The Student Room Group

.

..
(edited 2 years ago)
Please help
Read Ivey v Genting, pick a side on your essay. Say why you think your side is right. Then say why you think your side might be wrong - giving counter examples, then conclude as to why you're right.
Original post by Trinculo
Read Ivey v Genting, pick a side on your essay. Say why you think your side is right. Then say why you think your side might be wrong - giving counter examples, then conclude as to why you're right.

The problem is I don’t have a side. I don’t know what supports or limits the power of judges to change the law, other than parliamentary sovereignty. That’s what I need help with
Original post by jxlow
The problem is I don’t have a side. I don’t know what supports or limits the power of judges to change the law, other than parliamentary sovereignty. That’s what I need help with

Pick a side. Decide what you want to argue and go with it. Read the case (or it can be any other case involving judges changing the law) and decide if you think that the system supports or limits - and then argue that using examples. Then use counter examples. With these kind of questions, I think it's better than trying to IRAC them.
Original post by Trinculo
Pick a side. Decide what you want to argue and go with it. Read the case (or it can be any other case involving judges changing the law) and decide if you think that the system supports or limits - and then argue that using examples. Then use counter examples. With these kind of questions, I think it's better than trying to IRAC them.


You don’t seem to be understanding what I am asking for help with. I can’t pick a side because I don’t know what supports or limits their power. I know there are instances where judges have changed the law, but I don’t know how the English legal system supports their power to do so. That’s what I am asking. And how it limits their power.
Reply 7
I found a good resource through Googling, there are many available even without using the university’s website. Get a little bit creative with the terminology whenever you are searching.
Original post by jxlow
You don’t seem to be understanding what I am asking for help with. I can’t pick a side because I don’t know what supports or limits their power. I know there are instances where judges have changed the law, but I don’t know how the English legal system supports their power to do so. That’s what I am asking. And how it limits their power.

I could be wrong here, but it sounds like you keep looking at this essay in terms of "what" - as in "what institutions of the legal system support / limit power of judges", and so far you have only come up with Parliamentary Sovereignty. Ok. But that's not how I would approach this essay. I read it as taking the last bit much more weightily. "...especially in cases where there are compelling reasons to do so."

So my train of thought is - start with a case where there were compelling reasons to change the law. Look at cases where the law has been changed (like Ivey) and also cases where you feel that the law is quite old. R v Brown isn't a bad place to look. There should be quite a bit of academic writing on Brown.

Then ask yourself - did the law need changing? Was it changed? In the case of Ivey, yes it was, and in a way that has quite an important bearing on a lot of future cases. So now look at how the common law and how the system supported that change and why statute wasn't used. Then apply the same rationale to your counter case. Is the reason the law hasn't changed because of our common law system, is there something stopping / preventing that change? This approach looks at what has happened and how - rather than trying to name institutions.
Reply 9
Original post by Trinculo
I could be wrong here, but it sounds like you keep looking at this essay in terms of "what" - as in "what institutions of the legal system support / limit power of judges", and so far you have only come up with Parliamentary Sovereignty. Ok. But that's not how I would approach this essay. I read it as taking the last bit much more weightily. "...especially in cases where there are compelling reasons to do so."

So my train of thought is - start with a case where there were compelling reasons to change the law. Look at cases where the law has been changed (like Ivey) and also cases where you feel that the law is quite old. R v Brown isn't a bad place to look. There should be quite a bit of academic writing on Brown.

Then ask yourself - did the law need changing? Was it changed? In the case of Ivey, yes it was, and in a way that has quite an important bearing on a lot of future cases. So now look at how the common law and how the system supported that change and why statute wasn't used. Then apply the same rationale to your counter case. Is the reason the law hasn't changed because of our common law system, is there something stopping / preventing that change? This approach looks at what has happened and how - rather than trying to name institutions.


You really be doing this person’s work :burnout:

Quick Reply

Latest