The it can be applicable for future

The question concerns with two major areas within the English
Common Law system, the doctrine of precedence and the statutory interpretation.
One must first understand the key concepts behind these principles where the
judicial precedent is defined as “a rule of law binding upon later cases”1, thus implying the court
as following rulings from previous cases which contain similar facts, resulting
in greater consistency. Nonetheless, many cases can be too complex causing
uncertainty which has resulted in the formation of the statutory interpretation.
Accounts UK are therefore considering the advantages of these cases to see
whether it is useful to stay or relocate to Germany.

The doctrine of precedence originally derives from the Latin
phrase Stare decisis which means “let the decision stand”. This means that when
the court has “laid down a principle of law”2, it can be applicable for
future cases thus leading to fairness and consistency. Nonetheless, it is
imperative to consider the key factors in which a precedent is qualified to
consider a case, which involves closely identifying the material facts from all
parties which is a practise followed very strictly. Additionally, the judge
must review previous rulings where there have been similar precedents that have
taken place and assess whether it correlates with the present case.

One of the many advantages of the doctrine of precedence is that
it saves time in carrying out key decisions for certain cases. As illustrated
in Fitzsimons v Ford Motor Co 1946, the defendant was compelled to drill a machine
whilst working and resulted in an injury due to the intense vibrations. This
effectively lead to contracting Raynaud’s disease and as a result, appealed
that it was an industrial accident. Similarly, the judge has used a previous
case, Burell v Selvage 1921, due to the similarity of the accident as Burell
received cuts and abrasions on her fingers whilst working, resulting in blood
poisoning. The House of Lords dictated that “a disease arising from employment
could under certain circumstances be regarded as an accident” which resulted in
a set precedent. This benefits the court as there will be similar cases in the
future which deals with the same material facts and resultantly avoids periods
of litigation which in the long run saves huge sums of money for the defendant.
Additionally this also means that defendants can accurately limit legal advisers
thus reducing costs as they would have a general idea of the eventual outcome
due to the law being applied literally.

Furthermore, the doctrine of precedence ensures the uniformity of
Law and consistent justice. As previously explained, judges are forced to use
set precedents to help initiate a decision on similar cases. This is directly
shown in Parmenter v R 1991 where the defendant had injured his child due to
inexperience and was convicted of GBH. It has been argued that the individual
did not foresee the risk of injury and as a result the Court decided to use the
case of Spratt 1991 where the defendant accidently fired an airgun to a young
girl. The key aspect in both cases is that both the individuals did not foresee
any harm at all and can be viewed as merely an accident. As a result, the court
ruled Parmenter v R 1991 to be bound with the same set precedent as in Spratt
1991 which avoids the conviction of GBH. As exemplified, the doctrine of
precedence “serves as a guide for present action3” with the notion
being that cases should be treated similarly for the sake of consistency and
fairness. It reduces the risk of unfairly ruling convictions for individuals
and all parties involved have the knowledge that the decision roots from a
precedent and not a personal view. Additionally, it avoids judges from creating
new law for different cases as if this by any chance occurred, Britain would
not have a democracy but rather a dictatorship.

Lastly, despite the strict nature of the Precedent, it can evolve
as society develops over time thus maintaining the principle of justice even
when there is a lack of legislation. In R v R 1991 the defendant was accused
of attempted rape against his wife despite being separated although there was
no legislation confirming otherwise. During that era however, English law
dictated that matrimonial rape was not recognised as a marriage was viewed as
“irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband”. Nonetheless in
modern times a marriage is an equal partnership and requires consent as human rights
have drastically increased over time. This case proves on how Courts can
efficiently “move quickly to lay down new principles or extend old principles
to meet novel circumstances4” showing that the
chance of developing law does exist to suit with the general advances in

The English Common Law legal system also consists of statutory
interpretation which is when courts interpret information and formulate a
decision on a case by applying relevant legislation. This essay will explore
specific statutes which are the literal, golden and mischief rules and how it
positively impacts in the decision making for the courts.

One of the rules incorporated in the statutory interpretation is
the literal rule which is defined by Lord Tindal as “the words themselves alone
do…best declare the intention of the lawgiver5”. Thus, the literal rule
ensures that the law is taken for their face value and it would be interpreted
exactly how it is written. This is revealed specifically in the Fisher v Bell
1960 where the shop owner had a flick knife displayed for sale which was an
offence due to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as flick knives
were prohibited for sale. Nonetheless, the literal rule was applied here it was
technically regarded as an invitation to treat and not specifically for sale,
insinuating that Fisher had done nothing wrong. Although the case reached a
peculiar conclusion, judges were forced to carry out Parliaments designated legislation
and avoids them from making law highlighting the Supremacy of Parliament. may
need to expand

The Golden Rule theoretically reflects the literal rule providing
that it doesn’t lead to absurdity. In the Adler v George 1964 for example,
Adler was arrested for being in a vicinity of an area, but he argued he was
theoretically IN the area, implying that he was not breaking the law. Clearly,
Adler attempted on manipulating the technicalities of the law resulting in an
absurd result. This stimulated the judge to enforce the golden rule and his
conviction was upheld. Clearly, this rule avoided total absurdity and
eliminates loopholes to provide just results. The courts are also solidifying
Parliament’s true intentions as they are only allowed to make marginal
corrections with law, thus maintain justice for specific cases.

Lastly, the Mischief Rule is applied to a statute its dealing with
and detects any “mischief and defect” in a specific case which is decided by
the judge to implement a decision on Parliaments behalf. Essentially, this is
represented in the Smith v Hughes 1960 case where the defendants (regarded as
prostitutes) were charged with “soliciting in a public place” as they attempted
to attract attention from their windows which although can be argued as they
were in a private environment, the court was able to interpret their intentions
as they were soliciting. Nonetheless, the mischief rule was applied to “remedy
the weakness in the common law” and maintain justice. Furthermore, the judge
saves time by essentially using common sense to solidify a case and gives
further weight on the defendant’s intentions rather than the act itself to
deliver the best course of justice. This closes any loopholes and ensures that
the court delivers the best possible judgement also exemplifying that the law
can be somewhat flexible if there are unique cases. However, the option to give
judges an opinion on a case can be viewed as an infringement as they are
strictly meant to carry out Parliaments legislation not to voice their own
insights in the final decision.

After exploring the English Common Law system it is imperative to
recognise the other outcome for Accounts UK which is Civil law governed by
Germany. The major difference is that laws are stated explicitly and therefore
are codified statutes, whereas the common law system is more flexible and can
adapt to unique cases and enforce new legislation rather quickly. It can be
argued that the civil law system is somewhat preferable as it is heavily based
on written constitution thus making it easier to decipher for society and
lawyers alike.

In conclusion, the English common law system seems a more
preferable option as unlike the codified law in Germany, the English courts
offer more flexibility after taking into account the statutory interpretation and
the doctrine of precedent. Resultantly, Accounts UK should stay in England as
if they were to appear in court their case would be dealt with accordingly


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out