The most common and significant use of the jury today is in the Crown Court where it is decided where the defendant is guilty or not guilty in criminal cases. Juries are only used in a small number of civil cases, where they will decide upon the facts of the case whether the claimant has a case or not and if decided that the claimant does have a case, they will also decide the damages awarded and on what scale. In civil law juries are involved in cases involved with: libel, slander, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud. Special Juries were used in London for trade cases which required them to have extraordinary knowledge of commercial and business industry. These are no longer in existence but were used for such purposes however only juries are currently used and when they are used is mentioned above.
The law needs to be certain and consistent and should be applied equally to all cases for a fair judgement. The doctrine of judicial precedent provides certainty and consistency in cases with similar facts and issues. A precedent is a standard or rule built up in a past legitimate case that is either official on or enticing for a court, this permits lower courts to settle on choices dependent on the choices made in the higher court, for this situation the higher court is the incomparable court and that is the most elevated court we have in our legal framework, so no other court can turnover it’s ruling. This helps settle on decision in other comparative cases to expel any vagueness or injustice that may emerge all things considered. It enables different cases to settle on choices without it arriving at the most noteworthy court constantly. The judges utilize the point of reference to further their potential benefit when settling on a choice and allude to such comparable cases.It is the principle also known as ‘stare decisis’, when a proposition stated in one case is binding in a later case if it is: a proposition of law, part of the ratio decidendi of a case, decided in a court whose decisions are binding on the present court and there are no relevant distinctions between the two cases.
The principle contrast between the common law system is that it is utilized in England and Wales and the common Law framework which is utilized in the majority of Europe is that the civil law system. The common law framework is inquisitorial. There are some key factors that separate between the two frameworks, in common law, the judge goes about as a ‘mediator’ and plays a genuinely uninvolved job. Legal advisors have a significant piece of exhibiting the case under the watchful eye of the judge and last yet not the least, there isn’t constantly a composed constitution of classified laws. Presently on the off chance that we take a gander at common law framework, in common law the legal advisors don’t have quite a bit of a job except if requested for information by the judge, they have a composed constitution and have classified laws and guidelines.
There are two words that need clear understanding in the form of Law and what it really means, these terms are ‘distinguish and apply’. When dealing with these terms in Law ‘apply’ means an application, this also includes petition, the word distinguish means to differentiate between the two cases, to understand which is the older case and which is the more recent case and then the judges make decisions based on that and its ruling.
Referring to Hillas & Co, Ltd v Arcos, Ltd [1932] All ER Rep 494 and May and Butcher, Ltd v Regent [1929] All E.R. Rep. 679.
Lord Tomlin, to my understanding chose to ‘distinguish’ in this case as he mentioned that these two cases have no relevancy, so having looked at the case mentioned and the case that Lord Tomlin was judging showed no extraordinary relevancy and so Lord Tomlin therefore chose to ‘distinguish’ rather than ‘apply’.
If there was such an act called the ‘Reading of contracts act’ and there was ambiguity present, then Lord Tomlin would have used the Mischief rule to withdraw any ambiguity that arose. There are 4 major rules that are used in statutory interpretation and they are the mischief rule, literal rule, golden rule, and noscitur a scoiis. This standard offer consent to the judges to go behind the real wording of the resolution so as to determine any ambiguity so as to direct a reasonable preliminary that the demonstration was really passed for. It allows judges to go behind the actual wording and somewhere close to as what it may mean and then apply that to the case as to its relevance. Lord Tomlin would have applied the Mischief rule so as to examine the contrast between the House of May and Butcher, Ltd v Regent and this case and would likewise utilize this standard to arrive at a resolution with respect to the harms and its unexpected conditions that emerged for this situation.
2020-1-15-1579132320-a