“It is argued that it is wrong for judges to make law”
The adversity surrounding judges and the particular laws in which they make have become debating point over many years. The fact that they are members of the public, their work does not entail the profession to pass law only to enforce it, although there are grey areas, which have not been distinguished by parliament therefore various loopholes and unforeseen circumstances which where not foreseen when the research and writing of the statute occurred leaves the judges with no choice but to interpret the law in the way parliament intended, or intends to obviously this is a referral to case law when it is made by the judge alone.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a term used to explain that parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK . It can create law and terminate it, no parliament can pass laws which future parliament cannot change, it is said that courts cannot overrule its legislation, generally.
William Blackstone introduced the declaratory theory of law in the eightieth century, he states “ that judges do not make the law , but merely, by the rules of precedent, discover and declare the law that has always been: [the judge] being sworn to determine, not according to his own sentiments… not according to his own private judgement, but according to the known laws and customs of the land: not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one#” so in fact blackstone’s theory states that judges only declare and proclaim law but this is not the case in true reality. An example of this Donogue v Stevenson# at the time Stevenson drank the ginger beer the law was on Donogue’s side but judges changed the law when the case was heard to say the Donogue owed Stevenson a duty of care that their was no foreign objects in the bottle. Another case that confounds the theory is R v Preddy# the defendant was acquitted because how could the law have been discovered when money transfer...