Choose three from the list of statements; you are required to supply reasons for why you agree or don?t agree with the statements. The advised indicative word lengthis 400words.(a) ?There was effectively no recognizable ?legal system? in England until 1066?.(b) ?Edward Coke was largely responsible for the idea of the rule of law?.(c) ?The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty did not have any practical force until at least the end of the 17th century?.(d) ?The Judicature Acts of the 1870s were very important in reforming and rendering understandable the English Legal System?.(e) ?Section 2(4) of the European Community Act 1972 fundamentally diminished Parliamentary Supremacy and has vanquished the ?doctrine of implied repeal?.(f) ?The Human Rights Act 1998 has provided a great opportunity for judges to engage in creative statutory interpretation?.Section 2; Rights and Stephen LawrenceThe following ?statements? are actually assertions that not uncommonly are heard in pubs or on the streets by people with little idea of the law. However, when hasignorance stopped anyone from expressing an opinion?You are required to respond and correct three of the following assertions concerning the ?Stephen Lawrence? case.The advised indicative word length for this exercise is 300 words.(a) ?The first police to deal with the ?Lawrence? case just didn?t have enough time or resources to deal with the inquiry. They never do. That should have been thebeginning and end of the story.?(b) ?Everyone knew they were guilty; they should have been found guilty first time round. What a waste of money!?(c) ?All the police were guilty. That?s what they said. That?s what institutional racism means.?(d) ?It was her work [Doreen Lawrence?s] that got them banged up. People power works. You don?t need judges.?(e) ?You can?t try people twice. It?s just wrong.?(f) ?Everyone?s got rights; even the Lawrence killers; they can appeal.?Section 3; Radmacher v Granatino  UKSC 42 ? How much do judges make the law?Here the focus will be on courts/legal reasoning and statutory interpretation centred around Radmacher v Granatino ( UKSC 42).You are required to supply a reasoned account agreeing or disagreeing one of the following statements or views reported immediately after the Supreme Court decision.In answering you should refer to the notes available on web learn relating to ?reading case law? and ?statutory interpretation?.The indicative word length for this section of the assignment is 400words.(a) ?This ruling means the judiciary has overstepped its prescribed role of interpreting the law and actually created law instead? [Brenda Long, Partner in law firm,?Blandy & Blandy?, quoted in Mail Online immediately after the decision].(b) ?Bishops [unidentified] and lawyers [unidentified] said that judges have usurped the rights of Parliament and elected MPs to make the law? [reported in Mail Onlineimmediately after the SC judgment].(c) ?One Supreme Court justice, Baroness Hale, called the ruling undemocratic and damaging to marriage, and added that it was wrong that it should have been made by acourt comprising eight male judges and only one woman?, [Baroness Hale?s ?views? was ?reported? in Mail Online immediately after the SC judgment].(d) ?Miss Radmacher, who wore a white mini-dress with plunging neckline, said: ?I?m delighted that Britain has upheld fairness? [Reported in the Mail Onlineimmediately after the SC judgment].(e) ?Prenups are commonly recognised in countries throughout the world. All the ?Radmacher v Granatino? decision does is to bring the UK judiciary in line with therest of the world. That has to be a good thing? [digest of contemporary international views expressed at the time of the SC judgment].
Welcome to Vision Essays! For over 10 years we have been helping students like you write, research, and generate ideas for their research papers, essays, term papers, dissertations, editing, resumes, and any other type of work your learning institution may assign you.
We can write any paper and have flexible payment plans with a minimum deadline of 6 Hrs.