Quote from nevosopelo

In today's Daily Mail page 10, Steve Doughty has published an article explaining how the Law Commission, is attempting to bring in cohabitation laws without Parliament's consent nor Royal assent.

Live-in lovers could get right to inherit if one dies without making a will | Mail Online

The determination of the Law Commission to introduce the same married couples rights to cohabiting couples, are extremely worrying sign of the UK. Judiciary, tresspasing into making law territory. The law making in such undemocratic way not only undermines Parliament's democratic right as law makers, but also imposes on the people unjust laws in an undemocratic way.
Since Justice Secretary Kenneth Clark shelved the project law on cohabitation, lawyers and Judges have wasted no time in getting it in other ways. The new cohabitation inheritance scheme is proposed, without intervention of Parliament, in a paper on reform of the laws covering wills and those who die without making one.
This way of sneaking laws which clearly have been rejected by Parliament shows the utter comptempt for democracy and the use of tiranical methods of exercising the law by unelected people.
No doubt that there are a number of courtroom tyrants behind the scheme who can not wait to expand their greed to grabing the wealth of cohabiting couples.

Please, will somebody put a stop to it before the UK. becomes a judicial dictatorship?

NEVO

I think it's too late already. Looking at how Judges in the U.K. practice law and pass judgement creating defacto law, I would say that the judicial dictatorship is already in place.

The Law Commission does not make up law.

The Law Commission proposes law to government, mostly from a judicial viewpoint (e.g. when judges complain that the law is such a mess that they need better guidance) or from a tidying-up viewpoint (e.g. when multiple laws passed over the years overlap some area that is causing the law to be difficult to determine, or even contradictory).

No law is determined without Parliament or the Privy Council and it all has Royal Assent. This is even made clear in the quoted article:

Four years ago it produced a scheme for a law to give full legal rights to cohabiting partners. But the idea, backed by many lawyers and some judges, was kicked into the long grass by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke this autumn.

So, please, we have enough real scary things in our society without raising panics over nothing.

Quote from Douglas

The Law Commission does not make up law.

The Law Commission proposes law to government, mostly from a judicial viewpoint (e.g. when judges complain that the law is such a mess that they need better guidance) or from a tidying-up viewpoint (e.g. when multiple laws passed over the years overlap some area that is causing the law to be difficult to determine, or even contradictory).

No law is determined without Parliament or the Privy Council and it all has Royal Assent. This is even made clear in the quoted article:


So, please, we have enough real scary things in our society without raising panics over nothing.

Case Law;
case law - definition of case law by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Law based on judicial decision and precedent rather than on statutes.

Douglas you are wrong again!

Jugdes can and do make law as they see fit. Unless and until it is explicitly forbiden by Parliament, it will continue to be so.

Scared?

Too right it is frightful fact!

NEVO

Quote from nevosopelo

Case Law;
case law - definition of case law by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Law based on judicial decision and precedent rather than on statutes.

OK, let us look into this, shall we? It seems necessary to stop people getting the facts wrong about how the judiciary operate.

People take other people to court. It is only these people that judges get to preside over, in their professional capacity. When someone takes another person to court, they have to state a law, signed off by the Head of State (in the UK, the monarch) that has been broken, or under which they are allowed to sue another. People are not able to go to court and say "he did such-and-such to me and I want him sorted out for it, so make up some law." They have to say "according to such-and-such law, this person's actions are illegal" or "by the rights of such-and-such law, I am suing this person who did so-and-so harm to me."

The statue law (law approved by government and the Head of State) has to be stated.

Sometimes, the law isn't quite clear on a specific case. I know many people would like it to be but anyone who has played the game of instructing anyone how to do something simple when that person pretends not to know how to do it at all, will understand how impossible it is to cover every last circumstance, especially if the law is to be at all understandable.

When a case is not clear, someone has to work out what the law is meant to be. There are different rules in different countries but in the UK, the basis of the decision has to be on what they believe the intent of the law-makers was. Even the debates in parliament can be considered if necessary to work out what - in a specific case - the law is, even if the law is written ambiguously. The person appointed to work out what the law is meant to be in a specific case is the best person with both a knowledge of the law and a knowledge of the case: the judge(s) overseeing the trial.

Because different people might see things differently, the judges must take into account what other judges have decided in the past. This helps everyone know what the likely outcome of a trial can be, rather than to keep going to court just in case one judge makes up his decision differently to another (though this still happens occasionally). So, when a judge has to make a decision on what the law is meant to be, it gets recorded as being how the law was applied in that specific case. The judge sets out what the decision he had to make was (for example, does "inside the house" include the windowsill or not) and writes up how the law was applied in that case.

As said, for reasons of continuity this case law - as it has come to be called - forms a body of interpretation of laws written up and signed off by the Head of State. It is irrelevant without those statutes and parts of it become outdated as soon as a new statute law is signed by the Head of State which affects the law upon which the case law is formed.

Judges do not just sit around a lounge secretly making up the country's laws. It just doesn't happen.

Quote from nevosopelo

Douglas you are wrong again!

You are stressing that I have been wrong before. Surely, that cannot be so!

Quote from nevosopelo

Jugdes can and do make law as they see fit. Unless and until it is explicitly forbiden by Parliament, it will continue to be so.

Hopefully, you will now see that they don't just make up the law, though they do have channels for suggesting what laws are needed and how they should be drafted, etc. For most of the law which affects UK citizens in their day-to-day life, those citizens can turn to democratically elected representatives to have law changed. And judges have to abide whether they like it or not.

Yes, a similar lesson I had from my law teacher, while giving the lesson with a skeptical voice. That is what I learnt but in real life, that just doesn't happen for a number of reasons such as incompetence of judges due to alcoholism. I even read in the papers once a judge did fall asleep while sitting in court.
I just wish the courts would work the way you have explained it.

NEVO