Essay: Distinguish and explain with case law examples the difference between statute law and common law

The argument that presides over the sovereignty of case law and statute law has become more apparent as time has gone on. The increase in litigation has often led to many claiming that case law has a larger effect on citizens than statute law. Nonetheless, we cannot forget that the UK legal system does constitute a system of parliamentary sovereignty. However, in principle, this may not always be applied. This question requires analysis of the differences in the theory behind the common law and statute law in how they are formed, how it is amended as well as the difference in how they operate. I will now hope to offer an insight into these matters.
In effect, statue law is any bill that goes through parliament and becomes an act. Whereas common law is the law that has been formed from past legal precedent. Statute law has to go through a very intensive process in order to be established. In comparison, the common law faces an easier battle in order to be applied. Common law can be formed by judges when making decisions. This potentially can cause future decisions to be bound by that. This principle is called ‘Stare Decisis.’ Examples of Stare Decisis being applied can be seen in Grant V Australian Knitting Mills (1936) where the judge drew on the legal precedent regarding the corruption of public morals displayed within Donoghue V Stevenson (1932). Another prime example of stare decisis being applied can be shown in the case Knuller V DPP (1973) where the judge applied the past legal precedent regarding a duty of care from Shaw V DPP (1962). In contrast, statute law has to go through parliament as a bill. The first step that statute law has to go through in order to be formed is that the bill has to be introduced either by the government, by a backbench/opposition MP or a member of the House of Lords. In the case that it is not introduced by the government then the bill is called a private members bill. Examples of these which have been ratified include the local audit (public access to Documents) Act 2017 and Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015. The bill then enters its first reading where the contents of the bill are read out and there is no debate over the bill. This is then followed by the second reading, where a member of the executive branch (if it is a government bill) or the member introducing the bill then begins the initial debate regarding the bill. The opposition then responds with their views. If the bill then passes this stage then it moves onto the committee stage, where only members of the bill committee can discuss and amend the bill based on their views and opinions that they may have. Once the bill then makes it past this stage it enters through the report stage where there is a final chance for all MPs to give their opinion and suggest amendments. The final stage is then the third reading whereby there is a final debate on the bill (where no more amendments are allowed) as well as a vote. If this bill passes these stages then they will have to go through all of these stages once more in the alternative house of the legislature. This could potentially cause Parliamentary Ping Pong if the two houses cannot agree on a final bill and keep sending each other amended versions of the bill. Nonetheless, this doesn’t apply to money bills due to the commons possessing a financial freedom that the Lords do not. Furthermore, the sexual offences (amendment) act 2000 and the Hunting act (2004) demonstrate the passing of the Parliament Act (1949). The Parliament act (1949) ensures that if a bill passed by the House of Commons isn’t passed by the House of Lords it automatically becomes law after 1 year.
Another major difference between statute law and common law is how they are amended. Common law can be amended by passing a new statute as shown in case R v R (1991). Here the criminal justice and public order act 1994 was passed in order to make it illegal for a husband to rape his wife. Furthermore, common law can also be amended by the courts. This can happen if a court which has a higher ranking overturns a previous decision made by a lower court then the legal precedent is no longer binding recently shown in Lee (Respondent) V Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland). On the other hand, statute law cannot be amended case law which makes it more powerful than case law. Instead if one wishes to amend statute law a separate statute must be passed by going through parliament. An example of this is how the European communities finance act amended 2001 was repealed by the European communities’ finance act (2008).
One final difference between statute law and common law is how it is applied and implemented. Common law is only applied when looking at specific cases and thus is reactive to any situation that may arise. This means that the people who form common law (the judges) cannot go out of their way in order to form new common law. Common law often entails what decision should be made when faced with a certain issue. In contrast, statute law involves the rules that residents or organisation within the UK should follow. Furthermore, statute law is proactive, this means that the makers of statute law (Parliament) can go out of their way in order to create new statute law. A consequence of this is that statute law can be made on any issue as shown in Laser misuse (vehicles) Act (2018). This gives it significantly more power than common law.
In conclusion statute power is different to common law in a number of different ways in terms of the power it has, how they are formed, how they are amended and how they are applied. From this, we can see that although statute law is more difficult to form it is considerably more powerful in how it is amended and how it is applied.