Common law evolved over time as a judge mad law according to doctrine precedent. In common law the king was the head of the government. Common law was the law administrates by the royal courts and such a more standardised set of rules based on customary law was gradually enforces throughout the whole of England and countries derived from England . e.g. austraila, Canada new Zealand and the united sates.
Common laws rules were too board to deal with governing a society as complex as England . originally people had to go to the king in order to ask for justice. The king and his council would listen to the application and in many cases modofy the decision made by common law courts.
I have been asked to write a report on the development of common law and equity. Common law refers to the law created by judges that was historically significant but has been since superseded by parliament. It is in parallel with equity which refers to the source of law created by the Lord Chancellor which was designed to supplement the
common law and allow people the opportunity to avoid the inherent p...
Legislation and the Common law are not separate and independent sources of law. They exist in a symbiotic relationship. Symbiotic relationship refers to the two different sources of legal norms that provide the sum of rules establish system as a whole. (Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 532 [31])
The Westminster Legal System, upon which the Australian one is based, can be traced back to 1066 when William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. As king, he set out rules and sent judges around the land on horseback to ensure that they were followed and offenders punished. It is from these times that the Doctrine of Precedence originated. A log of crimes and punishments was kept: as a means of convenience, judges could hand out punishments in line with the punishments given for similar cases. In the 19th Century, this doctrine became binding. In 1215, the Magna Carta was signed by King John, putting the first check against all previous monarchs’ ‘rule by Divine Right’. It was significant because the Magna Carta also gave people the right to be judged by one’s peers. In 1689, after the Glorious Revolution, Parliament became the Supreme Law-making body, monarchs no longer reigned over Parliament, but sat in Parliament.
Case law/Common law – body of law developed over time by higher courts. Laws are c...
 Magna Carta (1215)-king not above law, trial by jury (peers), speedy trial, protections from unjust punishment
In February, 1587, Queen Elizabeth had ordered her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scotts, to her execution to eliminate all possibilities of any threats to her throne. This event would reflect the relentless violence and unforgiving punishments of the judicial system in Elizabethan Era. Criminals during Queen Elizabeth’s reign in England, known as the Elizabethan Era, were subject to harsh, violent punishments for their crimes. England was separated into two social classes, which were the nobility, and the commoners. Within each class, the punishments were defined by the class and type of crime that had been committed. Under the Tudor rule, the punishments dating back to the middle ages were revived. Such gruesome punishments were carried out to strike fear into the hearts of the English citizens and lower crime rate. There were a wide range of crimes that a person could be prosecuted for, and even included the act of witchcraft and alchemy. Of course, today the American court system would find prosecutions of witchcraft and alchemy ridiculous. However, in the Elizabethan Era, people accused of even the most petty of crimes would be immediately placed in prison to await their sentences, often resulting in death. Public executions were a common practice, and were often a form of entertainment for a crowd of spectators. Often considered as the “Golden Age” in English history, England’s court systems became an essential part of society because cruel punishments were severe enough to strike fear into English citizens as well as demonstrating the influence and power of Queen Elizabeth’s rule.
The criminal justice system has been evolving since the first colonists came to America. At first, the colonists used a criminal justice system that mirrored those in England, France, and Holland. Slowly the French and Dutch influences faded away leaving what was considered the English common law system. The common law system was nothing more than a set of rules used to solve problems within the communities. This system was not based on laws or codes, but simply that of previous decisions handed down by judges. Although rudimentary, this common law system did make the distinction between misdemeanors and the more serious crimes known as felonies.
There are certain categories of legal tradition that differentiate by country or time. These legal traditions are shared by a certain groups of individuals or whole systems in and of themselves. In other words, you have to understand the legal tradition, and which legal system it is affiliated with, to understand the whole picture of how disputes and conflicts are handled. I think in our modern times, it would be challenging to find one legal system that is without influence from other legal systems (Different Legal Traditions, 2012). Legal traditions tend to incorporate different elements from other cultures and legal systems. Most legal traditions have derived from a common origins, similar institutions, and shared concepts from regarding
Common law is the concept that some of the core principles that form the basis of the English legal system come from judges as opposed to Parliament, with rulings from case to case developing predicedent, which forces lower courts to follow princaples set by higher cores but allows higher courts to overrule the descisions of lower courts. This allows the courts, over time to refine law. The courts can even decide to ignore rulings when considering to set it as precident with enough justification, this allows rooms for special cases. As a drawback to common law, the courts are sometimes unwilling to overrule long standing precidents. Slapper,...
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
The Sources of English Law There are three main sources of English law, legislation and statutes. Law), Common Law (Judge-made Law) and the European Communities law. English Law was historically based on customs and social traditions. Today Custom Law is a part of Common Law, notably in cases where there was no judicial precedent but which were known to exist since time memorial (i.e. since 1189). Many of these laws, such as the Fisherman's Case (1894) 2 East PC 661.
United Kingdom is a country with a distinctive set of legal system. It is fairly different from other countries having civil law based legal systems. The legal system in the United Kingdom consists of various sources of law, where other civil law based countries rely only on a written set of law. European influences on the English Legal System came much later in near decades. This essay will aim to examine the development of the English Legal System by reviewing applications of various sources of law in the English Legal System furthermore to discuss the recent European influences on the law of England.
To begin, we must understand the meaning of the rule of law and why the UK courts implement this constitutional principle in day to day practice. British jurist and constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey paved the way for much of our understanding of the rule of law we know today; giving a strong starting point for academics such as Lord Bingham and Joseph Raz whom later on developed the formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. Dicey has three key principles: no punishment unless there is a breach of the law; Law should not be exercised arbitrarily; and there should be a consistency in the creation of law. Dicey simply means that an individual should be aware of laws which apply to them, they are free to act as they please, whether they
Not everyone know that they have similar tool but different way of making law and justice. These two laws has lot of difference but in this essay I will write about most four interesting distinctions of them, they are constitution, Legal Systems, Role of judges, and precedents. First is constitution, it is known that constitution is document where was written set of main rules or established precedents according to which a country or other organization is governed, but not all of us know that in a common law not always codified laws or written constitution. It works little bit different according to the cases system, which I will write later. In the situation with civil law it more clearly, because it has main written constitution with a codes and rules, according to this set of rules works courts and other government systems. The second main difference is legal system. Civil law legal system mostly developed in a Europe which main feature is that its core law system and every rule and law fixed and rare could be changed or modified by president and parliament. In a common law the Legal system characterized by case law, which means that law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The third difference is Role of judges. As written upper in a common law legal system, judges have more power and flexibility. The court make a verdict according to the
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...