There is much meaning and wisdom, which has been put into law making. There are two distinctive ways in which judges can ‘make’ or interpret laws. These being common law or also known as The Doctrine of Precedent, or statutory interpretation by the courts. Statutory interpretation is clearly stating what the law is; it is a process by which judges must interpret an act when there is a dispute regarding the meaning of words used in an act. However, through the doctrine of precedent, judges can give the law a meaning, especially in this changing society. Bu using precedent, it creates flexibility within the society and the legal system, and judges are have the ability to change areas within the legal system which have become out dated, or where laws are yet to be made.
By using precedent, there is the ability to overrule, disapprove and distinguish, judges are effectively able to give clear meaning to the law, and flow with a changing and progressive society. The common law system was based on rules and people accepted morals in which. Now, however, it is a system based on individuals coming before the courts to resolve grievances, and therefore has the capacity to allow the individual to contribute to the development of the law, allowing rights to be enforced and protected. The process in which judges ‘make’ or interpret the law is through the doctrine of precedent.
Judges exercise judicial power. They play an integral role in the judicial process, as they apply the law and in some cases create the law. While doing this they must take consideration of current political, social, moral and economic considerations and adhere to a certain consensus of society. The role of the judge is taken for granted by many people who view their role as an administrative one. ...
The doctrine of precedent concerns the principles of law in decided legal cases to determine subsequent and later cases. It is based around the concept of stare dec isis (to stand by what has been decided, which are active within Australian courts today. The doctrine of precedent depends on lower courts.