Sometimes public opinion will be affected by specific events and these may play a role in formulating the law, e.g. Dunblane and the right to own a gun. We have a free press meaning they are able to criticise government policy or bring any other issue to the attention of the government, for instance, in 2009, the media highlighted Members of Parliaments' expenses claims spending large amounts of money and some were even for times which the MP had not paid for. This meant that the whole system had to be reformed.

The government may react too quickly too high profile incidences. This can lead to the law being created too quickly and not thought through so that the law is poorly drafted, e.g. the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
It can also be argued that the media manipulate the news and create public opinion.

Lobbying - Some pressure groups try to persuade individual Members of Parliament to support their cause. This is called lobbying because members of the public can meet MPs in the lobbies through which MPs go to get to the House of Commons.

It can be argued that pressure groups are seeking to impose their ideas, even where the majority of the public do not support their views. There are also occassions when two pressure groups have conflicting interests and want opposite things.

A wide range of issues is dawn to the attention of the government as there are so many pressure groups with different aims and issues.

Official law reform bodies consider what reforms of the law are needed and report on these. The Law Commission is the most important body.

The Law Commission is a permenant panel of legal experts who research ares of law and recommend which laws need to be reformed.

Before setting out their final proposals for reform, they issue a consultation paper so that they can get the views of interested parties. In most cases their final report includes a draft Bill setting out the exact way they think the law should be reformed. These reports go to Parliament and most of the recommendations are eventually made law.

2. No Parliament can be bound by any previous Parliament, nor can a Parliament pass an Act that will bind a later Parliament

3. No other body has the right to override or set aside an Act of Parliament.

Orders in Council can be made on a wide range of matters, especially: transferring responsibilities between government departments, bringing Acts (or parts of Acts) of Parliament into force, and (as a member of the EU) giving legal effect to European Directives.

The Privy Council also has the power to make law in emergency situations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

There must be an enabling Act allowing the Privy Council to make Orders in Council on the particular topic, e.g. for the change of category of cannabis, the enabling Act was the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Ministers and government departments are given authority to make regulations for areas under their particular responsibility.

Statutory Instruments can be very short, covering one point such as making the annual change to the minimum wage.

Statutory instruments are an important way of making law, as over 3,000 are made each year.

Original precedent - If the point of law in a case has never been decided before, then whatever the judge decides will form a new precedent for future cases to follow. It is an original precedent as there are no past cases for the judge to base his decision on. He is likely to look at cases that are the closest in principle and he may decide to use similar rules. This way of arriving at a judgement is called reasoning by analogy.

Binding precedent - This is a precedent from an earlier case that must be followed even if the judge in the later case does not agree with the legal principle. A binding precedent is only created when the facts of the original case and the second case are sufficiently similar to one another and the decision was made by a court which is senior to the court hearing the later case.

Persuasive precedent can come from courts lower in the hierarchy, decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, statements made by obiter dicta, a dissenting judgment or decisions of courts in other countries (Commonwealth countries).

Obiter dicta - statements made in a judgement that were not part of the point of law in deciding the case.

Checks on the enabling Act - Parliament has the initial control over what powers are delegated as the enabling Act sets out the limits within which any delegated legislating must be made. The Act will state which government minister can make regulations, as well as stating the type of laws to be made and whether they can be made for the whole country or only for certain places.

Affirmative resolution - This means that the statutory instruments will not become law unless specifically approved by Parliament. The need for an affirmative resolution will be included in the enabling Act.

Negative resolution - This means that the relevant statutory instrument will be law unless rejected by Parliament within 40 days.

Questioning of government ministers - Individual ministers may also be questioned by MPs in Parliament on the work of their departments, and this can include questions about the proposed legislation.

Scrutiny Committee - A more effective check is the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. This committee reviews all statutory instruments and, where necessary will draw the attention of both Houses of Parliament to points that need further consideration.

Delegated legislation can be challenged in the courts on the ground that it is ultra vires (it goes beyond the powers that Parliament granted in the enabling Act), e.g. R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union.

While the UK remains a member of the EU, statutory instruments can also be declared void if they conflict with EU legislation.

The literal rule - courts will give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible, e.g. R v Judge of the City of London Court.

The golden rule - starts by looking at the literal meaning but the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation that would lead to an absurd result, e.g. Jones v DPP.

The mischief rule - gives a judge more discretion than the other two rules. The words of the statute are interpreted to fill in the gaps in the original Act, e.g. Heydon's case.

The purposive approach - This goes beyond the mischief rule; the judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve, e.g. R v Register-General, ex parte Smith.