Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ELS Evaluations - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Increase participation in politics which further increases the legitimacy of the law (e.g. Unite union has 1.5 million members)
      - Insider pressure groups can be perfect for the government to consult regarding legislation (e.g. CBI, job support scheme 2020)
      - Highlight issues of vast public concern to government which is in need of law change (e.g. BLM marches 2020)
    - - Lack of a balanced argument and reasoned debate means their suggestions lack credibility (e.g. fathers4justice)
      - Lack of transparency as insider groups can have significant impact on the law but are unaccountable to the public.
      - Can resort to undesirable tactics which then leads to them having to answer to the law (eg. ALF, bombs on doorsteps)
  - - - Freedom of the press: can hold the government to account when they fail to keep their manifesto promises
      - Can directly influence the law by highlighting bad practice (e.g. 2009 expenses scandal = reform of whole expenses system)
      - Highlight issues of social concern In need of reform to the wider public and the government (E.g. 1996 Dunblane)
    - - Media (especially the press) heavily politically affiliated and therefore bias so have a lack of credibility
      - Media can manipulate public opinion through the way in which their coverage is presented (e.g. Leveson: phone hacking)
      - Can cause knee-jerk reactions from the government which leads to poorly drafted know
  - - - Non-majority governments are extremely inefficient as they struggle to pass legislation (e.g. Brexit gridlock under Theresa May)
      - Newly elected governments may wish to repeal and reform the law of the previous government vastly which is costly and inefficient
      - Not legally binding so therefore a government can make promises it doesn’t have to keep
    - - Increases efficiency as the government knows exactly how it is going to change the law
      - Opposition manifestoes can provide credible alternative solutions for law change
      - Democratic as people vote for the manifesto during elections
  - - - Their role in consolidating/codifying makes the law extremely efficient and easy to interpret (e.g. consumer rights act 2015)
      - Consultation on all their proposals insures that they are representative, practical, and fair for those who it will affect
      - A team of legal experts who are best educated on how the law needs to be reformed (Credibility)
    - - The law commissions acceptance rate on their proposals is not very high (e.g. only 66% overall - NFOAPA 2015 report)
      - Parliament doesn’t have to consult them during the lawmaking process so proposals can be heavily amended
      - The law commission tends to spend too much time on pure law which Parliament doesn’t (they focus more on financial matters)
- - - - Allows judges to avoid interpretations which would lead to absurd results (Re Sigsworth 1935)
      - The golden rule allows for drafting errors or ambiguity (Adler v George 1964)
      - Democratic as there is still respect for the words of Parliament
    - - Leads to uncertainty in the law as it is hard to know when it will be used
      - Michael Zander has described it as a “feeble parachute“ as it is an ineffective escape route from absurdities
      - It is very limited in its use, especially the narrow approach which can only be used if there are words with ambiguity
  - - - More easy to avoid absurd situations than the golden rule (e.g. Smith v Hughes 1960)
      - Allows for technological and unforeseen developments to be taken into account (E.g. Royal College of nursing v DHSS 1989)
      - Ensures the law is pragmatic as judges must look at the gap in the old law
      - The preferred method of interpretation of the law commission (recommended in the 1969 Law commission report)
    - - Creates uncertainty within the law as the outcome of the case is entirely dependent on a judge’s subjective interpretation
      - Not as wide reaching as the purposive approach as judges are limited to looking at the old law rather than generally considering what the new law actually is
      - Undemocratic as it facilitates increased judicial law making
  - - - Gives certainty to the law as judges are bound to follow the exact wording of the act
      - Makes the law easier to understand which increases public confidence in the legal system
      - Democratic as unelected judges must follow the words of elected officials
    - - Ambiguous wording can lead to confused and conflicting judgements
      - Ignores the fact that it is impossible for Parliament to predict every possible outcome
      - Can lead to cases where the result is an absurdity (E.g. Whitely v Chappel 1860)
  - - - Easily compensates for technological developments and unforeseen circumstances (Quintavelle)
      - The preferred interpretation method of the EU
      - The most effective method for avoiding unfair or absurd results (e.g. R (Quintavelle) v Secretary of State for Health)
    - - Creates uncertainty within the law because judges are given increased discretion to make a subjective decision on Parliament’s purpose
      - Can make interpretation extremely complex as judges spend a lot of time trawling through irrelevant material to establish parliaments purpose (e.g. Hansard)
      - Often difficult to establish what parliaments precise purpose was which gives rise to increased judicial creativity