is called a system of precedent, where the lower courts are bound to follow principles established by the higher courts in previous cases. The common law (or judge-made law) is at least as important to us as the law made by Parliament. For example, there is no Act of Parliament telling us that murder is a crime; it is a common law crime which has been refined over the centuries by judges.

Another important role played by the judiciary is that of statutory interpretation. Whilst the meaning of law in a statute should be clear and explicit, this is not always achieved. Many cases come before the courts because there is a dispute over the meaning of a word in a statute. For example, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 contains the phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’ but it did not say whether ‘type’ meant the same as ‘breed’. In order to assist with the interpretation of statutes the judiciary have developed a number of rules: the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach. They all take slightly different approaches and the judiciary do not always agree on which approach should be used, so the interpretation of a statute may depend on the judge hearing the case. Once that interpretation has been made, however, it may form a precedent for later cases.

Finally, this unit will examine how the common law system works, the basic differences between ‘civil code’ (continental) systems and ‘common law’ systems, and the advantages and disadvantages of the common law system that relies heavily on rules and rule making. This unit will set out to explore the role of the judiciary in the law-making process by examining the historical origins of common law, the system of precedent and the rules of statutory interpretation.

The law of England and Wales has been developed over many centuries. There are a number of ways of creating and developing the law. Historically, as you will see, the most important influences were local customs and judges. As Parliament became more powerful in the eighteenth century, statutes became a main source of new laws. Judicial decisions remained important as they filled in the gaps where there was no statute law and they interpreted the meaning of statutory law. This unit will explore some of those judicial decisions.

The history of the common law

Part A Historical development of the common law

The history of the common law

Prior to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, there was no unitary, national legal system. Before 1066 the English legal system involved a mass of oral customary rules, which varied according to region. The law of the Jutes in the south of England, for example, was different from that of the Mercians in the middle of the country (see map below). Each county had its own local court dispensing its own justice in accordance with local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to show their guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other ‘test’ of veracity. If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.

Figure 1: A map of pre-1066 Britain – a country with different regional laws

Unlike continental civil law, the English system does not originate from any particular set of texts but from what has been called ‘tradition expressed in action’. It began as customary law used in the King's court to settle disputes and conflicts which affected the monarch directly. To begin with, these only included the graver crimes which became ‘Pleas of the Crown’. After the Norman invasion there were still many different types of court apart from the royal court – the stannary (tin mining) courts of Devon and Cornwall, the courts of the royal hunting forests, for example – but principally, in potential rivalry with the royal court, were the feudal and manorial courts. It was during Henry II's reign that the clerics in his court began specialising in legal business and acting in a judicial capacity. Clerics were part of the King's royal entourage.

In 1154, Henry II institutionalised common law by creating a unified court system ‘common’ to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national level, ending local control, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate criminal accusations and civil claims. Judges of the realm went on regular journeys throughout the country bringing the King's justice to every citizen. Their aim was that there should be a common system of law throughout the land, hence the laws became known as the common law. The travelling judges formed a nucleus of judges with national jurisdiction who had no local roots. They were thus much less susceptible to the corruption which had spoilt a similar attempt earlier in the twelfth century in which the royal judges had actually been based in the local communities. It was under Henry II that judges were for the first time sent on ‘circuits’, hearing pleas in the major places they visited and taking over the work of the local courts. In time the decisions of the judges were written down. As the decisions of these courts came to be recorded and published, so the practice developed where past decisions (precedents) would be cited in argument before the courts and would be regarded as being of persuasive authority.

These practices developed into the common law of England, the law which was available throughout the realm. Perhaps the most convincing of the reasons why Henry II should be regarded as the ‘father of the common law’ is that he was largely responsible for the regional and itinerant royal justice through which the law truly became common – available to all. It is true that Henry II, who reigned from 1154 to 1189, did much of significance to enhance the development of the common law, for instance by popularising the King's court. However, we don't know how the King's court (called the Curia Regis) acted during the Norman period before Henry II, because the earliest documents date from his reign, so it might be presumptuous to credit too much to Henry II. In any event, many factors of a general historical nature contributed to the development of the common law and it might be more meaningful to speak of the various parties which helped nurture the common law from its first green shoots to its full bloom rather than to try to find a ‘father’.

In the expansion of the King's legal powers, an important role was played by the clerics. They developed a range of claim forms, called writs, and established procedures which, perhaps significantly, gave them greater importance and provided them with a generous income! Another important development, for example, was the expansion of the ‘King's Peace’. This was the monarch's, as opposed to a local lord's, right to deal with any local disorder or crime.

Another reason the royal courts obtained a lot of business and thus power was the interpretation given to the Statute of Gloucester (1278) by the royal judges. This statute provided that no cases involving an amount of less than 40 shillings should be brought in the royal courts, but that they should be tried before local tribunals. The judges interpreted this to mean that no personal actions to recover a sum greater than 40 shillings could be commenced in the local courts, thus reserving all important cases for themselves. It is relevant here that the judges were anxious to attract litigants because their fees varied with the amount of business done.

The distinctive feature of common law is that it represents the law of the courts as expressed in judicial decisions. The grounds for deciding cases are found in the principles provided by past court decisions, as contrasted to a system which is based solely on Acts of Parliament. Besides the system of judicial precedents, other characteristics of common law are trial by jury and the doctrine of the supremacy of the law. Originally, supremacy of the law meant that not even the King was above the law; today it means that acts of governmental agencies and ministers can be challenged in the courts.

Use of language

Part A Historical development of the common law

Use of language

Use of language is extremely important in law. As a law student it is important that you use language in an accurate way. The rest of Part A of this unit will therefore consider the importance of language in law.

Box 1 Use of language

By now you will have had a few opportunities to look up the meaning of words you were not sure about. Using language in an accurate way is often very important. Suppose I tell you that ‘recently an organisation produced a report that said most new houses built this century are of a bad quality’.

You might well think then that what was wrong with the houses included things like defective woodwork, broken tiles, windows that do not shut properly, and sloping floors. If it turned out that what the report was really identifying as bad were features like lack of front gardens (as double driveways were used instead), and lack of visible similarity with older properties in the same district, then you might well say: ‘That's not bad quality. If anything, it is bad design. It is the design of the houses that the report seems to be attacking, not the quality of the workmanship.’ Such a misunderstanding stems from the fact that, initially, I said to you that the report claimed houses were of ‘bad quality’.

This sort of misunderstanding that comes from using language in a careless way happens all the time. In any area where rules operate, it is essential for people to be careful about the way they use language.

I should now like you to attempt the first four activities, in which you are asked to use dictionaries. Where we introduce a specialist word or phrase, I will give you a definition of it. However, you might not be sure of the meaning of some of the other words in this unit. (The same applies for asociated law units.)

If you go into a large bookshop and head for the section called something like ‘Dictionaries and Reference’, you will discover a wide range of dictionaries. Some are general and some are specialist reference dictionaries, such as a dictionary of science.

You may also discover that there are a wide variety of dictionaries available online.

Activity 1 Using a dictionary

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Why do you use a dictionary? Try to think of at least four occasions when you have referred to one.

Now read the discussion

Comment

My answers are probably quite similar to yours:

to find the meaning of an unfamiliar word
to check the meaning of a familiar word and related words
to check the spelling of a word
to see how to pronounce a word
to see what synonyms (different words with very similar meanings) are available; sometimes a thesaurus is used for this purpose
to look up a specialist word in a specialist dictionary for a much fuller description (e.g. photosynthesis).

Activity 2 Which dictionary?

You should allow 0 hour(s), 30 minute(s).

Read the following passage and write down your own definitions of the three words in bold:

The earliest dictionaries were word lists inscribed on clay tablets organised like a thesaurus, in the second millennium BCE. Even after the invention of the alphabet later in the same millennium, many centuries passed before alphabetic ordering became a common tool for organising information. The need for a dictionary in which difficult English words were explained by easier English words took shape in the late sixteenth century and, by the eighteenth century, the dictionary was competing with spelling books as a quick ‘look-up’ source. Monolingual dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, list and define the words of one language. Bilingual dictionaries offer the equivalent of language A in language B. Pronouncing dictionaries arrived later in the eighteenth century, and speciality dictionaries for technical subjects or controversial usage such as slang in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; an example of the latter is Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.

Once you have written down your definitions, look up the three words in a general dictionary and compare your definitions with those from the dictionary.

Now read the discussion

Comment

Often the general dictionary will tell you whether the word is a verb, or a noun, or some other part of speech. Some will also give you an example of the word used in a phrase or sentence.

Prefixes and suffixes

Prefixes and suffixes can offer clues to the meaning of words. Prefixes come before the main part of the word:

In ‘antenatal’, ‘ante’ is a prefix meaning ‘before’ and the whole word means ‘before birth’.

Suffixes are added to the end of the word:

-ive, -ing, -ness and -ion are all suffixes and are used to form words such as active, willing, willingness and action.

Activity 3 Understanding vocabulary

You should allow 0 hour(s), 30 minute(s).

See how many words you can find beginning with the following prefixes:

sub- (meaning ‘under’)
super- (meaning ‘above’)
trans- (meaning ‘across’).

Now read the discussion

Comment

Understanding what the prefix ‘sub-’ means helps you to tackle an unfamiliar word: knowing that ‘sub’ means ‘below’ and ‘marine’ is something to do with the sea helps you to understand the word ‘submarine’.

Extending your vocabulary makes your writing more interesting and vivid. A thesaurus (meaning a ‘treasury’) gives information about words associated in meaning with the word you are looking for.

If you look up ‘aroma’ in a thesaurus, you might find the following associated words (synonyms): bouquet, fragrance, odour, perfume, redolence, savour, scent, smell, whiff.

You may need to check the usage in your writing – we tend not to say ‘the flower had a delightful whiff’!

A thesaurus may give words ‘opposite’ in meaning (antonyms), for example, loveable – hateful.

Activity 4 Broadening your vocabulary

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Try looking up three words you frequently use in writing – for example, important, relevant, and significant. See if you can find other words that you may prefer to use as alternatives.

Now read the discussion

Comment

It really is worthwhile to find the right dictionaries for you: a handy small one like The Pocket Oxford Dictionary for quick reference and a larger one, like The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary where words are put into phrases or sentences that help to make usage clear.

Note: These activities are taken from ‘The effective use of English’, Open University Student Toolkit 1.

Summary of Part A

Part A Historical development of the common law

Summary of Part A

In Part A you have learned:

that the English legal system is a common law system;
that this means that much of the law has been developed over time by the courts;
how to develop your use of language.

Introduction

Part B Precedent

Introduction

Precedent is the basis of the common law. The doctrine of binding precedent is known as the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin meaning ‘to stand by/adhere to decided cases’, i.e. to follow precedent. In other words, once a principle is decided it should be followed in future cases. The doctrine refers to the fact that, within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, the decision of a higher court will be binding on a lower court. In general terms, this means that when judges try cases they will check to see if a similar situation has come before a court previously. If the precedent was set by a court of equal or higher status to the court deciding the new case, then the judge in the present case should follow the rule of law established in the earlier case. Where the precedent is from a lower court in the hierarchy, the judge in the new case may not follow but will certainly consider it.

There are three essential elements to this system of precedent:

the hierarchy of the courts
binding precedent
accurate law reporting.

The hierarchy of the courts

Part B Precedent

The hierarchy of the courts

A court hierarchy establishes which decisions are binding on which courts. There are some exceptions and complications to what follows but, in general and for most purposes, the higher up a court is in the hierarchy, the more authoritative its decisions. I mean ‘authoritative’ in the sense that decisions of the higher courts will bind lower courts to apply the same decided principle.

Activity 5 asks you to explore the court structure further.

Activity 5 The court structure in England and Wales

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

It will be helpful to examine a diagram of the court structure for England and Wales. I would like you to:

Go to www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/aboutus/structure/index.htm.

The diagram you will see is presented by the Court Service, which is an agency that runs the courts in England and Wales. Take a few moments to consider the diagram of the court structure and familiarise yourself with where the different courts stand. There are about 600 magistrates’ courts in England and Wales and over 30,000 magistrates dealing with a great many cases every day. There are a huge number of these cases (over one million a year) and they do not usually involve any dispute over what the relevant law means, so these cases do not have to be followed by other magistrates’ courts in the system of precedent. By contrast, the House of Lords deals only with about 60 cases a year and its decisions bind all other courts.

You may find it helpful to see if you can find newspaper stories about cases in as many of these courts as you can identify.

Structure of the court system in England and Wales

Part B Precedent

Structure of the court system in England and Wales

House of Lords

House of Lords' decisions are binding on all other courts in the legal system, except the House of Lords itself. The House of Lords used to be bound by its own previous decisions until it changed this practice in 1966. The rationale for the old practice was that decisions of the highest court in the land should be final so that there would be certainty in the law and finality in litigation. However, the current practice enables the House of Lords to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions and to pay attention to the decisions of superior courts in the Commonwealth.

The possibility of the House of Lords changing its previous decisions is a recognition that law, whether expressed in statutes or cases, is a living and changing institution which must adapt to the circumstances to which it applies if it is to retain practical relevance.

Box 2 Understanding the importance of thinking

To have come this far, you will have done a great deal of thinking. Thinking is something we do all the time. It is a vital part of life. However, although we are all taught lots of things in school, it is not that common to be trained in the art of thinking. Before we proceed further into the unit, it is worth pausing to consider a few important aspects of thinking. Activities 6 and 7 will help you improve your thinking.

I would like to start by asking you to consider some fundamental questions about education.

Activity 6 The importance of thinking skills

You should allow 0 hour(s), 30 minute(s).

Note down your responses to the following questions:

Why would you like to become a university student?
What do you see as the purpose of higher education?
How do you think your answers to the previous question would differ from answers that the Government, employers or university teaching staff might give?

Now read the discussion

Comment

There are, of course, no set answers to questions of this sort. People and organisations have their own reasons and views. People give a range of reasons for becoming Open University students. For example, they may want to improve job prospects, to explore and gain knowledge of a subject area of interest, to develop themselves generally, or to have contact with others. Perhaps your responses to the second question were the same as to the first. Or maybe you mentioned more general skills and attributes that can be gained, such as confidence, communication or interpersonal skills.

Did you include extending or developing thinking skills in any of your responses? If you did, how important was this in relation to other reasons you listed for study and higher education? The ability to think, particularly the ability to think critically, is often cited as one of the main purposes of education by those involved in delivering higher education today. Look at the following list and compare it with your answers.

Traditional aims of higher education:

adopting a distinctive way of thinking about concepts, evidence and theories
taking a distanced, critical stance towards subject matter, assumptions and explanations
tackling issues systematically, logically and effectively
examining the adequacy of evidence and checking alternative interpretations of it
demonstrating a thorough understanding of complex, abstract concepts within the discipline
writing clearly and cogently, following appropriate academic styles and conventions
being able to set and solve problems by applying concepts and techniques appropriately.

Activity 7 Thinking skills in education today

You should allow 0 hour(s), 10 minute(s).

Can you suggest why thinking skills are considered to be so important in education today?

Now read the discussion

Comment

Education can be seen as the main way of developing individuals and society. There are a range of possible reasons you might have suggested for thinking being an important area to develop. Perhaps your reasons related to economic factors, or perhaps social, cultural or educational factors. A strong argument these days is that knowledge is central to our information age and movement towards a knowledge-based economy. The creation and use of knowledge depends on our ability to think. Good thinking could be viewed as empowering for individuals and society. Education can be seen as a process of joining a community in a subject. So you may become, for example, a social scientist or mathematician by learning the thinking styles, language and other characteristics of that community.

Your reasons for studying and what you see as the purpose of higher education will influence your thinking, styles of study and other aspects of learning.

Note: These two activities are taken from ‘Extending and developing your thinking skills’, Open University Student Toolkit 9.

The styling of legal cases

Activity 8 asks you to read Reading 1 – a short extract from The English Legal System (Slapper and Kelly, 2003) – and identify what you consider are the advantages of allowing the House of Lords to overrule its previous decisions. This extract provides you with examples of instances when the House of Lords has not followed its own previous decisions.

This may be the first time you have read the name of a legal case. Case names are written in a particular style. For example, the first case referred to in Reading 1 is Conway v Rimmer (1968). The ‘v’ in the middle stands for versus, which is Latin for ‘against’. Either side of it are the names of the parties. The first name is the person or organisation that brought the case. If the case is a civil case, that person is called the claimant (formerly called the plaintiff) and the other party is called the defendant. In a criminal case, the person bringing the case is called the prosecutor, and the other person is called the defendant. If the case is R v Smith, the ‘R’ stands for Rex (Latin for King) or Regina (Latin for Queen) and shows that the case is a criminal prosecution being brought by the Crown, that is the state. The 1968 refers to the year the case was reported, and we will be examining the issue of case reporting later in this unit.

You should read Reading 1 through at least twice. The first time you should try to get an overall picture of what the Reading is saying. You should then reread the question and on the second reading you should take some notes and extract the relevant information and arguments from the Reading in order to answer the question.

Activity 8 Allowing the House of Lords to overrule its previous decisions

You should allow 0 hour(s), 45 minute(s).

Please read Reading 1: ‘Cases of the House of Lords overruling previous decisions’ and write a short paragraph (about 50 words) outlining what you consider to be the advantages of allowing the House of Lords to overrule its previous decisions.

Now read the document Reading 1 (PDF, 0.1mb, 2 pages).

View document

Now read the discussion

Comment

This is an example of an answer which does not really give enough detail:

You will probably have noted other advantages.

Figure 2: It is important for the law to be clear and certain so that no one can be surprised when it is enforced

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal is always bound by previous decisions of the House of Lords.

The Court of Appeal generally is also bound by its own previous decisions. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this general rule. Lord Greene MR listed these exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd (1944).

MR means ‘Master of the Rolls’. This is the judge who is head of the Court of Appeal Civil Division. The odd name comes from the Middle Ages when a senior clerk in the Chancellor's office was in charge of the Chancellor's Roll, i.e. written material. A good source of information about legal terminology is on the internet at the official Court Service website. You will find a free glossary of legal terms there.

It is not important for you to read this case at this point. What is important is the exceptions that arise, which are:

Where there is a conflict between two previous decisions of the Court of Appeal. In this situation, the latest court must decide which decision to follow and which to overrule. One reason why there can be two earlier Court of Appeal decisions that apparently say different things about the same law is that the second of the two cases might simply have been unaware of the first one when it gave its pronouncement.
Where a previous decision of the Court of Appeal has been overruled, either expressly or impliedly, by the House of Lords. An express overruling would obviously occur where the House of Lords actually considered the Court of Appeal precedent, but it is equally possible that a precedent from the Court of Appeal could be overruled without the actual case being cited and considered. In this situation, the Court of Appeal, in line with the normal rules of precedent, is required to follow the decision of the House of Lords.
Where the previous decision was given per incuriam (Latin for ‘through an error’). In other words, that previous decision was taken in ignorance of some authority, either statutory or case law, that would have led to a different conclusion. In this situation, the later court can ignore the previous decision in question. The missing authority must be a sufficiently important one that it would have led to a different conclusion; the mere possibility is not enough. There are so many case authorities that it is simply not possible to cite all of them in any one case. However, it is the absence of any consideration of the essential authorities that renders a decision per incuriam. Instances of decisions being ignored on the basis of a ruling of per incuriam are very rare.
The European Communities Act 1972 gives the Court of Appeal grounds for ignoring any of its previous decisions which conflict with subsequent decisions of the European Court of Justice. This effectively fits the European Court of Justice into the traditional hierarchical structure of precedence as the court of last resort in relation to European Union law matters.
Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires all courts and tribunals to take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 renders decisions of the European Court of Human Rights directly binding on the United Kingdom courts. This means that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights now become precedents for the United Kingdom courts to follow. Any domestic precedent which is in conflict with a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is now invalidated and should not be followed.

Divisional courts

The legal terminology for these courts is not very straightforward! The High Court is divided into three ‘divisions’, each one dealing with different sorts of cases – the Family Division, the Chancery Division (that deals with property and money cases) and the Queen's Bench Division (that deals with cases involving things like contracts and negligence). Each of these divisions, however, also has the capacity to act as a court to hear appeals from lower courts and, when the judges sit in that capacity, the court is called a ‘Divisional Court of the High Court’. The Divisional Courts hear appeals from courts and tribunals below them in the hierarchy. They are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis in the normal way and must follow decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal. In turn, they bind the courts below them in the hierarchy, including the ordinary High Court cases. The High Court is also normally bound by its own previous decisions although, in civil cases, it may make use of the exceptions open to the Court of Appeal in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd (1944). In criminal appeal cases the Queen's Bench Divisional Court may refuse to follow its own earlier decisions where it feels the earlier decision to have been made wrongly.

Figure 3: Judges have a lot of opportunity to develop the common law

The High Court

The High Court is also bound by the decisions of superior courts. Decisions by individual High Court judges are binding on courts inferior in the hierarchy, but such decisions are not binding on other High Court judges, although they are of strong persuasive authority and tend to be followed in practice. It is possible, however, for High Court judges to disagree and for them to reach different conclusions as to the law in a particular area. The question then becomes – how is a later High Court judge to select which precedent to follow? It is usually accepted, although it is not a rule of law, that where the later decision has actually considered the previous one and has given a reason for not following it, then that is the judgment which later High Court judges should follow.

Conflicting decisions at the level of the High Court can, of course, be authoritatively decided by reference upwards to the Court of Appeal and then, if necessary, to the House of Lords, but when the cost of such appeals is borne in mind, it is apparent why, even on economic grounds alone, it is important for High Court judges not to treat their discretion as a licence to destabilise the law in a given area.

In relation to conflicting judgments at the level of the Court of Appeal, the High Court judge is required to follow the later decision.

Crown Courts, County Courts and magistrates' courts cannot create precedent and their decisions can never amount to more than persuasive authority.

Box 3 Crown Courts, County Courts and magistrates' courts

The Crown Court tries more serious criminal cases, as well as hearing appeals from the magistrates' courts. Crown Courts sit in over 90 permanent centres throughout England and Wales, each centre being designated as first, second or third tier, reflecting the seriousness of the offences tried. County and district boundaries have no statutory significance in determining where a case should be heard. Most Crown Court cases are heard at the centre most convenient to the magistrates' court which committed the case for trial.

The County Court deals primarily with civil law, so it doesn't fight crime in the same way as the criminal courts in England and Wales. Despite their name, the County Courts do not fit within county boundaries in England and Wales and in fact the 230 County Courts are scattered around the towns and cities that require their services. All property cases up to £30,000, all personal injury claims less than £50,000, and bankruptcy matters are all carried out by the district judge at the County Court.

Approximately 96 per cent of criminal cases are dealt with at a magistrates’ court. The case may be tried either by at least two, but usually three, lay magistrates, or by a district judge who sits alone. Until August 2000 these district judges were known as stipendiary magistrates, but were renamed in order to recognise them as members of the professional judiciary, as they are legally qualified and salaried.

Activity 9 asks you to use your knowledge from Reading 2, what you have studied in this unit so far and your own everyday experiences to summarise the principal advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent. You may find some of the language of the Reading a little difficult, but don't worry. It is not necessary for you to understand all that is being said, you simply have to identify and summarise the main good and bad points of the doctrine of precedent.

Activity 9 The advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent

You should allow 0 hour(s), 45 minute(s).

Please read Reading 2: ‘English legal system in context’ and answer the following question: What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent?

Now read the document Reading 1 (PDF, 0.1mb, 2 pages).

View document

Now read the discussion

Comment

Did you consider the following advantages and disadvantages?

Advantages:

Consistency and fairness in the law – This refers to the fact that cases are decided on a like-for-like basis and are not subject to the whim of the individual judge deciding the case in question. This aspect of formal justice is important in justifying the decisions taken in particular cases.

Certainty – Lawyers and their clients are able to predict what the outcome of a particular legal question is likely to be in the light of previous judicial decisions. Also, once the legal rule has been established in one case, individuals can orient their behaviour with regard to that rule relatively secure in the knowledge that it will not be changed by some later court.

Efficiency – This refers to the fact that it saves the time of the judiciary, lawyers and their clients if cases do not have to be re-argued. For potential litigants, it saves them money in court expenses because they can apply to their solicitor/barrister for guidance as to how their particular case is likely to be decided in the light of previous cases on the same or similar points.

Flexibility – This refers to the various mechanisms, by means of which the judges can manipulate the common law and thus allow the development of the law in particular areas without waiting for Parliament to enact legislation.

Disadvantages:

Uncertainty – This refers to the fact that the degree of certainty presented by the doctrine of stare decisis is undermined by the huge number of cases that have been reported and can be cited as authorities. With so many rules and slightly different interpretations of them in thousands of cases, it is not always easy to see which interpretation a court will give the law in your case. This uncertainty is increased by the ability of the judiciary to select which authority to follow through use of the mechanism of distinguishing cases on their facts.

You will see some examples of the uncertainty which can be generated by case law when you attempt Activity 10.

Fixity – This refers to the possibility that the law in relation to any particular area may become inflexible on the basis of an unjust precedent, with the consequence that previous injustices are perpetuated. An example of this is the long delay before the courts were willing to change the law and say that marital rape was a crime. Since the 1970s, arguments had been put to the courts on behalf of women raped by their husbands but the law was only amended by the House of Lords in 1992. We will examine this House of Lords judgment later in the unit.

Unconstitutionality – This is a fundamental question that refers to the fact that the judiciary are overstepping their theoretical constitutional role by actually making law rather than restricting themselves to the role of simply applying it. If they are not elected as law-makers then why should they be allowed to make law?

You may have thought of some other disadvantages. The system of precedent can be slow. An area of law may be unclear or in need of reform but this cannot be done until the case is heard. The Court of Appeal has to follow its own previous decisions but only about 60 cases go to the House of Lords every year. This may result in a long wait for a suitable case to be appealed as far as the House of Lords. The system also encourages complexity. Even with online legal databases it is not easy to find all the relevant case law. The judgment in a case may be long with no clear distinction between comments, the ratio and obiter. We will go on to explain these terms more fully.

Figure 4: There are so many thousands of reported legal cases in the law library that operating the doctrine of precedent can be difficult.

Reading 3 is an article which highlights the uncertainty of the law in relation to the citizen's right to protect their own property. The article discusses the case of Tony Martin and other court judgments. You may recall the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot and killed a trespasser on his property. As you are reading Reading 3 make a note of the inconsistent decisions which the courts have arrived at on this single issue of the right to protect property.

Activity 10 Castles built on law

You should allow 0 hour(s), 10 minute(s).

Please read Reading 3: ‘Castles built on law’.

Now read the document Reading 3 (PDF, 0.1mb, 2 pages).

View document

Now read the discussion

Comment

Reading 3 provides a very good illustration of why certainty is an important feature of the legal system. The law in this area has become rather confused. In 1996, the Court of Appeal decided that a trespasser engaged in criminal activities can claim compensation for injuries suffered if the force used against him or her exceeds ‘reasonable limits’. Tony Martin was convicted of murdering a young man who had broken into his house after dark.

The court decision in the case of Tony Martin contrasts with other court decisions. As you will have read, between 1300 and 1348 there were frequent acquittals where householders had killed housebreakers. Reading 3 also refers to the Peterborough Crown Court case in which a burglar who was beaten with a baseball bat was said by a judge to have got what he deserved.

Whatever your opinion about which view is correct, I think you will agree that the law in this area is very uncertain and inconsistent.

Summary of the system of precedent

The basis of the system of precedent is the principle of stare decisis and this requires a later court to use the same reasoning as an earlier court where the two cases raise the same legal issues. For example:

House of Lords’ decisions are binding on all other courts in the legal system, except the House of Lords itself.
The Court of Appeal is bound by previous decisions of the House of Lords. The Court of Appeal generally is also bound by its own previous decisions, with the following exceptions:
1. where there is a conflict between two previous decisions of the Court of Appeal;
2. where a previous decision of the Court of Appeal has been overruled by the House of Lords;
3. where the previous decision was taken in ignorance of some statutory or case law authority that would have led to a different conclusion;
4. where the previous decision is inconsistent with European Community law or with a later decision of the European Court of Justice;
5. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires all courts and tribunals to take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights.
Divisional Courts must follow decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal and are also normally bound by their own previous decisions.
The High Court is also bound by the decisions of superior courts. Decisions by individual High Court judges are binding on courts inferior in the hierarchy.

Remember that throughout your studies you are also using reading and note-taking skills. Table 1 has been provided to illustrate how this summary could be expressed in an alternative format. You need to find a note-taking style which suits you.

Table 1: The system of precedent

Court	Other courts it binds	Other courts it must follow
European Court of Justice	All other courts on matters of EU law	None

European Court of Human Rights	All other courts on human rights issues (Section 2 1998 Human Rights Act)	None

House of Lords	All other courts in the English legal system	European Court of Justice on EU law
		European Court of Human Rights on human rights issues

Court of Appeal	Itself (subject to some exceptions, e.g. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd (1944))	European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights and House of Lords
	Divisional Courts
	All other lower courts

Divisional Courts	Normally have to follow their own previous decisions	European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, House of Lords and Court of Appeal
	High Court
	All other lower courts

High Court	County Courts	European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, House of Lords, Court of Appeal, Divisional Courts
	Magistrates' courts

Crown Court	Possibly magistrates' courts	European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, House of Lords, Court of Appeal, Divisional Courts, High Court, i.e. all higher courts

Note that both the County Court and magistrates' courts do not create precedent. They are bound by the decisions of all higher courts.

In OpenLearn unit W100_2 Parliament and the law there was an opportunity to read an Act of Parliament. In Activity 11 I would like to show you how to read a law case.

Activity 11 Reading a case

You should allow 0 hour(s), 45 minute(s).

Now read the document (A v Essex County Council) (PDF, 0.2mb, 23 pages).

View document

You should now be looking at the following case: A v Essex County Council.

Take a few moments to look at the case report. You will see at the top of the case the citation [2004] 1 FLR. This shows that the report is from the first volume of the Family Law Reports for 2004. (You will be examining the conventions of law reporting in more detail later in this unit.)

The next thing you will see is the name of the case: A v Essex County Council. A refers to the person or people who brought the case – in this case the adoptive parents of a young boy. In order to protect his anonymity the courts have called the parents A so that the boy will not be easily identifiable. A are bringing a case against Essex County Council.

Beneath the name of the case is the citation [2003] EWCA Civ 1848. This is known as the neutral citation. (You will learn more about the neutral citation later in this unit.) Below this are details of the court and the judges who decided the case.

Then you will see what is called the headnote, which has a summary of the facts of the case, followed by a statement of what the court decided. The barrister who reported the case, whose name is given at the end of the report, writes all of this. Headnotes are a very useful summary of the case but it is not unknown for headnotes to miss an essential point. Therefore law students should always read cases in their entirety (although that is not necessary for this activity).

Further down is a list of statutes and a list of previous cases which were referred to in the judgment. ‘Judgment’ (rather than ‘judgement’) isn't a misspelling; it refers to legal decisions or verdicts. The length of these lists will vary from case to case and may be long or short depending on the issues being addressed.

Then the judgment itself starts. There is no need for you to read the judgment. The object of this activity was to show you the physical layout of a law case. You may find it interesting to read the case if you wish.

One tip for your studies is to use a highlighter pen to highlight every case name/statute you come across in your law studies. This will make them easier to find when reviewing a unit and also assist with your note taking.

Activity 12 requires you to use your internet skills to look up the House of Lords' website and examine a recent House of Lords' decision of your choice. You are asked to make a note of how many Law Lords gave a judgment and how many Law Lords were in agreement.

Activity 12 House of Lords' judgments

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Go to the House of Lords' judgments.
This will provide you with a list of the latest House of Lords' judgments. Take 15 minutes or so to look through a judgment of your choice. While doing this make a note of how many Law Lords gave the judgment and how many were in agreement.

There is no requirement to read the judgment in its entirety. However, if you look at the first and last paragraph of each judgment you will see whether each of the Law Lords agrees or disagrees with the others.

Now read the discussion

Comment

From Activity 12 you will see that each judgment of the House of Lords will involve a number of Law Lords giving judgment. To be perfectly accurate, when a judge from the House of Lords (they are known as Law Lords) delivers a judgment, it is technically called an ‘opinion’ There are usually five Law Lords in any House of Lords case. They may not always be in agreement with each other, and, even if they all agree with the final judgment, their reasons for arriving at this opinion may differ. The question then arises, which part of the judgment is binding and sets a precedent? This is what we shall examine next.

Binding precedent

Part B Precedent

Binding precedent

Not everything in a court case sets a precedent. The contents of a case report can be divided into two categories:

1. The reason for the decision – ratio decidendi

The ratio decidendi of a case is not the actual decision, like ‘guilty’ or ‘the defendant is liable to pay compensation’. The precedent is set by the rule of law used by the judge or judges in deciding the legal problem raised by the facts of the case. This rule, which is an abstraction from the facts of the case, is known as the ratio decidendi of the case (see Box 4).

Box 4 Example of ratio decidendi

A couple leave their dog in their car while they pop out to a shop. For a reason that cannot later be discovered, the dog gets excited and starts jumping around. There is no issue that the dog was suffering from dehydration or being overheated. The dog paws the rear glass window. It shatters and a shard of glass flies off and, unfortunately, into the eye of a passer-by, who later has to have his eye removed. Are the couple liable to pay compensation for the man's eye? The court said no. People should take care to guard against ‘realistic possibilities’. They should only be liable, the court said, if they caused others harm by doing something that could be reasonably foreseen as likely to cause harm. We are not liable if we fail to guard against ‘fantastic possibilities’ that happen to occur. The accident in this case, the judges ruled, was just such a ‘fantastic possibility’. The couple therefore did not have to pay compensation. The reason for the decision in this case, the ratio decidendi, can therefore be expressed simply as: where harm was caused to a pedestrian by a dog smashing the window of the car that it was in, and where this sort of incident was unforeseeable, the defendants were not liable.

2. Obiter dictum

In a case judgment, any statement of law that is not an essential part of the ratio decidendi is, strictly speaking, superfluous. Any such statement is referred to as obiter dictum. This is Latin for ‘a word said while travelling’ or ‘along the way’ (obiter dicta in the plural). Although obiter dicta statements do not form part of the binding precedent, they are persuasive authority and can be taken into consideration in later cases, if the judge in the later case considers it appropriate to do so (see Box 5).

Box 5 Example of obiter dictum

In the case above about the dog and the man injured by the shard of glass, one judge said that if you knew your dog had an excitable tendency or went mad in cars, then you would be liable if it caused someone harm in a predictable way (not in the freakish broken window scenario) and would have to pay compensation. The judge did not need to rule on that in the dog-and-the-car-window case, because the couple did not have a dog with a known excitable temperament. His observations were, therefore, made ‘by the way’ and thus can be referred to as an obiter dictum. In a future case involving a dog known by its owners to be excitable, a lawyer for an injured claimant could refer back to the judge's obiter dictum in the car window case and use it as ‘persuasive’ but not ‘binding’ authority.

The division of cases into these two distinct parts is a theoretical procedure. Unfortunately, judges do not actually separate their judgments into the two clearly defined categories and it is up to the person reading the case to determine what the ratio is. This is a bit like listening to, or reading, a speech made by a politician or a sports team manager and trying to identify what the most important part of the speech was.

In some cases this is no easy matter, and it may be made even more difficult in cases where there are three or five judges and where each of the judges delivers their own lengthy judgment so there is no clear single ratio.

In some cases it may be difficult to ascertain precisely the ratio of the case and to distinguish the ratio from the obiter dicta.

Activity 13 provides you with two illustrative examples of how to identify the ratio decidendi of court judgements. These examples highlight that this is a complex task and there is no one method of approach to determining the ratio.

Activity 13 Identifying the ratio decidendi

You should allow 0 hour(s), 45 minute(s).

Please read Reading 4: ‘Ratio decidendi and obiter dictum’, which examines two law cases, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. It outlines the facts of these cases and identifies what the ratio decidendi of each case is. This Reading is longer than previous Readings in this unit, but the same advice applies as for all of them. You should read it through once to get an overall understanding of the piece. You should then read it a second time and take notes in order to clarify for yourself what is being said. You may find that you need to read through it a third or fourth time if necessary. When you have studied Reading 4, you should have a good idea of what is meant by the ratio decidendi of a case.

Now read the document Reading 4 (PDF, 0.2mb, 4 pages).

View document

Having seen examples of how ratio and obiter are determined in Reading 4, Activity 14 requires you to read Reading 5 and to summarise the ratio and the obiter of the case in question. Reading 5 discusses a dispute which arose about a television advertisement for the alcoholic drink Guinness. The TV advertisement, Anticipation featured a dance routine – you may have seen the advertisement which appeared on TV from 1993 to 1994. The dispute concerned whether Guinness had copied the dance from a short film called Joy. You will be aware that it is a serious matter if students in an exam were to copy each other, or if a student was to copy another student's assignment or pass another's work off as their own. So you can see why the makers of Joy were so upset at the thought that their work had been copied. Reading 5 is shorter and more straightforward than Reading 4. You should still read the article at least twice and attempt the exercise that follows.

Activity 14 Pure genius or plagiarism?

You should allow 0 hour(s), 25 minute(s).

Please read Reading 5: ‘Pure genius or plagiarism?’ and attempt the following exercise: Summarise the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta in the High Court case for breach of copyright brought by the commercial's director Mehdi Norowzian against Guinness and Arks.

Now read the document Reading 5 (PDF, 0.1mb, 2 pages).

View document

Figure 5: Practically every aspect of what we do can be the subject of legal disputes. When does a dance become a drama?

The GUINNESS word is a trademark. © Guinness & Co.

Now read the discussion

Comment

Mr Justice Rattee dismissed the copyright infringement action. This was the decision made in this case.

Ratio decidendi

He decided that although Joy was a point of reference for Anticipation, it was not a copy of it.

Obiter dicta

Mr Justice Rattee focused on what was being filmed and decided that such a frenetic dance was not a drama.
The judge stated that Joy was not a ‘dramatic work’, and therefore was outside the protection of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Please note that this case was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

As has been noted previously, in delivering judgments in cases, judges do not separate and highlight the ratio decidendi from the rest of their judgment and this can lead to a lack of certainty in determining the ratio decidendi. This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that reports of decisions in cases may run to considerable length, and where there are a number of separate judgments, although the judges involved may agree on the decision of a case, they may not agree on the legal basis of the decision reached. It is for the judge deciding the case in which a precedent has been cited to determine the ratio of the authority and so work out whether he or she is bound by the earlier case or not. This factor provides later courts with a considerable degree of discretion in choosing whether to be bound by a particular authority.

The main mechanisms through which judges alter or avoid precedents are:

overruling
distinguishing.

Overruling

Overruling is the procedure whereby a court higher up in the hierarchy sets aside a legal ruling established in a previous case.

It is strange that, within the system of stare decisis, precedents gain increased authority with the passage of time. As a consequence, courts tend to be reluctant to overrule longstanding authorities even though they may no longer accurately reflect contemporary practices or morals. While old principles are not usually good in dentistry or computer science, they are often seen that way in law! In addition to the wish to maintain a high degree of certainty in the law, the main reason for judicial reluctance to overrule old decisions would appear to be the fact that overruling operates retrospectively, with the effect that the principle of law being overruled is held never to have been law. It may even lead to the imposition of criminal liability on previously lawful behaviour. It has to be emphasised, however, that the courts will not shrink from overruling authorities where they see them as no longer representing an appropriate statement of law.

The decision in R v R (1992) to recognise the possibility of rape within marriage may be seen as an example of this, although, even here, the House of Lords felt constrained to state that they were not actually altering the law, but were merely removing a misconception as to the true meaning and effect of the law.

As this suggests, the courts are rarely ready to challenge the law-making rights of Parliament in an open way. An example of this reluctance can be seen in the House of Lords’ decision in Curry v Director of Public Prosecutions (1994). There used to be a presumption that children between the ages of 10 and 14 who were charged with a criminal offence did not know that what they did was seriously wrong and that the prosecution had to provide evidence to rebut that presumption (this presumption was known as the doctrine of doli incapax, meaning ‘incapable of a wrong’). In an appeal involving two young boys who had been convicted of a crime involving a motorbike, Lord Justice Mann justified reversing the presumption by claiming that, although it had often been assumed to be the law, it had never actually been specifically considered by earlier courts.

The presumption of doli incapax was abolished in England and Wales by section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Prior to the Act, for a child aged over 10 but under 14 to be convicted of a criminal offence in England and Wales, the prosecution had to rebut the presumption of doli incapax as well as prove the offence. This meant that they must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that the child did the act in question, but that they knew what they were doing was seriously wrong, rather than just naughty. To rebut the presumption, the prosecution had to show that the young person knew the act in question was seriously wrong. Since the 1998 Act, the prosecution no longer have to prove this.

On such reasoning, he felt justified in departing from previous decisions of the Court of Appeal which otherwise would have bound him. The House of Lords subsequently restored the previous presumption and said that in order to get convictions, the prosecution in any case would have to rebut the presumption that 10–14-year-olds don't know the difference between right and wrong. Although the Law Lords recognised the problem, and indeed appeared to sympathise with Mann LJ's view, they nonetheless thought that such a significant change was a matter for parliamentary action rather than judicial intervention.

Overruling should not be confused with ‘reversing’, which is the procedure by which a superior court in the hierarchy reverses the decision of a lower court in the same case.

Distinguishing

In comparison with the mechanism of overruling, which is rarely used, the main device for avoiding binding precedent is that of distinguishing. As has been previously stated, the ratio decidendi of any case is based upon the material facts of the case. This opens up the possibility that a court may regard the facts of the case before it as significantly different from the facts of a cited precedent, so it will not find itself bound to follow that precedent. Judges use the device of distinguishing where, for some reason, they are unwilling to follow a particular precedent. Law reports provide many examples of strained distinctions where a court has quite evidently not wanted to follow an authority that it would otherwise have been bound by.

Summary of binding precedent

In this section you have seen:

that not everything in a court case sets a precedent
the difference between ratio decidendi (the statement of legal principles material to the decision) and obiter dictum (the discussion of legal principles raised in argument but not material to the decision)
that the binding element in a future case is the ratio and that, while the obiter will never be binding, it may have strong persuasive force
the situations in which judges do not have to follow previous decisions:
- overruling a previous case
- distinguishing a previous case.

Table 2: Summary of binding precedent

Legal term	Definition	Comment
ratio decidendi	The reason for deciding	The part of the judgment which creates law – the binding precedent
obiter dicta	Things said along the way	Other parts of the judgment. These may be persuasive but do not create law
The decision	The outcome of the case for the parties involved
Overruling	A decision which states that a legal rule in an earlier case is wrong	R v R (1992) is an example
Distinguishing	A method of avoiding a previous decision because the facts in the present case are different

Activity 15 The courts and judicial precedent

You should allow 0 hour(s), 40 minute(s).

This activity will enable you to check your knowledge and understanding of the court hierarchy and system of precedent. It is important that you have a thorough understanding of them. This activity is in three parts.

Launch in separate player

Summary of Part B

Part B Precedent

Summary of Part B

In Part B you have learned that:

the system of precedent requires later courts to use the same reasoning as an earlier court, where two cases raise the same legal issues;
the contents of a case report can be divided into two categories:
- ratio decidendi – the statement of legal principles essential to the decision. The ratio is the binding element of the case
- obiter dictum – any statement of law that is not an essential part of the judgment. The obiter is never binding, but can be persuasive authority which can be taken into consideration in later cases;
the main ways in which judges can alter or avoid precedents are:
- overruling – where the court sets aside a legal ruling established in a previous case
- distinguishing – if the court regards the facts of the current case as materially different from previous decisions, then the court will not apply the precedent, as it will not be relevant to the current case.

Introduction

Part C Accurate law reporting

Introduction

You cannot cite precedents to a judge and ask him or her to follow them if you don't have a good record of all the earlier cases and how they were decided. The operation of binding precedent, therefore, relies on the existence of an extensive reporting service to provide access to previous judicial decisions.

This section will briefly set out where you might locate case reports on particular areas of the law. This is of particular importance to advocates (usually barristers but sometimes solicitors), who are under a duty to bring all relevant case authority to the attention of the court, whether it advances their case or not, so they are expected to make themselves thoroughly aware of the current reports. It will also be useful to you as a law student.

Tyes of reports

Part C Accurate law reporting

Tyes of reports

Year Books (1275–1535)

The earliest reports of particular cases appeared between 1275 and 1535 in what are known as the Year Books. These reports are really of historical interest as they were originally written in a language known as Law French. As with the common law generally, the focus was on procedural matters and forms of pleading. Those who are engaged in the study of legal history will find the most important cases translated and collected together in the Seldon Society series or the Rolls series but, in the main, they represent a backwater little navigated by those whose concern is modern law.

Private reports (1535–1865)

These reports bear the name they do because they were produced by private individuals and are cited by the name of the person who collected them. They were, however, published commercially for public reference. An ongoing problem with the private reports relates to their accuracy. At best, it can be said that some were better, that is, more accurate, than others. Of particular importance among the earlier reports were those of Plowden, Coke and Burrows, but there are many other reports that are of equal standing in their own right with full and accurate reports of the cases submitted by counsel together with the reason for the decisions in the particular case. A substantial number of the private reports have been collated and published as the English Reports. The series comprises 178 large volumes – 176 volumes being reports and the last 2 volumes providing an index of all the cases reported. In addition, the reports are accompanied by a useful wallchart to assist location of individual reports.

Modern reports (1865 to present)

As you have seen, the private reports were not without their problems. In addition to, at least occasional, inaccuracy, their publication could be both slow and expensive. This situation was at last remedied by the establishment of the Council for Law Reporting in 1865, subsequently registered as a corporate body in 1870 under the name of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales. The council was established under the auspices of the Inns of Court and the Law Society with the aim of producing quicker, cheaper and more accurate reports than had been produced previously.

The Law Reports

These are the case reports produced by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales. They have the distinct advantage of containing summaries of counsels’ arguments and, perhaps even more importantly, they are subject to revision by the judges in the case before they are published. Not surprisingly, the Law Reports are seen as the most authoritative of reports and it is usual for them to be cited in court cases in preference to any other report.

The current series of Law Reports, from 1891, is issued annually in four parts:

Appeal Cases	(AC)
Chancery Division	(Ch.)
Family Division	(Fam.)
King's/Queen's Bench	(KB/QB)

Delays in reporting can obviously mean that cases decided in one year are not reported until the following year. Since the start of the current series, individual volumes of reports carry the year of publication in square brackets together with a volume number if there is a need for more than one. Cases are cited, therefore, by the year and volume in which they are published, rather than the year they were decided.

Weekly Law Reports (citation WLR)

These have also been published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting since 1953 and, although they are not reports of cases decided in the current week as the name might suggest, they are produced much more quickly than the Law Reports. The need for speed means that these reports do not contain counsels' arguments, nor do they enjoy the benefit of judicial correction before printing. There are four volumes of reported cases, the latter two containing the cases that will also appear in the Law Reports.

All England Law Reports (citation All ER)

These reports are produced by the legal publishers Butterworth's and, although they do enjoy judicial revision, they do not contain counsels’ arguments. They are published weekly and are then collated annually in volumes.

Legal periodicals and newspapers

The Solicitors’ Journal (Sol Jo or SJ) has been reporting cases since 1856 and some cases are only to be found in its reports. In such circumstances, the reports may be cited in court. The same is also true for cases reported in other journals, such as the New Law Journal (NLJ) or the other specialist legal journals.

Figure 6: The Solicitors' Journal has been reporting cases since 1856

The reports in the broadsheet newspapers (The Times, Guardian and Independent for example) may also be cited in such circumstances, as long as they have been produced by appropriately qualified individuals (the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 extended this right to solicitors as well as barristers). However, some of these reports are rather insubstantial in nature.

Specialist reports

There are a number of specialist reports. Indeed, there are more than can be mentioned here, but amongst the most important are:

Industrial Relations Law Review	(IRLR)
Knight's Local Government Reports	(LGR)
Lloyd's Law Reports	(Lloyd's Rep.)
Report on Tax Cases	(TC or Tax Cas)
Family Law Reports	(FLR)
Criminal Appeal Reports	(Cr. App. R)

European Community reports

Although European cases may appear in the reports considered above, there are two specialist reports relating to EC cases:

European Court Reports (ECR) These are the official reports produced by the European Court of Justice. As such, they are produced in all the official languages of the Community and consequently suffer from delay in reporting.
Common Market Law Reports (CMLR) These are unofficial reports published weekly in English by the European Law Centre.

Reports of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg are provided in the European Human Rights Reports (EHRR).

DVD-ROMs and internet facilities

As in most other fields, the growth of information technology has revolutionised law reporting and law finding. Many of the law reports mentioned above are available both on DVD-ROM and via the internet through legal databases such as Justis, Lawtel, Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw UK. Many such databases, however, require you to complete a registration process and there may be a charge for the service. Altrnatively they may be available, for free, to registered university or college students studying recognised accredited courses. You will find that many case databases are not immediately available to you.

The first major electronic cases database was the Lexis system, which gave immediate access to a huge range of case authorities, some unreported elsewhere. The problem for the courts was that lawyers with access to the system could simply cite lists of cases from the database without the courts having access to paper copies of the decisions. The courts soon expressed their displeasure at this indiscriminate citation of unreported cases trawled from the Lexis database (see Stanley v International Harvester Co. of Great Britain Ltd (1983)).

Figure 7: Many reports can be found online

Neutral citation

In line with the ongoing modernisation of the whole legal system, the way in which cases are to be cited has been changed. Since January 2001 a new neutral system was introduced, and cases in the various courts are now cited as follows (‘EW’ means England and Wales):

House of Lords	[year] UKHL case no.
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	[year] EWCA Civ case no.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	[year] EWCA Crim case no.
High Court
Chancery Division	[year] EWHC case no. (Ch)
Patents Court	[year] EWHC case no. (Pat)
Administrative Court	[year] EWHC case no. (Admin)
Commercial Court	[year] EWHC case no. (Comm)
Admiralty Court	[year] EWHC case no. (Admlty)
Technology & Construction Court	[year] EWHC case no. (TCC)
Family Division	[year] EWHC case no. (Fam)

Within the individual case, the paragraphs of each judgment are numbered consecutively, and where there is more than one judgment the numbering of the paragraphs carries on sequentially. Thus, for example, the neutral citation for International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department is [2002] EWCA Civ 158 and if you were looking for the citation for the quotation from Simon Browne LJ from the case, this is at paragraph 53. The specific Law Report series within which the case is reported may be found at [2002] 3 WLR 344.

Summary of accurate law reporting

Part C Accurate law reporting

Summary of accurate law reporting

This section stressed the importance of accurate law reporting which allows for legal principles to be collated, identified and accessed. I examined where you might locate case reports on particular areas of the law. These are:

Year Books (1275–1535)
Private reports (1535–1865)
Modern reports (1865 to present)
The Law Reports
Weekly Law Reports (citation WLR)
All England Law Reports (citation All ER)
Legal periodicals and newspapers
Specialist reports
European Community reports
DVD-ROMs and internet facilities.

Summary of Part C

Part C Accurate law reporting

Summary of Part C

In Part C you have learnt that:

accurate law reporting allows for legal principles to be collated, identified and accessed;
there are many sources of law reports: Year Books (1275–1535), private reports (1535–1865), modern reports (1865 to present), the Law Reports, Weekly Law Reports, All England Law Reports, legal periodicals and newspapers, European Community Reports, DVD-ROMs and legal databases available via the internet.

Reasons for unclear meaning

Part D The need for statutory interpretation

Reasons for unclear meaning

The meaning of law in a statute should be clear and explicit, but this is not always achieved. Thus, many of the cases which come before the courts concern a dispute over the meaning of a word or phrase in a statute. In those cases the task of the court is to decide the exact meaning of that particular word or phrase. There are a number of factors which can lead to an unclear meaning.

A broad term – There may be words designed to cover several possibilities and it is left to the user to judge what situations fall within it.

London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman [1946] 1 All ER 255

Mr Berriman was a railway worker who was hit and killed by a train while he was doing maintenance work. Regulations stated that a lookout should be provided for men working on the other railway line ‘for the purposes of relaying or repairing it’. Mr Berriman was maintaining the line. His widow tried to claim compensation for his death because the railway company had not provided a lookout man. The court ruled that the relevant regulation did not cover maintenance work and so Mrs Berriman's claim failed.

The court looked at the specific words in the regulation and was not prepared to look at any broad principle that the purpose of making a regulation that a lookout man should be provided was to protect those working on railway lines.

Ambiguity – A word may have two or more meanings and it may not be clear which meaning should be used.
A drafting error – The parliamentary council which drafted the original Bill may have made an error that has not been noticed by Parliament. This is more likely to occur where a Bill has been amended several times during debates.
Wording may be inadequate – There may be many ways in which the wording may be inadequate, for example, a printing error, or another error such as the use of a word with a wide meaning which is not defined.

New developments – New technology may mean that an old Act of Parliament does not apparently cover present-day situations.
Changes in the use of language – The meaning of words can change over the years.
Certain words not used – The draftsmen may refrain from using certain words that they regard as being implied. The problem here is that users may not realise that this is the case.
Failure of legislation to cover a specific point – The legislation may have been drafted in detail, with the draftsman trying to cover every possible contingency. Despite this, situations could arise which are not specifically covered. The question then is whether the court should interpret the legislation so as to include the situation which was omitted or whether they should limit the legislation to the precise points listed by Parliament.

Brock v DPP (23 July 1993)

In the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991 S.I.) there is a phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. This led to a debate as to whether ‘type’ means the same as ‘breed’. In Brock, the Queens Bench Divisional Court decided that ‘type’ had a wider meaning than ‘breed’ and it could cover dogs that were not pedigree pit bulls but which had a substantial number of characteristics of such a dog.

In all legislation there is the potential for words and phrases to create uncertainty which can only be resolved by judicial interpretation. That interpretation is a creative process and inevitably involves the judiciary in the process of creating law.

The question arises as to what techniques the judges should use as they are required to define that term or phrase. A number of rules have been developed to assist judges in this process, the rules of statutory interpretation. These have been produced over the centuries by judges themselves and Parliament has played no role in their development. It can be argued, however, that Parliament remains the supreme law-making body. If it does not like the definition produced by the court, it can choose to pass new legislation which overturns the court's decision.

Summary of Part D

Part D The need for statutory interpretation

Summary of Part D

Part D explored several of the reasons which may result in a word or phrase in an Act of Parliament having an unclear meaning. This was illustrated by a number of examples. Interpretation of those words or phrases becomes a task for the courts. In this role, it can be argued that the courts are involved in the law-making process as they have been required to interpret and define a statute.

Introduction

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

Introduction

In this part we will explore the number of rules developed by the courts to assist with the interpretation of a statute. These are:

the literal rule
the golden rule
the mischief rule
the purposive approach.

These rules each take different approaches to interpretation of a statute. Some judges prefer one rule, while other judges prefer another. Some judges also feel that their role is to fill the gaps and ambiguities in the law whilst others think that it should be left to Parliament as the supreme law-maker. As the rules can result in very different decisions, it is important to understand each of them and how they may be used.

The literal rule

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

The literal rule

Under this rule the judge considers what the statute actually says, rather than what it might mean. In order to achieve this, the judge will give the words in the statute a literal meaning, that is, their plain ordinary everyday meaning, even if the effect of this is to produce what might be considered as an otherwise unjust or undesirable outcome. The literal rule says that the intention of Parliament is best found in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used. As the legislative democratic part of the state, Parliament must be taken to want to effect exactly what it says in its laws. If judges are permitted to give an obvious or non-literal meaning to the words of parliamentary law, then the will of Parliament, and thereby the people, is being contradicted. Lord Diplock once noted:

Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.

Duport Steel v Sirs (1980)

The use of the literal rule is illustrated by the case of Fisher v Bell (1960). The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to offer for sale certain offensive weapons including flick knives. James Bell, a Bristol shopkeeper, displayed a weapon of this type in his shop window in the arcade at Broadmead. The Divisional Court held that he could not be convicted because, giving the words in the statute a tight literal meaning, Mr Bell had not offered the knives for sale. In the law of contract, placing something in a shop window is not technically an offer for sale; it is merely an invitation to treat. (An invitation to treat is an invitation to others to make offers, as by displaying goods in a shop window.) It is the customer who makes an offer to the shop when he proffers money for an item on sale. The court upheld that under the literal meaning of offer, the shopkeeper had not made an offer to sell and so was not guilty of the offence. Parliament subsequently changed the law to make it clear that displaying a flick knife in a shop window was an offence.

The literal rule has both advantages and disadvantages. Constitutionally it respects parliamentary supremacy and the right of Parliament to make any laws it might wish no matter how absurd they may seem. It also encourages precision in drafting and ensures that anyone who can read English can determine the law, which promotes certainty and reduces litigation. Some disadvantages, however, can also be identified. It fails to recognise that the English language itself is ambiguous and that words may have different meanings in different contexts. The use of this rule can sometimes lead to absurdities and loopholes which can be exploited by an unmeritorious litigant. Judges have tended to over-emphasise the literal meaning of statutory provisions without giving due weight to their meaning in a wider context. Placing emphasis on the literal meaning of words assumes an unobtainable perfection in draftsmanship. Finally, it ignores the limitations of language.

The golden rule

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

The golden rule

This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The rule was closely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61, who stated:

The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

The rule was used in the case of Adler v George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces within such a prohibited place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the statute to cover the action committed by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have produced absurdity, as someone protesting near the base would be committing an offence whilst someone protesting in it would not.

Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, it therefore has the disadvantage that no test exists to determine what is an absurdity.

The mischief rule

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

The mischief rule

This third rule gives a judge more discretion than either the literal or the golden rule. This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the statute was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the statute was intended to cover. The court is then required to interpret the statute in such a way to ensure that the gap is covered. The rule is contained in Heydon's Case (1584), where it was said that for the true interpretation of a statute, four things have to be considered:

What was the common law before the making of the Act.
What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth.
The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

This rule gives the court justification for going behind the actual wording of the statute in order to consider the problem that the particular statute was aimed at remedying. At one level it is clearly the most flexible rule of interpretation, but it is limited to using previous common law to determine what mischief the Act in question was designed to remedy. The case itself concerned a dispute about legislation passed under Henry VIII in 1540 and a legal action against Heydon for intruding into certain lands in the county of Devon.

An example of the use of the mischief rule is found in the case of Corkery v Carpenter (1951). In 1951 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public. At about 2.45 p.m. on 18 January 1950, the defendant was drunk and was pushing his pedal bicycle along Broad Street in Ilfracombe. He was subsequently charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage. The 1872 Act made no actual reference to bicycles. The court elected to use the mischief rule to decide the matter. The purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on a public highway whilst in a state of intoxication. The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore the user was correctly charged.

The purposive approach

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

The purposive approach

This approach has emerged in more recent times. Here the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law, it is making a decision as to what they felt Parliament meant to achieve. Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal stated in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1950), ‘we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment by opening it up to destructive analysis’.

This attitude was criticised on appeal by the House of Lords. Lord Simmons called this approach ‘a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation’. He went on to say that ‘if a gap is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act’.

These comments highlight one issue with the purposive approach. How Parliament's intentions can be determined and whether judges should really be refusing to follow the clear words of Parliament. The purposive approach is one used by most continental European countries when interpreting their own legislation. It is also the approach which is taken by the European Court of Justice in interpreting EU law.

Since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community in 1973, the influence of the European preference for the purposive approach has affected the English courts in a number of ways. First, the courts have been required to accept that, from 1973, the purposive approach has to be used when deciding on EU matters. Second, as they use the purposive approach for EU law they are becoming accustomed to using it and more likely to use it to interpret domestic law. One example is Pickstone v Freemans plc (1998). Here, women warehouse operatives were paid the same as male warehouse operatives. However, Miss Pickstone claimed that the work of the warehouse operatives was of equal value to that done by male warehouse checkers who were paid £1.22 per week more than they were. The employers argued that a woman warehouse operative was employed on like work to the male warehouse operatives, so she could not bring a claim under section 1(2) (c) of the 1970 statute for work of equal value. This was a literal interpretation of the 1970 statute. The House of Lords decided that the literal approach would have left the United Kingdom in breach of its treaty obligations to give effect to an EU directive. It therefore used the purposive approach and stated that Miss Pickstone was entitled to claim on the basis of work of equal value even though there was a male employee doing the same work as her.

When using one of the rules of statutory interpretation the courts may rely on a presumption or secondary aids to assist them in making their decision.

Presumptions

When determining the meaning of particular words the courts will make certain presumptions about the law. If the statute clearly states the opposite, then a presumption will not apply and it is said that the presumption is rebutted. The main presumptions are:

A presumption against change in the common law. It is assumed that the common law will apply unless Parliament has made it plain in the Act that the common law has been altered.
A presumption that mens rea (‘guilty mind’) is required in criminal cases. Mens rea is one of the elements that has to be proved for a successful criminal prosecution. There is a common law rule that no one can be convicted of a crime unless it is shown they had the required intention to commit it.
A presumption that the Crown is not bound by any statute unless the statute expressly says so.
A presumption that a statute does not apply retrospectively. No statute will apply to past happenings. Each statute will normally only apply from the date it comes into effect. This is, however, only a presumption and Parliament can choose to pass a statute with retrospective effect. This must, however, be expressly stated in the statutes, for example, the 1965 War Damage Act, the 1991 War Crimes Act and the 1976 Adoption Act.

The secondary aids are rules of language, intrinsic and extrinsic aids.

Rules of language

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

Rules of language

The courts may also choose to look at other words in the statute to ascertain the meaning of specific words. To enable them to do this they have developed a number of rules of language to help make the meaning of words and phrases clear. There are three main rules of language:

Ejusdem generis This rule states that where there is a list of words which is followed by general words then the general words are limited to the same kind of items as the specific words. In the case of Powell v Kempton (1899) AC 143, a ring at a racecourse was held not to fall within the terms ‘house, office, room or other place’ because the list of words indicated that ‘other place’ should be construed as an indoor place.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Where the express mention of one thing excludes others. Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words, then the Act applies only to the items in the list. In the case of R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831) the use of the words ‘lands, houses and coalmines’ excluded application to other types of mine.
Noscitur a sociis A word is known by the company it keeps. The words must be looked at in the context and interpreted accordingly. This involves considering other words in the same section or other sections of the Act. In the case of Muir v Keay (1875) LR 10 QB 594, the purpose of licensing theatrical or musical entertainment did not fall within the words of the Act covering houses ‘for public refreshment, resort and entertainment’, because the word ‘entertainment’ in the Act referred to refreshment houses, receptions and accommodation of the public.

Intrinsic aids

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

Intrinsic aids

Intrinsic aids are matters within an Act itself which may help make the meaning clearer. The court may consider the long title, the short title and any preamble. Other useful internal aids may include headings before a group of sections and any schedules attached to the Act. There are also often marginal notes explaining different sections; however, these are not generally regarded as giving Parliament's intention as they will have been inserted after parliamentary debates and are only helpful comments put in by the printer.

Some Acts include sections in which words are expressly defined. For example, the 1963 Animal Boarding Act section 5(2) states: ‘In this Act animal means any dog or cat.’ The Interpretation Act 1978 section 6 also states that unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender also include the feminine and words importing the feminine gender also include the masculine. In addition, words in the singular also include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

Extrinsic aids

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

Extrinsic aids

Extrinsic aids are matters which may help put an Act into context. Sources include previous Acts of Parliament on the same topic, earlier case law, dictionaries of the time, and the historical setting. In addition, Hansard can now be considered. Hansard is the official report of what was said in Parliament when the Act was debated. The use of Hansard was permitted following the decision in Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart (1993) where the House of Lords accepted that Hansard could be used in a limited way. It permits Hansard to be used where the legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to an absurdity, and the material relied on comprises one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill and such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand the statements, and the effect and the statements that were relied on have to be clear.

Extrinsic aids also include international conventions, regulations or directives which have been implemented by English legislation. It is thought that English law should be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with international law. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expressly states that as far as it is possible to do so, an Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. This only applies to any case where there is an issue of human rights.

Summary of Part E

Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

Summary of Part E

Rule, approach or aid	Comment	Cases
The literal rule	Uses plain ordinary grammatical meaning of words and avoids judicial law making, but can lead to absurd decisions and injustices and assumes unattainable perfection in draftsmanship	Fisher v Bell (1960)
The golden rule	This starts from the literal approach but avoids absurdity or inconsistency and the court can modify or add words. It is limited in scope and there is no definition or measurement for an absurdity	Adler v George (1964) Re Sigsworth (1935)
The mischief rule	This looks at the gap in the previous rule and interprets the words so as to advance the remedy. Is very near to the purposive approach and has been favoured by the Law Commission in a review of the rules of statutory interpretation	Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
The purposive approach	Looks for the intention of Parliament and allows for judicial law making	Pickstone v Freemans plc (1998)
Rules of language	Looks at other words in the statute: general words which follow a list are limited to the same kind; a list of words which is not followed by a general word is limited to the items on the list; a word is known by the company it keeps
Intrinsic aids	Things in the Act, especially short or long title, any preamble and definition, sections. Also 1978 Interpretation Act
Extrinsic aids	Things outside the statute which help place it in context, e.g. earlier statutes, Hansard, international conventions

Equity

Part F Common law, equity and statute law

Equity

This term refers to a particular division within the English legal system. As the common law progressed, there developed a formality among judges, typified by a reluctance to deal with matters that were not or could not be processed in the proper form of action. Such a refusal to deal with injustices because they did not fall within the particular procedural and formal constraints, led to much dissatisfaction with the legal system. A modern analogy would be with a company or Government department that refused to deal with your complaint because none of its existing forms was suitable even though you had obviously suffered a wrong. In addition, the common law courts were perceived to be slow, highly technical and very expensive, and a trivial mistake in pleading a case could lose a good argument. The only available remedy was damages, but such monetary compensation was not always the best remedy. How could people obtain justice, if not in the common law courts? The response was the development of equity.

Claimants (then called plaintiffs) unable to gain access to the common law courts could appeal direct to the sovereign, and such pleas would be passed for consideration and decision to the Lord Chancellor, who acted as ‘the King's conscience’. The Chancellor based his decisions on principles of natural justice and fairness, making a decision on what seemed ‘right’ in the particular case rather than following previous precedents. He would look beyond documents which were considered legally binding by the common law courts. To make sure his decisions were fair, new procedures, such as a subpoena requiring a witness to attend court, and new remedies, such as injunctions and specific performance, were developed. This resulted in the emergence of a specific court, a court of Chancery, constituted to deliver ‘equitable’ or ‘fair’ decisions in cases which the common law courts declined to deal with. The Court of Chancery gets its name from the fact that the court was under the control of the Lord Chancellor. The Court of Chancery was the Court of Equity which developed to provide remedies not available in the courts of common law.

There were a number of important conditions which a person seeking justice from the Court of Chancery had to meet:

They had to show that they could not receive justice in the common law courts.
They had to show that they were without blame. This was called coming to the court with ‘clean hands’. By contrast, claimants using the older common law courts did not have to show they were acting in a morally blameless way.
They had to show that they had not delayed in bringing this case before the court.

The common law courts and Court of Chancery operated separately. On occasion, this led to conflict, as the common law courts would make an order in favour of one party, and the Court of Chancery the other party. This situation was resolved by the Earl of Oxford's case (1615), when the King ruled that in such cases equity would prevail. The division between the common law courts and the courts of equity continued until they were eventually combined by the Judicature Acts 1873–5. Prior to this legislation, it was essential for a party to raise their action in the appropriate court: for example, the courts of common law would not implement equitable principles, so if an injunction was sought, the case had to be heard by the Court of Chancery. If damages were sought, then the case had to be heard by the common law courts. The Acts, however, provided that every court had the power and the duty to decide cases in line with common law and equity, with the latter being paramount in the final analysis (section 25 Judicature Act 1873).

Table 3: Comparing common law and equity

Common law	Equity
Originally operated the doctrine of stare decisis strictly. This meant the law did not develop even when it was obviously in need of change.	The Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery was not bound by precedent. Rules were established to ensure fairness was done.
Strict procedural rules were followed.	Rules and maxims of equity were developed. These were flexible to ensure even-handedness and fairness.
The only remedy available was damages.	Recognised the limits of usefulness of money and created new remedies including injunctions and order of specific performance.

Statute law and common law

Part F Common law, equity and statute law

Statute law and common law

The ‘common law’ means the substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judges through the decisions in the cases they have heard. I have here lumped together two types of common law: substantive law and procedural law. Let me explain the difference between them.

A substantive rule is a rule about our behaviour, for example, that we cannot commit murder or that we will be forming a contract if we do such-and-such on an email exchange. These substantive rules are different from procedural rules, as the latter govern simply how things should be done. For example, regardless of what sort of case is in court, the rules governing the admission of evidence into court are the same.

Statute law, on the other hand, refers to law that has been created by Parliament in the form of legislation. Although there has been a significant increase in statute law in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the courts still have an important role to play in creating and operating law generally and in determining the operation of legislation in particular. This is despite the fact that there is no legislative or express democratic authority for the court to be law-makers.

Activity 16 requires you to read an article which discusses the role of Parliament and the role of the courts in making legal rules. This article is longer than previous Readings, but don't let this daunt you. You will be familiar with the ideas which are discussed in the Reading.

Exercise 1 then asks you to apply your understanding and knowledge of the common law and summarise the importance of the common law system being both flexible and certain. You are then asked to weigh and evaluate the arguments and say whether you think the ‘judicial computer’ discussed in Reading 6 should replace the common law. This is not a question of arriving at the ‘right answer’ any more than there is a scientific ‘right answer’ to what is the best political party or the best soup! It is about being able to give reasons for a viewpoint you have arrived at.

Activity 16 Making law: the use of precedent

You should allow 1 hour(s), 0 minute(s).

Now read the document Reading 6: ‘The law factories’ and complete the three exercises (PDF, 0.2mb, 5 pages).

View document

Exercise 1

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Explain why there is a need for a balance between certainty and flexibility in common law. Do you think it would be better if the common law were replaced by a ‘judicial computer’ like that depicted in Reading 6?

Now read the discussion

Comment

Certainty

Certainty is needed to allow people to plan their behaviour and to allow lawyers to advise their clients. Thus, in 1995 the House of Lords did not change the doli incapax rule concerning the criminal liability of children. Also, in the case of the soldier Private Clegg, in 1995 the Lords declined to make any changes to the law of self-defence.

Therefore, the legal system needs to balance these two competing, but equally legitimate, aims. If a ‘judicial computer’ were adopted this would guarantee certainty but remove all flexibility from the legal system.

Flexibility

The common law must be flexible in order to respond to changing times. Lord Hobhouse noted that the common law develops ‘as circumstances change and the balance of legal, social and economic needs changes’. For example, in R v R (1992), the House of Lords saw fit to abolish the then 256-year-old rule against a charge of marital rape. Also in Pepper v Hart (1993), the Lords’ Appellate Committee swept away a 223-year-old constitutional rule that had prevented Hansard being consulted by law courts in aid of statutory interpretation.

Exercise 2

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Having considered why certainty and flexibility are important, please now describe how certainty and flexibility are introduced into the common law system.

Now read the discussion

Comment

Certainty

The binding nature of the ratio decidendi creates a foundation for certainty.

Flexibility

Flexibility is introduced by:

Overruling – where higher courts can overrule lower courts in circumstances where the later court thinks that the earlier court gave an erroneous analysis.
Distinguishing – where a lower court is able to point to material differences that justify the application of different principles.
Departing – where, in certain circumstances, a court can depart from its own previous decision. This can be done, for example, where ‘times have changed’ since the earlier decision that seems to bind courts today.

Until 1966 the House of Lords was bound by its own decisions. In 1966, the Lord Chancellor issued a Practice statement which stated that the House of Lords may depart from its own previous decision where it is right to do so. The reasons given were to avoid injustice and restrictions on the proper development of the law.

The Court of Appeal can depart from previous decisions if one of the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd (1944) is established. The Court of Appeal may also depart from a previous decision where this decision was per incuriam (through lack of care) because it was made in ignorance of relevant legislation or House of Lords’ decision with the result that the decision is demonstrably wrong. In criminal cases the Court of Appeal may depart from a previous decision if to follow it would lead to an obvious injustice.

Exercise 3

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Again based upon your knowledge and understanding of this unit, summarise the advantages and disadvantages of a system of precedent. You should take some time to revise the notes you made from the previous activities, and perhaps reread part of the unit.

Now read the discussion

Comment

Did you include the following advantages and disadvantages?

Advantages

Precedent allows the legal system to become more ‘just’ as the law is certain – so everyone can know what the law says about any topic.
The certainty of precedent is tempered by the flexibility judges have to not follow previous cases.
Precedent is more practical – the law can modernise without the need for Parliament to enact new laws.

Disadvantages

The development of the law is contingent on ‘accidents’ of litigation, i.e. the courts only rule on the law in the cases that happen to get brought by citizens.

The development of the law is hindered by the need for certainty.

Summary of Part F

Part F Common law, equity and statute law

Summary of Part F

In Part F, we have compared and contrasted:

common law and equity
common law and statute law.

The differences between common law and civil law systems

Part G Common law and civil law systems

The differences between common law and civil law systems

Having explored the origins and development of the common law and its characteristics, the final part of this unit will compare and contrast the common law with civil legal systems.

The terms common law system and civil law system are used to distinguish two distinct legal systems and approaches to law. The use of the term ‘common law’ in this context refers to all those legal systems which have adopted the historic English legal system. Foremost amongst these is, of course, the United States, but many other Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries retain a common law system. The term ‘civil law’ refers to those other jurisdictions which have adopted the European continental system of law derived essentially from ancient Roman law, but owing much to the Germanic tradition.

The usual distinction to be made between the two systems is that the common law system tends to be case-centred and hence judge-centred, allowing scope for a discretionary, pragmatic approach to the particular problems that appear before the courts. The law can be developed on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, the civil law system tends to be a codified body of general abstract principles which control the exercise of judicial discretion. In reality, both these views are extremes, with the former overemphasising the extent to which the common law judges can impose their discretion and the latter underestimating the extent to which civil law judges have the power to exercise judicial discretion. It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that the European Court of Justice, established, in theory, on civil law principles, is, in practice, increasingly recognising the benefits of establishing a body of case law. Although the European Court of Justice is not bound by the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis, it still does not decide individual cases on an individual basis without reference to its previous decisions.

Activity 17 Common law

You should allow 0 hour(s), 25 minute(s).

This activity builds on what you have just read about the differences between the systems of common and civil law. It is an extract from the BBC Radio 4 Unreliable Evidence programme broadcast in 2004. While listening, you may want to take notes. Listen in particular to what is said about the relationship between common law and civil law systems.

'Common law' part 1

Listen in separate player Click play to start.

View transcript

'Common law' part 2

Listen in separate player Click play to start.

View transcript

Now read the discussion

Comment

The discussions ended with the conclusion that neither system would extinguish the other as both had useful features. What was in fact happening was that the two systems were adapting features from each other. You may also have found it surprising to listen to the discussion of the backgrounds of some of the members of the European Court of Human Rights, as here the contributors clearly had different views.

Summary of Part G

Part G Common law and civil law systems

Summary of Part G

In Part G you have explored the difference between common law and civil law systems.

Part H Consolidation

The purpose of this part is to bring together your knowledge of law making in the English legal system. Through a series of activities you will be provided with the opportunity to review and consolidate your knowledge of the English legal system gained so far.

Activity 18 Common law

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

The term ‘common law’ has a number of meanings. These meanings depend upon the context in which the term is used. Note down the different meanings of the term ‘common law’ you have come across in this unit.

Now read the discussion

Comment

Common law may be used to describe a legal system which has developed from the English legal system, for example, in Australia or America.
Common law may be used to distinguish a legal system from a civil law system. Civil law developed from the Romano-Germanic legal system and is the dominant system in much of continental Europe. France has a civil law system.
Common law may be used to mean case law, i.e. where law has been developed through cases using a system of precedent.
Common law may be used to distinguish it from statutory law, for example, murder is a common law offence but the defence of provocation and diminished responsibility are statutory under sections 2 and 3 of the 1957 Homicide Act.
Common law could refer to a system which is common to the whole of the country.

Throughout your law studies you are likely to see the term ‘common law’ used to describe a legal system or the law which results from the operation of the doctrine of precedent.

Activity 19 Domestic sources of law

You should allow 0 hour(s), 20 minute(s).

Drawing upon your knowledge of how law is made by Parliament or through the courts, construct a diagram of the sources of law you have been introduced to in your law studies so far.

Now read the discussion

Comment

You may have chosen to add more detail, for example, by including each of the rules of statutory interpretation. The first box here refers to ‘domestic’ sources, which are the traditional sources of law in England and Wales.

The final activity will help to further consolidate your studies of this unit by considering two controversial cases which were widely reported in the media.

Activity 20 Courts of law and decision making

You should allow 0 hour(s), 30 minute(s).

For this activity, you will need to read the two transcripts exploring the cases of Tony Martin and the ‘Metric Martyrs’.

Exercise 1 Tony Martin

As you read the attached transcript you may want to take some notes. In particular, think about the contrast between the outcomes for Tony Martin and Terry Reagan.

Now read the transcript of the Tony Martin case (PDF, 0.1 MB, 2 pages).

View document

Now read the discussion

Comment

The case of Tony Martin concerned the common law concept of using reasonable force in self-defence. The clips contrasted the outcome in Martin's case, where he was convicted of murder at his original trial, with that of Terry Reagan, against whom a case was dropped. It illustrates the difficult decisions that have to be made by the judge and jury in the courtroom, and by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service on decisions to prosecute.

Exercise 2 The Metric Martyrs

Again, you may want to take notes as you read the transcript, which explores why the case was brought and the outcomes for the traders involved. It illustrates how and why the appeals process is often used.

Now read the transcript of the Metric Martyrs case (PDF, 0.1 MB, 2 pages).

View document

Now read the discussion

Comment

The case of the Metric Martyrs created many heated debates at the time it was brought. It again illustrates the legal process through which a particular case may go. It also illustrates how the media have reported on European issues such as directives. The case concerned the move to metrication in the UK – a decision which had been taken long before the UK was required to implement a European directive on metrication.

Review of the learning outcomes

After studying this unit you should be able to:

Part A

explain what the common law is and how it developed:
- In 1154 Henry II institutionalised common law. Judges travelled throughout the country bringing consistent justice to every citizen, and the practice developed where past decisions would be cited in argument before the courts and would be regarded as being of persuasive authority.

Part B

discuss the doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis:
- There are three essential elements to this system of precedent: a hierarchy of courts, binding precedent, and accurate law reporting.
explain the difference between the ratio decidendi and obiter dictum of a court case – the ratio decidendi of a case is the law used by the judge in deciding the legal problem raised by the concrete facts of the case. Any statement of law that is not an essential part of the ratio decidendi is referred to as obiter dictum.

Part C

understand the need for accurate law reporting
distinguish between the many sources of law reports
understand the system of neutral citation.

Part D

understand the need for statutory interpretation
explain the factors which can lead to the unclear meaning of a word in a statute.

Part E

discuss the rules of statutory interpretation:
- the literal rule
- the golden rule
- the mischief rule
- the purposive approach.
understand that which rule is chosen will depend upon an individual judge, although the purposive approach is becoming more common
understand the need for additional rules of language, and intrinsic and extrinsic aids.

Part F

explain the reasons for the development of equity
explain the role of Parliament and the courts in making legal rules.

Part G

distinguish the common law system from a civil law system.

Part H

explain the different meanings of common law
explain domestic sources of law
understand the impact media reporting may have on the knowledge and understanding of the sources of law.

The law in the United Kingdom does not all come from UK sources. Many legal rules come from the wider European community of which the UK is a member. In the next unit we will introduce you to the European system of rules and law, and explain how it works. In particular, we will consider one of the most recent influences on legal rule making in England and Wales: the role and impact of European Union law.

Do this

Now you have completed this unit, you might like to:

Post a message to the unit forum.
Review or add to your Learning Journal.
Rate this unit.

Try this

References

Cowie, F. and Bradney, A. (2000), English Legal System in Context, London, Butterworths, pp. 88–90.

‘Extending and developing your thinking skills’, Open University Student Toolkit 9.

Slapper, G. (2000) ‘Castles built on law’, New Law Journal, 23 June.

Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2003) The English Legal System, London, Cavendish, pp. 75–7 and 84–8.

‘The effective use of English’, Open University Student Toolkit 1.

‘Pure genius or plagiarism?’ (1998) The Times, 25 August.

‘The law factories’ (2002) The Times, 29 October.

Acknowledgements

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions) and is used under licence.

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this unit:

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary and is used under licence.

Text

A vs Essex County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1848. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Readings

Readings 1 and 4: Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2003) The English Legal System, Cavendish Publishing Limited

Reading 3: Slapper, G. (2000) ‘Castles built on law’, New Law Journal, Vol. 150, No. 6941, 23 June 2000

Reading 5: Slapper, G. (1998) ‘Pure genius or plagiarism?’ The Times, 25 August 1998 © News International Syndication

Figures

Figures 2, 4 and 6: Alamy.

Figure 3: Empics/PA.

Figure 7: LexisNexis Butterworths Direct.

Unit Image

Empics/PA.

Related educational resources

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:23:56 GMT

This is a list of all the Related educational resources for the unit W100_3 - Judges and the law