Do Judges Make Law

Introduction A righteousnessis an obligatory prevail of conduct imposed and enforce by the sovereign1. Therefore the constabulary of nature is the body of formulas recognized and enforced by the state in the practise of justice. The law is generally made by a sevens, a legislative body collapsen mightiness by the record to draft law. further in the last some decades there has been a opinion that adjudicate get along law. A judgeis a public official appointed or elected to hear and dissolve legal matters in decidehip2, settle exercise judicial author. This involves making attach finales affecting the rights and duties of citizens and institutions.In carrying out this t take, a judge green goddess use any(prenominal) of the sideline three root systems of Ugandan law, Acts of sevens or legislation, the greens law, or previous decisions by the coquets anda constitution Do resolve get hold of law? To ask the question do settle make law? Implies that perhap s to some extent they do make law. A great deal of controversy has concern on this question as to how far judges can legitimately make law although a great number such as lord Bentham involve referred to it as a childish fiction consequently judges cannot make law.Many otherwise scholars more(prenominal) so those that atomic number 18 fol get wastes of the realist school of fancy clearplaced imperative emphasis on the discretion of judges and relegated the rules to an obscure position. It can however not be denied looking closely at the present legal form that judges have played a dominant role in moulding the doctrines of the present law for example the general law which is also referred to as judge made law. Nevertheless today no informed observer disputes that judges do especially those of the Supreme motor inn make law. In the same way the comparables of lord Denning moulded the doctrines of the law of contract and otherwise.To answer if judge make law lets its c rucial to analyse how they do so. The application of condition by judges, whether they be developing the everyday law (for e. g. in areas such as negligence or murder) is the main mechanism whereby judges make law. Precedents are legal principles, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges decision making similar issues later(prenominal). Generally, decisions of higher courts are mandatory precedent on lower courts that is the principle announced by a higher court must(prenominal) be followed in later cases.Occasionally, judges are called upon to give a ruling or make a decision when faced with a situation for which there seems to be no precedent or any guiding rule. In these circumstances, judges can be said to be formulating original precedent thereby using his own discretion regarding when he thinks rules pack to be applied, changed, improved, or abolished. InA. G v Butterwort3lord Denning states that It may be in the books, exactly if t his be so all I can say is thatthee so one and only(a)r we make it the better.Therefore a judge in using his discretionthe phrase rough-cutly used here is that he decides not on precedent but on principle, the difference is that in one case he is applying a principle illustrated by a previous example, in the other case he is employing a case not previously formulated but consonant with the whole doctrine of law and justice. Further because statutes and common law rules are often too vague and un top it is often inevitable in hard cases for a judge to create new law by deciding cases.The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court are generally held to have a blanket authority, as substantially to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined. Judges set ahead make law by mean values ofstatutory definition. The trend has always been that the legislature makes the law while t he judges interpret it. Legislation may sometimes be ambiguous or unclear. When this occurs, a court will subscribe to to decide between different interpretations of legislation. The common law is judge made law.It has been developed by the courts. It continues to be adapted to lose new situations and changing circumstances. The role of judges in interpreting legislation and the Constitution is similar. The Constitution is written in more brief and general linguistic communication than most Acts of Parliament. This is because it is expected to last longer and be able to accommodate changing circumstances. This style leads to a greater set forth of interpretations. Over the years, the Supreme judgeship has made decisions which have affected the practical operation of the Constitution.The fan tan which is in charge of law making cannot amend to each one and every law patently because it fast becoming obsolete. Therefore when the law becomes unclear judges cannot entirely say its unclear and ask the parliament to rectify it. Judges must take the law into their own hands to and interpret the laws to an extent that is reasonable and in the bounds of law and reason thus they should generally accept function of reforming the law in the interests of clarity, efficiency and fairness.InAiredale NHS v Bland4the issue was whether it was lawful to stop supplying drugs and artificial feeding to Mr Bland, even though it was known that doing so would mean immediate death for him, several members of the house of lords made it clear that they felt that the case raises wholly new moral and well-disposed issues and that it should be decided by parliament, nevertheless the court came to a decision in the best of Mr Bands interests. According to William burnet Harvey A judge in laying bundle a rule to foregather these situations is certainly making a new contribution to our law but only within limits usually well defined.If he has to decide upon the authority of raw(a ) justice or simply the common sense of the thing he employs the kind of natural justice or common sense which he has mantled from the study of the law and which he believes to be consistent with the general principles of English jurisprudence. It is clear from the above statements that, not only built-in interpretation, but also statutes have to be interpreted with the changing times and it is here that the creative role of the judge appears, thus the judge clearly contributes to the service of legal development.This is evidence of the power of the courts in their ability to create law through there simple interpretation of the law. However it should be noted that this is not a power quickly available such that it can be used at the courts convenience. The above analysis shows how judges can make law. However the word make should be used with extreme caution. The above argument is one that can also be used to support the fact that quite an than make law, judges simply declare law. According Lord M.Rthere is in fact no such thing as judge-made law, for the judges do not make the law, though the frequently have to apply existing law to circumstances as to which is has not previously been authoritatively laid down that such law is applicable5. Its therefore relevant to establish the reasons as to why some scholars do not agree with the fact that judges do not make law. why judges do not make law The Constitution provides for a completeseparation of judicial power. This is one limit point on judges because it prevents courts from practice session powers which are not judicial in character.The constitution of the republic of Uganda provides for that existence of three weapons of government, all vested with powers that are in all ways distinct. The parliament by virtue of the constitution is that charged with the duty of making law. The constitution providesthatexcept as provided in this constitution, no individual or body other than parliament shall have the power to make provisions having the force of law in Uganda except to a lower place authority conferred by an Act of parliament6This is a clear example of the supremacy of parliament.Thus the separation of powers is a political and administrative tool that holds the pillars democracy together. And in a country under the rule of law the administration with its well defined limits cannot step into the shoes of the parliament. The constitution is the most supreme law of the land and its prohibition of the other arms of government to make law should be taken seriouslythus if the judiciary is exercising such a powerful role, it should be more capable to criticism and the contempt power should be used only rarely.Otherwise, it will reflect on the judiciary as a dictator Further therules of statutory interpretationfurther prohibition judges from making law. Its generally agreed that in order to interpret statutes judges must use precision found procedural rules. Statutory interpre tation employsthe literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. They are guidelines that must be followed in the interpretation statutes. This is meant to reduce the entry of twist or judges discretion which may be unethically motivated.Therefore a judge who formulates a legal principle for the first time does so as an existing social function of the law and not as a legislative innovation of his own. In general, principles are identified by showing that they are embedded in the open up rules and decisions, The rules of precedent. A precedent is a Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Precedents are the source of most of judge made law. The common law practically evolved out of precedents.However precedents are bound by rules that limit law making by judges. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will dramatise the reasoni ng and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but conduct not be followed. The constitution states that all laws must have a binding effect on all persons and authorities.Precedents in their inability to be binding on courts that is higher than them and applying only a persuasive to courts of the same level dilutes theirability to be termed as laws or have the ability to act like laws. Further to render precedents valid they must be founded in reason and justice must have been made upon argument, and be the solemn decision of the court and in order to give them binding effect there must be a current of decisions therefore court judges are not at liberty to exercise their freewill but rather their discretion must pass the test of fairness and reasonability.Conclusion discriminative power involves making binding decisions, affecting the rights and duties of people and institutions, by reference to existing law. Existing law is found in legislation, judicial decisions or common law, and the constitutions. In applying any of these sources of law, judges make law to a limited degree. The term limited should be noted. The power to make law is primarily vested in the parliament and under the constitution judges are under no obligation to make law.However in todays world where time is high-power there is a need to constantly interpret the law to fit the ever changing times. Judges are most paramount at this put because they cannot send laws back for chastening simply because the times have changed. Its up to them to exercise the utmost reasonable discretion and interpret the law in such a stylus that is complementary to the current mode of life in so doing making law. Indeed the power to make law is one that is not vested in judges but it cannot be denied that to some extent they actually do make law.B ibliography 1. William Burnett Harvey,Introduction to the Legal System in atomic number 99 Africa,East African belles-lettres Bureau, Kampala, Nairobi 2. Glanville WilliamsLearning the Law 12thed. mellifluous & Maxwell 2002 pg 111 3. The Constitution Of The Republic Of UgandaArticle 79 4. .Osborns neat Law Dictionary, 10thEdition, Sweet & Maxwell, London. 2005 Pg 238 5.Blackstones Commentaries 69, 70 6. Jacqueline Martin,The English Legal System, 3rdEd. Hodder & Stoughton 2002 pg. 18 7. 1Catherine Elliot,The English Legal System8thedition 1Osbornes brief law dictionary, 10thedition, knave 236 22Blacks law dictionary 3 4 5Att-General v butterwort. 6Article 79, the constitution of the republic of UgandaDo Judges Make LawIntroduction A lawis an obligatory rule of conduct imposed and enforced by the sovereign1. Therefore the law is the body of principles recognized and enforced by the state in the application of justice. The law is mainly made by a parliament, a legislative body g iven power by the constitution to draft law. However in the last few decades there has been a notion that judges make law. A judgeis a public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court2,Judges exercise judicial power. This involves making binding decisions affecting the rights and duties of citizens and institutions.In carrying out this task, a judge can use any of the following three sources of Ugandan law, Acts of Parliament or legislation, the common law, or previous decisions by the courts anda constitution Do judges make law? To ask the question do judges make law? Implies that perhaps to some extent they do make law. A great deal of controversy has centered on this question as to how far judges can legitimately make law although a great number such as lord Bentham have referred to it as a childish fiction thus judges cannot make law.Many other scholars more so those that are followers of the realist school of thought haveplaced absolute emphasis on the discretion of judges and relegated the rules to an obscure position. It can however not be denied looking closely at the present legal system that judges have played a dominant role in moulding the doctrines of the present law for example the common law which is also referred to as judge made law. Nevertheless today no informed observer disputes that judges do especially those of the Supreme Court make law. In the same way the likes of lord Denning moulded the doctrines of the law of contract and otherwise.To answer if judge make law lets its crucial to analyse how they do so. The application ofprecedent by judges, whether they are developing the common law (for e. g. in areas such as negligence or murder) is the main mechanism whereby judges make law. Precedents are legal principles, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts are mandatory precedent on lower courts that is the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases.Occasionally, judges are called upon to give a ruling or make a decision when faced with a situation for which there seems to be no precedent or any guiding rule. In these circumstances, judges can be said to be formulating original precedent thereby using his own discretion regarding when he thinks rules need to be applied, changed, improved, or abolished. InA. G v Butterwort3lord Denning states that It may be in the books, but if this be so all I can say is thatthee sooner we make it the better.Therefore a judge in using his discretionthe phrase commonly used here is that he decides not on precedent but on principle, the difference is that in one case he is applying a principle illustrated by a previous example, in the other case he is employing a case not previously formulated but consonant with the whole doctrine of law and justice. Further because statutes and common law rules are often too vague and uncl ear it is often inevitable in hard cases for a judge to create new law by deciding cases.The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court are generally held to have a binding authority, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined. Judges further make law throughstatutory interpretation. The trend has always been that the legislature makes the law while the judges interpret it. Legislation may sometimes be ambiguous or unclear. When this occurs, a court will need to decide between different interpretations of legislation. The common law is judge made law.It has been developed by the courts. It continues to be adapted to meet new situations and changing circumstances. The role of judges in interpreting legislation and the Constitution is similar. The Constitution is written in more brief and general language than most Acts of Parliament. This is because it is expected to last longer and be able to accommodate changing circumstances. This style leads to a greater range of interpretations. Over the years, the Supreme Court has made decisions which have affected the practical operation of the Constitution.The parliament which is in charge of law making cannot amend each and every law simply because it fast becoming obsolete. Therefore when the law becomes unclear judges cannot simply say its unclear and ask the parliament to rectify it. Judges must take the law into their own hands to and interpret the laws to an extent that is reasonable and in the bounds of law and reason thus they should generally accept responsibility of reforming the law in the interests of clarity, efficiency and fairness.InAiredale NHS v Bland4the issue was whether it was lawful to stop supplying drugs and artificial feeding to Mr Bland, even though it was known that doing so would mean immediate death for him, several members of the house of lords made it clear that they felt that the case raises wholly new moral and social issues and that it should be decided by parliament, nevertheless the court came to a decision in the best of Mr Bands interests. According to William burnet Harvey A judge in laying down a rule to meet these situations is certainly making a new contribution to our law but only within limits usually well defined.If he has to decide upon the authority of natural justice or simply the common sense of the thing he employs the kind of natural justice or common sense which he has absorbed from the study of the law and which he believes to be consistent with the general principles of English jurisprudence. It is clear from the above statements that, not only constitutional interpretation, but also statutes have to be interpreted with the changing times and it is here that the creative role of the judge appears, thus the judge clearly contributes to the process of legal development.This is evidence of the power of the courts in their ability to create law through there simple interpretation of the law. However it should be noted that this is not a power readily available such that it can be used at the courts convenience. The above analysis shows how judges can make law. However the word make should be used with extreme caution. The above argument is one that can also be used to support the fact that rather than make law, judges simply declare law. According Lord M.Rthere is in fact no such thing as judge-made law, for the judges do not make the law, though the frequently have to apply existing law to circumstances as to which is has not previously been authoritatively laid down that such law is applicable5. Its therefore relevant to establish the reasons as to why some scholars do not agree with the fact that judges do not make law. Why judges do not make law The Constitution provides for a completeseparation of judicial power. This is one limitation on judges because it prevents courts from exercising powers which ar e not judicial in character.The constitution of the republic of Uganda provides for that existence of three arms of government, all vested with powers that are in all ways distinct. The parliament by virtue of the constitution is that charged with the duty of making law. The constitution providesthatexcept as provided in this constitution, no person or body other than parliament shall have the power to make provisions having the force of law in Uganda except under authority conferred by an Act of parliament6This is a clear example of the supremacy of parliament.Thus the separation of powers is a political and administrative tool that holds the pillars democracy together. And in a country under the rule of law the judiciary with its well defined limits cannot step into the shoes of the parliament. The constitution is the most supreme law of the land and its prohibition of the other arms of government to make law should be taken seriouslythus if the judiciary is exercising such a powe rful role, it should be more open to criticism and the contempt power should be used only rarely.Otherwise, it will reflect on the judiciary as a dictator Further therules of statutory interpretationfurther bar judges from making law. Its generally agreed that in order to interpret statutes judges must use precision based procedural rules. Statutory interpretation employsthe literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. They are guidelines that must be followed in the interpretation statutes. This is meant to reduce the entry of bias or judges discretion which may be unethically motivated.Therefore a judge who formulates a legal principle for the first time does so as an existing part of the law and not as a legislative innovation of his own. In general, principles are identified by showing that they are embedded in the established rules and decisions, The rules of precedent. A precedent is a Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Precedents are the source of most of judge made law. The common law practically evolved out of precedents.However precedents are bound by rules that limit law making by judges. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed. The constitution states that all laws must have a binding effect on all persons and authorities.Precedents in their inability to be binding on courts that is higher than them and applying only a persuasive to courts of the same level dilutes theirability to be termed as laws or have the ability to act like laws. Further to render precedents valid they must be founded in reason and justice must have been made upon a rgument, and be the solemn decision of the court and in order to give them binding effect there must be a current of decisions therefore court judges are not at liberty to exercise their freewill but rather their discretion must pass the test of fairness and reasonability.Conclusion Judicial power involves making binding decisions, affecting the rights and duties of people and institutions, by reference to existing law. Existing law is found in legislation, judicial decisions or common law, and the constitutions. In applying any of these sources of law, judges make law to a limited degree. The term limited should be noted. The power to make law is primarily vested in the parliament and under the constitution judges are under no obligation to make law.However in todays world where time is dynamic there is a need to constantly interpret the law to fit the ever changing times. Judges are most paramount at this stage because they cannot send laws back for rectification simply because th e times have changed. Its up to them to exercise the utmost reasonable discretion and interpret the law in such a manner that is complementary to the current mode of life in so doing making law. Indeed the power to make law is one that is not vested in judges but it cannot be denied that to some extent they actually do make law.Bibliography 1. William Burnett Harvey,Introduction to the Legal System in East Africa,East African Literature Bureau, Kampala, Nairobi 2. Glanville WilliamsLearning the Law 12thed. Sweet & Maxwell 2002 pg 111 3. The Constitution Of The Republic Of UgandaArticle 79 4. .Osborns concise Law Dictionary, 10thEdition, Sweet & Maxwell, London. 2005 Pg 238 5.Blackstones Commentaries 69, 70 6. Jacqueline Martin,The English Legal System, 3rdEd. Hodder & Stoughton 2002 pg. 18 7. 1Catherine Elliot,The English Legal System8thedition 1Osbornes concise law dictionary, 10thedition, page 236 22Blacks law dictionary 3 4 5Att-General v butterwort. 6Article 79, the constitution of the republic of Uganda