This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- WJEC Criminology level 3
- Does KCL Accept wjec criminology diploma?
- Oxbridge and Criminology
- WJEC Level 3 Criminology Diploma
- WJEC A Level Law Unit 4 (1150U40-1) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Best Books for A level Criminology, Law, Sociology & English Lit and Lang
- Btec grade calculator for uni
- BTEC for ucl
- University through college - is this the right course for me?
- final choice
- should i do RS (WJEC) or Sociology (AQA) A-level
- Advice on A Levels to pick
- About wjec level 3 criminology
- Will i be applicable to get onto a law course if.....
- russel group
- Wjec Computer Science A level
- WJEC A level Law unit 3 exam please reply!!!!!!!
- University of Aberdeen - Entry
- Uni of Manchester - Entry Requirments - WJEC
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
WJEC Law
Scroll to see replies
Advantages of Precedent:
1. It promotes certainty- because like cases are treated alike, lawyers will be able to predict the outcome of a case and so can advise clients; in fact, the Practice Statement points out that certainty is important.
2. It promotes consistency and therefore, fairness- it is only FAIR that like cases should be treated alike; the same rule should govern everyone.
3. Decisions arise from real life situations, so are more detailed and relevant to real life than statutes.
4. Hayek believes that case law (precedent) develops in line with what society wants, so there should be more of it- the law should develop in response to demand.
5. Flexibility- it responds to a changing society, even more now since the Practice Statement, 1066.
Also, you could say that it is more quick than Acts of Parliament at changing unjust/ out of date laws- for example, R v R made marital rape an offence; if it hadn't, it may still be legal!
You could also mention the developments that have come about from precedent (i've done them in another post, e.g Bland which allowd a limited form o euthanasia, allowing life sustaining equipment to be turned off if patients are in a vegetative state. )
Disadvantages of Precedent:
1. Complexity and volume- there are nearly half a million reported cases; it's difficult for lawyers to find a relevant case; judements are long, and ratio is difficult to identify.
2. (Counter-arguing the 'flexibility claim') - Although precedent does allow some flexibility (depending on the court), the rules of precedent and stare decisis usually mean that a judge may be bound by a precedent even if it is recognised as bad law; Lord Denning spoke out openly against having to follow a House of Lords precedent (in Davis v Johnson, re: the use of Hansard), and said that such rigidity in that case was denying women the protection that Parliament had intended; he thought that the Court of Appeal should be allowed to be more flexbile in terms of following precedent.
3. Therefore, bad law can remain unchanded- its only if someone has money and determination to appeal a case that it'll reach the higher court and have a change of being changed.
4. Retrospective effect:
Changes made to common law apply retrospectively- i.e they can affect events that happened before the case came to court (unlike USA which has prospective overruling)- e.g it is not against the law to do something, until, in your case, judges decide to make it illegal; this is not fair. E.g R v R led to two men who had been convicted of raping thier wives saying to the ECHR that at the time when they did, it was not a crime for a man to rape his wife, it only became so AFTER R v R, so at the time of the offence, they weren't breaking any existing law. (This led to SW v UK)
5. Undemocratic:
Judges aren't democratically elected like Parliament, so it is argued that they should not make law; they also aren't answerable to the people.
6. Against thier constitutional role/ the question of 'is it ever ok for judges to make the law?'
Both of these issues i think i've briefly explained elsewhere, please search the other posts!
Just a useful quote:
The case of DPP v Jones, in which judges changed the law on unlawful assembly, caused Bennion to say 'the judiciary is taking powers to which they are not constitutionally entitled.' (You don't have to remember this, just added it to give some authority.)
Hope that helped, please search up the bits i said (sorry if it was brief, I'm a bit short of time) . I'll try and help if you need anything else (but no promises in case i can't keep them) Good luck!
1. It promotes certainty- because like cases are treated alike, lawyers will be able to predict the outcome of a case and so can advise clients; in fact, the Practice Statement points out that certainty is important.
2. It promotes consistency and therefore, fairness- it is only FAIR that like cases should be treated alike; the same rule should govern everyone.
3. Decisions arise from real life situations, so are more detailed and relevant to real life than statutes.
4. Hayek believes that case law (precedent) develops in line with what society wants, so there should be more of it- the law should develop in response to demand.
5. Flexibility- it responds to a changing society, even more now since the Practice Statement, 1066.
Also, you could say that it is more quick than Acts of Parliament at changing unjust/ out of date laws- for example, R v R made marital rape an offence; if it hadn't, it may still be legal!
You could also mention the developments that have come about from precedent (i've done them in another post, e.g Bland which allowd a limited form o euthanasia, allowing life sustaining equipment to be turned off if patients are in a vegetative state. )
Disadvantages of Precedent:
1. Complexity and volume- there are nearly half a million reported cases; it's difficult for lawyers to find a relevant case; judements are long, and ratio is difficult to identify.
2. (Counter-arguing the 'flexibility claim') - Although precedent does allow some flexibility (depending on the court), the rules of precedent and stare decisis usually mean that a judge may be bound by a precedent even if it is recognised as bad law; Lord Denning spoke out openly against having to follow a House of Lords precedent (in Davis v Johnson, re: the use of Hansard), and said that such rigidity in that case was denying women the protection that Parliament had intended; he thought that the Court of Appeal should be allowed to be more flexbile in terms of following precedent.
3. Therefore, bad law can remain unchanded- its only if someone has money and determination to appeal a case that it'll reach the higher court and have a change of being changed.
4. Retrospective effect:
Changes made to common law apply retrospectively- i.e they can affect events that happened before the case came to court (unlike USA which has prospective overruling)- e.g it is not against the law to do something, until, in your case, judges decide to make it illegal; this is not fair. E.g R v R led to two men who had been convicted of raping thier wives saying to the ECHR that at the time when they did, it was not a crime for a man to rape his wife, it only became so AFTER R v R, so at the time of the offence, they weren't breaking any existing law. (This led to SW v UK)
5. Undemocratic:
Judges aren't democratically elected like Parliament, so it is argued that they should not make law; they also aren't answerable to the people.
6. Against thier constitutional role/ the question of 'is it ever ok for judges to make the law?'
Both of these issues i think i've briefly explained elsewhere, please search the other posts!
Just a useful quote:
The case of DPP v Jones, in which judges changed the law on unlawful assembly, caused Bennion to say 'the judiciary is taking powers to which they are not constitutionally entitled.' (You don't have to remember this, just added it to give some authority.)
Hope that helped, please search up the bits i said (sorry if it was brief, I'm a bit short of time) . I'll try and help if you need anything else (but no promises in case i can't keep them) Good luck!
Dredz: Hey, no problem
:O Listen, i think most people find EU law hard to get around, but seriously, whatever you do, don't give up on it, if it comes up in paper 3 and you haven't learnt it at all, well that's just 20 % of the marks gone! It's academic suicide... it took me a couple of hours to get it as well, please keep trying? You have tomorrow as well... Seriously, if it comes up you'll really regret it.
So just keep at it until you've learnt it, and THEN hope it doesn't come up.... if it does you'd still be able to do it, and if it doesn't we can all breathe a sigh of relief.
I've posted how to do EU application on here, and also some EU notes, so i don't really know what else I can do to help, but I'll help as best as I can to respond to anything you ask.
Good luck with it all
Keep trying!
:O Listen, i think most people find EU law hard to get around, but seriously, whatever you do, don't give up on it, if it comes up in paper 3 and you haven't learnt it at all, well that's just 20 % of the marks gone! It's academic suicide... it took me a couple of hours to get it as well, please keep trying? You have tomorrow as well... Seriously, if it comes up you'll really regret it.
So just keep at it until you've learnt it, and THEN hope it doesn't come up.... if it does you'd still be able to do it, and if it doesn't we can all breathe a sigh of relief.
I've posted how to do EU application on here, and also some EU notes, so i don't really know what else I can do to help, but I'll help as best as I can to respond to anything you ask.
Good luck with it all
Keep trying!
I've read your notes through, I understand the first part; the ECJ, Commision etc, but when it comes to sources of european law, Im like WTF?
Anyway, I still got like 6 topics to go, so Ill just go through them first and if I got some time left, Ill try EU Law again. I doubt that Ill have time for it tho, as Im not revising the topics, its the first time Im doing them. Since today I got rly rly demotivated and I doubt Ill pass this. Still gonna try tho..
Anyway, I still got like 6 topics to go, so Ill just go through them first and if I got some time left, Ill try EU Law again. I doubt that Ill have time for it tho, as Im not revising the topics, its the first time Im doing them. Since today I got rly rly demotivated and I doubt Ill pass this. Still gonna try tho..
Dredz
I've read your notes through, I understand the first part; the ECJ, Commision etc, but when it comes to sources of european law, Im like WTF?
Anyway, I still got like 6 topics to go, so Ill just go through them first and if I got some time left, Ill try EU Law again. I doubt that Ill have time for it tho, as Im not revising the topics, its the first time Im doing them. Since today I got rly rly demotivated and I doubt Ill pass this. Still gonna try tho..
Anyway, I still got like 6 topics to go, so Ill just go through them first and if I got some time left, Ill try EU Law again. I doubt that Ill have time for it tho, as Im not revising the topics, its the first time Im doing them. Since today I got rly rly demotivated and I doubt Ill pass this. Still gonna try tho..
The sources are quite easy compared to the rest of the unit i think.
To summarize:
Primary Sources:
•
Treaties
Secondary Sources:
•
Regulations
•
Directives
•
Decisions
The above is all you need to know but if you want to be clever you can also have as secondary sources of law:
•
Reccomendations
•
Opinions
Dredz, see, you have a summary, hope that helps 
, thanks Saki, think i'll use that too, not enough time to go over everything!.
Ok, I'm stuck on something now, could someone please help me? I've seen the following questions: 'What effect would a new Supreme Court have on the doctrine of preceden?' , and also, 'Discuss whether the UK needs a new Supreme Court...'
I'm confused! No idea... So, does anybody know how to answer possible questions on the Supreme Court? I'd be grateful for any help
, thanks Saki, think i'll use that too, not enough time to go over everything!. Ok, I'm stuck on something now, could someone please help me? I've seen the following questions: 'What effect would a new Supreme Court have on the doctrine of preceden?' , and also, 'Discuss whether the UK needs a new Supreme Court...'
I'm confused! No idea... So, does anybody know how to answer possible questions on the Supreme Court? I'd be grateful for any help
Stressed Chick
Dredz, see, you have a summary, hope that helps , thanks Saki, think i'll use that too, not enough time to go over everything!.
Ok, I'm stuck on something now, could someone please help me? I've seen the following questions: 'What effect would a new Supreme Court have on the doctrine of preceden?' , and also, 'Discuss whether the UK needs a new Supreme Court...'
I'm confused! No idea... So, does anybody know how to answer possible questions on the Supreme Court? I'd be grateful for any help
, thanks Saki, think i'll use that too, not enough time to go over everything!. Ok, I'm stuck on something now, could someone please help me? I've seen the following questions: 'What effect would a new Supreme Court have on the doctrine of preceden?' , and also, 'Discuss whether the UK needs a new Supreme Court...'
I'm confused! No idea... So, does anybody know how to answer possible questions on the Supreme Court? I'd be grateful for any help
Well thank you for all of your notes! I'm using the bail ones right now
And err... about those questions.. I don't really know but if I'd have to guess:
'What effect would a new Supreme Court have on the doctrine of precedent?': ALL of the UK courts would be bound by it's decisions... The supreme court would be a "court of last resort" and none of it's rulings could be challenged.
To be fair i'm a bit confused because i would have thought that our House Of Lords was a form of supreme court. Adding a "supreme court", I assume, would undermine the House of Lords
As for 'Discuss whether the UK needs a new Supreme Court...' - I'd say that strictly speaking we cannot have a "supreme Court" due to our membership of the EU. The ECJ is in essence, the supreme court for us due to its supranationalism. If we were to have a supreme court then it would be rendered worthless because of the European Communities Act 1972 and our signing of the various EC treaties. In this question I'd give examples of EC supremacy, such as van Gend en Loos and cases such as Factortame.
I'm not quite sure that;s how the questions should be answered, in that they probably didn't want me to go off on a tangent about EC law.
But at the moment in this stage of revision that would be all i could suggest!
Hey Saki thanks!
That's great, before i was really confused but i understand your line of thinking now!
About the 2nd q on whether we need a Supreme Court... that's a good argument... it also got me thinking, well perhaps we didn't need a Supreme Court in the same sense as the US one, which can strike down laws, but instead, simply a final appeal court which is not linked to the House of Lords, as the judicial and political functions should be kept separate due to separation of powers? Then like you said, in actual fact, EU laws can already put pressure on the government to change certain laws which are incompatible, so you wouldn't need a Supreme Court to stike down lawsas in the US??? Hope they don't ask that question though!
Thanks man, you just saved my life!
PS: Yeah i was confused about Supreme Court undermining the Lords too.... let's just HOPE they don't ask it. If they asked standard questions on precedent and judiciary, I would love WJEC forever!
Not long to go...
Dredz, hope your revision's going well...take care all.
That's great, before i was really confused but i understand your line of thinking now!
About the 2nd q on whether we need a Supreme Court... that's a good argument
... it also got me thinking, well perhaps we didn't need a Supreme Court in the same sense as the US one, which can strike down laws, but instead, simply a final appeal court which is not linked to the House of Lords, as the judicial and political functions should be kept separate due to separation of powers? Then like you said, in actual fact, EU laws can already put pressure on the government to change certain laws which are incompatible, so you wouldn't need a Supreme Court to stike down lawsas in the US??? Hope they don't ask that question though!Thanks man, you just saved my life!
PS: Yeah i was confused about Supreme Court undermining the Lords too.... let's just HOPE they don't ask it. If they asked standard questions on precedent and judiciary, I would love WJEC forever!
Not long to go...
Dredz, hope your revision's going well...take care all.
Stressed Chick
Hey Saki thanks!
That's great, before i was really confused but i understand your line of thinking now!
About the 2nd q on whether we need a Supreme Court... that's a good argument... it also got me thinking, well perhaps we didn't need a Supreme Court in the same sense as the US one, which can strike down laws, but instead, simply a final appeal court which is not linked to the House of Lords, as the judicial and political functions should be kept separate due to separation of powers? Then like you said, in actual fact, EU laws can already put pressure on the government to change certain laws which are incompatible, so you wouldn't need a Supreme Court to stike down lawsas in the US??? Hope they don't ask that question though!
Thanks man, you just saved my life!
PS: Yeah i was confused about Supreme Court undermining the Lords too.... let's just HOPE they don't ask it. If they asked standard questions on precedent and judiciary, I would love WJEC forever!
Not long to go...
Dredz, hope your revision's going well...take care all.
That's great, before i was really confused but i understand your line of thinking now!
About the 2nd q on whether we need a Supreme Court... that's a good argument
... it also got me thinking, well perhaps we didn't need a Supreme Court in the same sense as the US one, which can strike down laws, but instead, simply a final appeal court which is not linked to the House of Lords, as the judicial and political functions should be kept separate due to separation of powers? Then like you said, in actual fact, EU laws can already put pressure on the government to change certain laws which are incompatible, so you wouldn't need a Supreme Court to stike down lawsas in the US??? Hope they don't ask that question though!Thanks man, you just saved my life!
PS: Yeah i was confused about Supreme Court undermining the Lords too.... let's just HOPE they don't ask it. If they asked standard questions on precedent and judiciary, I would love WJEC forever!
Not long to go...
Dredz, hope your revision's going well...take care all.
Haha yea I hope we get a normal Judicial Precedent question. That would be awesome.
And yea I was talking to a friend about that question and he also said about separation of powers
Ahh... this revision is too hard
Dredz
Can any1 explain me the differences between the normal ADR proceedings(mediation, arbitration, consilliation) and tribunals?
I've just been revising this too. I don't get why tribunals are even under the same category as ADR. How are they even related? Aren't tribunals just a kindof resource for the courts to offload some of their cases?
Stressed Chick
Innocence: We're all doing the WJEC board, not AQA... a lot of the stuff will be relevant but your questions are different and also, you do some criminal law.
Ahh I get. Thanks for explaining. Yeh we cover criminal Law in Module 3; Alongside Tort of Negligence. Very interesting actually. Anyways Good luck for anyone doing their Law Exams tomorrow. I'm sure your gonna ace it.
Oh and stressed Girl, your notes have come in handy for me as well. Thanks.
babzilla
are you guys who are doin AS sittin all 3 tomorrow?
Yeah, LW1,2 and 3. Seriously dreading it.
babzilla
yaa same. good luck!!! whos ur teacher? i got richard.
Hmmm don't know him. Do you do it with the school or is it like an outside company that comes in and does it. Our teacher isn't really a teacher, he's more of a lecturer and you can tell he hasn't been trained as a teacher aswell. I think he just expects us to know everything and looks at us really weirdly if we have a question. haha.
So is the WJEC exam diffrent from the OCR NEW law exam ?? Because i have my English Legal system and my sources of law OCR new law exam 2morra
Related discussions
- WJEC Criminology level 3
- Does KCL Accept wjec criminology diploma?
- Oxbridge and Criminology
- WJEC Level 3 Criminology Diploma
- WJEC A Level Law Unit 4 (1150U40-1) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Best Books for A level Criminology, Law, Sociology & English Lit and Lang
- Btec grade calculator for uni
- BTEC for ucl
- University through college - is this the right course for me?
- final choice
- should i do RS (WJEC) or Sociology (AQA) A-level
- Advice on A Levels to pick
- About wjec level 3 criminology
- Will i be applicable to get onto a law course if.....
- russel group
- Wjec Computer Science A level
- WJEC A level Law unit 3 exam please reply!!!!!!!
- University of Aberdeen - Entry
- Uni of Manchester - Entry Requirments - WJEC
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A-level Physical Education Paper 1 (7582/1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
20
32
