ac1.1 - processes used for law making

• how are laws made?

  government processes- main way in parliament, judicial processes- made by superior judges in cases
• what are the three parts of parliament?

  house of commons , house of lords , the king
• members of parliament

  members of parliament are voted in by uk citizens and represent parts of the country. they sit in the house of commons in green seats and can introduce ideas for new laws. they raise new ideas and scrutinize government policy
• how many MPs are there currently in parliament

  650 MPs represent their ideas and concerns in the house of commons
• house of lords

  they sit in red seats and vote on ideas for new laws. they were originally wise men who used to advise the Saxon monarchs over 1000 years ago. they now must be appointed because of an area of expertise that they have.
• how many lords are their currently in the house of lords

  800 lords or aka peers
• the king

  the king must agree to the new law by signing it off at the end of its stages. this is called royal assent
• where do proposals come from?

  petitions- 100000 public signatures lead to a parliamentary debate. public inquiries- McPherson report. MPs- Teresa may backed the domestic abuse bill. pressure groups- anti fox hunting groups. campaign groups- Sarahs law. government agendas- Brexit
• pre parliamentary process

  many laws are made in parliament through consultations, debates, and voting. a green paper is the first stage and is the suggestion for a new law. then is the white paper which is a formal proposal for the law. a bill is then produced and has to go through the parliamentary stages
• what happens to bills?

  they may not become law because they are voted out e.g the euthanasia bill. or they may become laws e.g. Sarah's law
• what is the first stage of the parliamentary process?

  consultation stage- here a draft bill is made and consulted on
• what comes after the consultation stage?

  first reading- this is where the bill is announced and the title read out.
• where does the first part of the parliamentary process take place?

  house of commons
• after the third reading where does the parliamentary process repeat?

  house of lords
• what is after the first reading?

  second reading- this is the main debating stage where a bill may be voted out
• whats after the second reading?

  committee stage- this is where a smaller group of MPs discuss the bill and make necessary amendments
• what goes after the committee stage?

  report stage- this is where any amendments are reported back to the house of commons
• what happens after the report stage in the parliamentary process?

  third reading- this is the overall consideration of the bill is held and the decision on if the bill should go further is made
• after the process is repeated in the House of lords what happens to the bill?

  Royal Assent- the king is the figurehead and signs off the bill as a new law or act of parliament. this is then either passed straight away or a commencement date is set
• what is the full order of the parliamentary process?

  green paper, white paper, consultation stage, first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading, royal assent
• what is judicial precedent?

  the process of law-making using the judiciary and their previous decisions in court
• what is stare decisis?


  the idea that the courts must stand by what they decide and that precedent should always be followed in future cases
• why is it important for there to be a court hierarchy?

  the court hierarchy is important because it means lower courts have to follow superior courts decisions where facts of a case are sufficiently similar
• what is the role of the superior courts?

  to set precedent and overrule decisions of lower courts
• what are the superior courts?

  supreme court, court of appeal, and the high court
• what is the role of the inferior courts?

  they are courts of first instance and are bound by higher court precedent
• what are the inferior courts?

  crown court and magistrates court
• precedent case Donoghue v Stevenson compared to Daniels v white

  the case of Donoghue v Stevenson was sufficiently similar to that of Daniels v white because the manufacturer had a duty of care in both cases and worked negligently. Donoghue = snail, Daniels = corrosive lemonade. binding precedent established in Donoghue v Stevenson was followed in Daniels v white
• what are the ways of avoiding precedent?

  overruling and distinguishing
• what is overruling?

  overruling is when a higher court overrules a decision from a lower court. the supreme court can also overrule its own decisions using the Practice Statement
• r v r 1991

  an example of overruling. a husband convicted for attempting to rape his wife. he appealed on the grounds that marriage provides an irrevocable consent to sex. the court of appeal overruled the previous decision and decided on new precedent that made marital rape illegal
• what is distinguishing?


  distinguishing is applying a previous precedent to a current case as the facts are materially different
• distinguishing case example

  balfour v Balfour 1919 - husband went overseas and promised wife to send 30 pounds per month. the relationship broke down and payments stopped. arrangement was seen as domestic rather than legal. merritt v merritt 1970 - husband agreed to pay 40 pounds for maintenance on a house each month. they were already seperated when the decision was made. the case succeeded and the wife won
• what are the key differences between balfour v balfour and merritt v merritt?

  both parties were already separated in merritt v merritt. this meant that the settlement was legal in this case but domestic in Balfour v Balfour because they weren't married. society has changed its views on marital breakdown and parties are now expected to protect themselves
• what is statutory interpretation?

  the words of a law can sometimes be clear and precise and other times vague and ambiguous. because there is more than one way to interpret words. there are rules put in place to help judges interpret the law.
• what is the literal rule?

  statutes are to be interpreted using their ordinary and dictionary meaning unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise
• example case of the literal rule

  Whitney v Chappel 1868 - d pretended to be another person in order to vote. he was charged with impersonating a person entitled to vote. the court held that d was not guilty because a dead person was not entitled to voted based on the literal meaning of the word entitled
• what is the golden rule?

  this is used if the literal rule would give an absurd verdict. it contains the narrow and broad approach and allows for more flexibility
• what is the narrow approach in the golden rule?


  if a word has more than one meaning then the judge chooses the most appropriate choice. r v allen- the meaning of bigamy
• what is the broad approach in the golden rule?


  where there is only one meaning of the word but this would cause a repugnant result, the court can slightly broaden the meaning. re Sigsworth- is a man who murdered their mother the next of kin?