NFO evaluation 3
- Created by: alliehxtch18
- Created on: 24-05-18 14:09
View mindmap
- NFO Evaluation 3
- 1. another issue is that they rely on case law rather than statutes.
- eg, the offences under s47, 18 and 20 OAPA have had to develop from cases
- case development can be better than statute definitions because there was no definition of ABH, GBH or Wound in the act, was left up to the judges to define these key terms in Chan-fook, DPPvSmith, Eisenhower and Dica respectively
- it could be argued that the terms may not have been defined as parliament might have thought these terms had an obvious meaning so it was unnecessary to define them
- they may have also wanted to keep the law flexible, and allow it to develop with time
- the problem with judges making these definitions is that precedents can be easily changed and this reduces certainty and consistency in the law
- this is bad for lawyers, D's and the general public
- also risks undermining parliamentary supremacy as law making is their job
- could have positive effects as the law can be updated, kept modern, relevant and change with society which means he law is able to deal with previously unforeseen circumstances
- the LC propose to affect this by putting the offences on a statutory footing which would make the law more certain and less susceptible to constant change
- but this carries a risk of the law becoming time locked and unless key terms are defined, judges will still refer to old cases for definitions
Comments
No comments have yet been made