The it can be applicable for future

The question concerns with two major areas within the EnglishCommon Law system, the doctrine of precedence and the statutory interpretation.

One must first understand the key concepts behind these principles where thejudicial precedent is defined as “a rule of law binding upon later cases”1, thus implying the courtas following rulings from previous cases which contain similar facts, resultingin greater consistency. Nonetheless, many cases can be too complex causinguncertainty which has resulted in the formation of the statutory interpretation.Accounts UK are therefore considering the advantages of these cases to seewhether it is useful to stay or relocate to Germany.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The doctrine of precedence originally derives from the Latinphrase Stare decisis which means “let the decision stand”. This means that whenthe court has “laid down a principle of law”2, it can be applicable forfuture cases thus leading to fairness and consistency. Nonetheless, it isimperative to consider the key factors in which a precedent is qualified toconsider a case, which involves closely identifying the material facts from allparties which is a practise followed very strictly. Additionally, the judgemust review previous rulings where there have been similar precedents that havetaken place and assess whether it correlates with the present case.One of the many advantages of the doctrine of precedence is thatit saves time in carrying out key decisions for certain cases. As illustratedin Fitzsimons v Ford Motor Co 1946, the defendant was compelled to drill a machinewhilst working and resulted in an injury due to the intense vibrations. Thiseffectively lead to contracting Raynaud’s disease and as a result, appealedthat it was an industrial accident.

Similarly, the judge has used a previouscase, Burell v Selvage 1921, due to the similarity of the accident as Burellreceived cuts and abrasions on her fingers whilst working, resulting in bloodpoisoning. The House of Lords dictated that “a disease arising from employmentcould under certain circumstances be regarded as an accident” which resulted ina set precedent. This benefits the court as there will be similar cases in thefuture which deals with the same material facts and resultantly avoids periodsof litigation which in the long run saves huge sums of money for the defendant.Additionally this also means that defendants can accurately limit legal advisersthus reducing costs as they would have a general idea of the eventual outcomedue to the law being applied literally.Furthermore, the doctrine of precedence ensures the uniformity ofLaw and consistent justice.

As previously explained, judges are forced to useset precedents to help initiate a decision on similar cases. This is directlyshown in Parmenter v R 1991 where the defendant had injured his child due toinexperience and was convicted of GBH. It has been argued that the individualdid not foresee the risk of injury and as a result the Court decided to use thecase of Spratt 1991 where the defendant accidently fired an airgun to a younggirl. The key aspect in both cases is that both the individuals did not foreseeany harm at all and can be viewed as merely an accident. As a result, the courtruled Parmenter v R 1991 to be bound with the same set precedent as in Spratt1991 which avoids the conviction of GBH.

As exemplified, the doctrine ofprecedence “serves as a guide for present action3″ with the notionbeing that cases should be treated similarly for the sake of consistency andfairness. It reduces the risk of unfairly ruling convictions for individualsand all parties involved have the knowledge that the decision roots from aprecedent and not a personal view. Additionally, it avoids judges from creatingnew law for different cases as if this by any chance occurred, Britain wouldnot have a democracy but rather a dictatorship.Lastly, despite the strict nature of the Precedent, it can evolveas society develops over time thus maintaining the principle of justice evenwhen there is a lack of legislation. In R v R 1991 the defendant was accusedof attempted rape against his wife despite being separated although there wasno legislation confirming otherwise. During that era however, English lawdictated that matrimonial rape was not recognised as a marriage was viewed as”irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband”.

Nonetheless inmodern times a marriage is an equal partnership and requires consent as human rightshave drastically increased over time. This case proves on how Courts canefficiently “move quickly to lay down new principles or extend old principlesto meet novel circumstances4” showing that thechance of developing law does exist to suit with the general advances insociety.The English Common Law legal system also consists of statutoryinterpretation which is when courts interpret information and formulate adecision on a case by applying relevant legislation.

This essay will explorespecific statutes which are the literal, golden and mischief rules and how itpositively impacts in the decision making for the courts.One of the rules incorporated in the statutory interpretation isthe literal rule which is defined by Lord Tindal as “the words themselves alonedo…best declare the intention of the lawgiver5”. Thus, the literal ruleensures that the law is taken for their face value and it would be interpretedexactly how it is written. This is revealed specifically in the Fisher v Bell1960 where the shop owner had a flick knife displayed for sale which was anoffence due to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as flick kniveswere prohibited for sale.

Nonetheless, the literal rule was applied here it wastechnically regarded as an invitation to treat and not specifically for sale,insinuating that Fisher had done nothing wrong. Although the case reached apeculiar conclusion, judges were forced to carry out Parliaments designated legislationand avoids them from making law highlighting the Supremacy of Parliament. mayneed to expandThe Golden Rule theoretically reflects the literal rule providingthat 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 wastheoretically IN the area, implying that he was not breaking the law. Clearly,Adler attempted on manipulating the technicalities of the law resulting in anabsurd result. This stimulated the judge to enforce the golden rule and hisconviction was upheld.

Clearly, this rule avoided total absurdity andeliminates loopholes to provide just results. The courts are also solidifyingParliament’s true intentions as they are only allowed to make marginalcorrections with law, thus maintain justice for specific cases.Lastly, the Mischief Rule is applied to a statute its dealing withand detects any “mischief and defect” in a specific case which is decided bythe judge to implement a decision on Parliaments behalf. Essentially, this isrepresented in the Smith v Hughes 1960 case where the defendants (regarded asprostitutes) were charged with “soliciting in a public place” as they attemptedto attract attention from their windows which although can be argued as theywere in a private environment, the court was able to interpret their intentionsas they were soliciting.

Nonetheless, the mischief rule was applied to “remedythe weakness in the common law” and maintain justice. Furthermore, the judgesaves time by essentially using common sense to solidify a case and givesfurther weight on the defendant’s intentions rather than the act itself todeliver the best course of justice. This closes any loopholes and ensures thatthe court delivers the best possible judgement also exemplifying that the lawcan be somewhat flexible if there are unique cases.

However, the option to givejudges an opinion on a case can be viewed as an infringement as they arestrictly meant to carry out Parliaments legislation not to voice their owninsights in the final decision.After exploring the English Common Law system it is imperative torecognise the other outcome for Accounts UK which is Civil law governed byGermany. The major difference is that laws are stated explicitly and thereforeare codified statutes, whereas the common law system is more flexible and canadapt to unique cases and enforce new legislation rather quickly. It can beargued that the civil law system is somewhat preferable as it is heavily basedon written constitution thus making it easier to decipher for society andlawyers alike.In conclusion, the English common law system seems a morepreferable option as unlike the codified law in Germany, the English courtsoffer more flexibility after taking into account the statutory interpretation andthe doctrine of precedent.

Resultantly, Accounts UK should stay in England asif 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