Compare and contrast the methods of law making

Before any law and acts are made, there is a long procedure in the process of it being passed. If there are new laws it usually is chosen by majority decision usually in courts or the parliament. For example, the executive or the government form laws in the House of Commons by setting out bills. Sometimes it may come from their election mandate in order to be chosen, for example recently how labour vowed to ban fox hunting which can be shown as an example.

Moreover, they then set out a bill to become an act which gets passed to the house and then to the House of Lords as a checking procedure before it is made. However, if the House of Lords don’t pass it as a law then the executive can go and make it an act. This specific method shows that it can be done by the government and has a process for it before anything can be done; usually these acts and laws come out during elections in order to win voters and sometimes are done and even not processed.

Another method is statutory instrument. This is when a minister can enact or remove part of the composite law. For example an act which has been passed may have something else to it which the minister may wish to remove if so, he can do that. However, although they have a lot of power but to do anything they must have been permitted in the first draft within the act therefore he is acting legally and not as a dictator. In comparison to this method and the first one, there are a few differences as one is by an individual body and the other is by a part or a certain person. They both have processes which have to be done to ensure everything is fair and there is no issue to it.

Also case made law is when the court of appeal acts on a decision made by a lower court and by doing so establishes it in law. However, the judges can only work within the statute/act which is set by parliament. For example judicial review which is a hearing in front of the judge on administrative matter to make sure that the public officers, prison staffs etc. Do not operate beyond their powers. In comparison this method is more over the authority decisions and decides on any issues which may be passed to the court of appeals by the governments etc.

This is more worked on strictly within the statute or acts set. Whereas the other two methods can be individual long as it is ethical and legal. Usually after any appeal if right, it can be made an act or a law. In contrast, The House of Lords only deals with Appeals which are a point of law but once they rule their decision becomes law. This is because they are higher and can decide whether an act becomes a law or vice versa. This is only dependant on how the appeal is processing and the seriousness of it.

Lastly, another method is ‘bye laws’ this is where laws and acts are made for the local areas and district. For example yellow lines etc. In conclusion, this shows that no one can dictate acts or laws and must instead work within the statute/act of parliament. This is to avoid any unfair or strict decisions being made. For example it is to stop a judge giving a murderer a different sentence to the other one previously convicted.

They both have to get a life sentence and the judge would have to rule that simply due to the statute law which was passed in parliament. Also these methods all relate in that one way where everything has to be done within the statue laws and act of parliaments. The only difference is that they operate in different ways but all come to the same outcome whether a law is passed or not. There has to be the same process to ensure there is no dictation or no unfair decisions made.