This means that many of our primary legal principles have been established and developed by judges (not Parliament) on a case-by-case basis under a so-called precedent system, in which lower courts are required to follow the principles established by higher courts in previous cases. The common law (or judicial statutes) is at least as important to us as the law passed by Parliament. For example, there is no act of Parliament that tells us that murder is a crime; It is a common law crime that has been refined by judges over the centuries. The United Kingdom has three distinct legal systems; one for England and Wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. This reflects its historical origins and the fact that Scotland and Ireland, and later Northern Ireland, retained their own legal systems and traditions under the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800. This site deals with the judicial system of England and Wales. It also briefly mentions the Courts Service, which covers Scotland, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which has jurisdiction throughout the United Kingdom since it replaced the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in October 2009. Our lack of a written constitution is one of the consequences of how the UK`s current political and legal institutions have developed since 1066. Another consequence is that our institutions have not separated the functions and powers of the three different branches of government, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Given that homicide is a criminal offence, the question arises not only as to whether the shutdown of life support devices meets the definition of homicide, but also whether judges should have the power to make a decision with such far-reaching ethical implications. Another peculiarity of the English legal system is the doctrine of binding precedent, also known as stare decisis. The doctrine of precedent is one of the main reasons for the importance of case law in the English legal system (Jones 2015, p.

6). English judges, unlike other European countries, not only take into account previous decisions in cases with comparable facts, but are required to apply the jurisdiction of earlier cases if they have been “heard by a higher court … and sometimes . equal status” (Jones 2015, p. 6). The doctrine of precedent is a key concept in the English legal system, giving judges the ability to influence legislation or even create a new law. This quotation is from Lord Diplock in Express Newspapers Ltd. v Macshane, [1980] 1 All ER 65 (HL) at page 541. In order to analyse the quotation in the context of the aforementioned principles of English law, this paper is divided into three main parts: the doctrine of precedent, the interpretation of the law, and the discussion of whether judges should create a new law. Accordingly, this paper examines the following statement in light of precedent, the interpretation of the rules of law, and whether judges should create a new right. Because laws rarely tend to be unambiguous. Judges often have to “determine the meaning of a particular word or section of a statute in a court case” (Jones, 2015, p.

52). While this may be a difficult process, the outcome is crucial not only to the current process, but also, and probably more so, to the continuation of business under the doctrine of precedent. As a result, some rules of interpretation of the law have been developed. In the area of law interpretation, two opposing views emerged on how judges should interpret statutes: the literal approach and the targeted approach. While the literal approach examines the literal meaning of the words of the law, the objective-based approach goes beyond words that reflect the spirit of the law to implement the actual intent of the law (Jones 2015, p. 53). The judicial system can open doors and sometimes even tear down walls. But it cannot build bridges. This work is yours and mine. More than 200 black federal judges have served in the U.S.

court system. There were only two black justices on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall (1967-1991) and Clarence Thomas (1991-present). Judges must justify their decisions. Sometimes judges explain their reasons in court at the same time as they make their decision on the case. In other cases, judges will issue their decision at the end of the trial in court, but will set out the reasons for their decision in a written decision at a later stage. Judges may also present oral reasons before the court and a written decision at a later date. However, it is not always easy for judges to answer questions from parliamentary committees on topical issues, especially when the atmosphere in which an issue is dealt with is “political” and others try to interpret what is being said in a certain way. Caution must also be exercised because judges who decide on an issue may decide later that they must rule on the same issue. There is a risk that statements made by judges in parliamentary committees could give the impression that the judiciary is another “actor” in the political process, which would affect the public`s perception of its impartiality and independence. Judges should be careful about what they say and promote the belief that the areas on which they should be invited to comment publicly should be expanded.

Indeed, recent constitutional reforms that have exacerbated the separation of judicial power from other branches of state suggest that it may not be appropriate for judges to comment on certain issues on which they have done so in the past. We must ensure that all those who act as judges are fair.