Notes

There are two different types of law making processes: inside and outside Parliament. Inside Parliament the law making process is where laws are initiated and made by the people in Parliament who then evaluate them before putting them into place. Only the members of Parliament have the ability to make decisions regarding law.

The law making process outside of Parliament can be performed by legal bodies and the public. The legal bodies include delegated legislation, statutory instruments and judicial decisions. Many groups impact the law-making process because they influence Parliament to amend or add legislation such as media, pressure groups, the dangerous dogs group, law commissions, E-petitions, think tanks and more.

The media is a huge platform for large numbers of people to post about their enquiries regarding the law. This raises the attention of others and could reach its way to Parliament which could influence them to make changes to legislation. Media pressures Parliament to make amendments as if they don't, they could receive a negative reaction from the public.

The media has a large influence on changing and updating the law because it has a large following which means the word will spread around the country about legislation that needs to be changed. This will pressure Parliament to review the legislation in order to avoid the tarnished reputation.
Pressure groups are where people join together to raise awareness about what they believe should be different about the law. An example of a pressure group is the RSPCA as they have influenced Parliament to make amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. Pressure groups have a big effect on the updates of law because lots of people assemble together to raise awareness to Parliament about important matters that Parliament may not have realised are issues.

Dangerous Dogs is a pressure group which used the media to raise awareness about their target to decrease the amount of innocent dogs being put down due to not wearing a muzzle. This influenced Parliament and they amended this Act in 1997. Dangerous Dogs had a large effect on changing and updating the law as it resulted in a law being changed which resulted in many dogs being saved.

Law commissions are set up by the members of Parliament who review legislation and recommend if any changes should be made. Law commissions have a vast effect on updating the law because the issues raised by law commissions are more likely to be taken seriously and considered due to the fact that law commissions are part of the Parliament.

E-petitions are websites for the public to create and sign pettions for changes they believe should be made. If a pettion receives over 100,000 votes, the government will consider it. For example, the "End child food poverty" petttion accomplished over 100,000 votes so the Partiament reviewed the laws regarding this topic and made amendments so that vulnerable families would get free food packages. E-petitions are very effective in changing the law because in order to even be considered, a large number of people believed the issue should be fixed. This results in the Parliament reviewing the Issue and possibly amending the law to fix the issues.

Think tanks investigate topies with the aim to Influence Partiament to make adjustments to legislation after reading reviews made by think tanks. The topics think tanks review include military, technology, culture, economies and more. Think tanks have a great effect on changing and updating the law due to them being well written reports to persuade Parliament To make adjustment.

Statutory Interpretation can also be influential in amending laws. This is done by judges outside of Parliament when there is uncertainty in regards to the wording of an Act of Parliament or delegated legislation. The purpose of statutory interpretation is to understand what was meant by Parliament when making the statute which can also benefit future cases. Judges use statutory interpretation very often to interpret statutes or correct them to prevent injustices from happening. Aids can also be used by judges, The types of aids are internal, intrinsic, external and extrinsic. The purpose of aids is to make the Act of Parliament clearer by studying dictionaries for instance. An example of when a judge used an external aid is the case Pepper v Hart 1993, In this case, a statute stated that a headmaster of a public school could educate their children for a third of the cost under the Finance Act. The judge of this case, had to make the decision of whether the teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the reduced school fee. The use of the aid allowed the judge to come to the conclusion that the teacher did not have to pay tax. The Smith V Hughes (1960) case is a good example of when a judge used the mischief rule, a type of statutory interpretation, to interpret what the statute meant in court. The statute states that soliciting on a public place such as the street was an offence however the defendant had been soliciting on their private balcony where the public could see. The judge then interpreted this statute differently so that a public place can also be on private property as long as it is seen by the public and this therefore meant the defendant was convicted. This case then led to Parliament making some amendments to the Street Offences Act to avoid any future injustices. The Literal Rule is used for Judges to take words of the statute literally and if it's necessary, they will contact Parliament to make adjustments to the Bill. This is a very common type of statutory interpretation. In conclusion, statutory interpretation is effective to the law-making process as judges use their interpretation to amend the law which influences Parliament to make changes and update statutes in order to avoid injustices.

Delegated Legislation is another factor that affects the law-making process. This occurs outside of Parliament as people with power make legislation without Parliament as it takes too much time for Parliament to deal with. The three orders of the King's Bench Division which are Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari are immensely effective when dealing with Ultra Vires. An example of a case is the R V Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) case where the government went beyond their delegated powers to award less compensation than they were supposed to under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The House of Lords declared this as an ultra vires. Overall, delegated legislation is effective in law making as it allows Parliament to have the opportunity to focus on more important topics since giving powers to non-elected bodies saves their time. Additionally, delegated legislation raises Parliament's attention to amendments that should be made in statutes.

Judicial precedent also has a significant impact on Parliament. When the UK was a part of the EU, we had to follow each law set by the EU and if not, a directive would have been issued against us which meant we would have to amend our laws so that they would fit the EU laws. An example of a case which shows how judges can affect the law-making process is the Helen Marshall v Southampton Health Authority case where it was compulsory for women to retire at 60 however Heen found this unfair since men didn't have to retire until
65. This led to her bringing an action against the Southampton Health Authority where the European Court of Justice declared the UK wasn't following the EU laws so Helen won the case and this resulted in her receiving compensation for all the years she could've worked.
This case had an impact on Parliament's law making process because they had to analyse the changes that needed to be made to support equality. Since leaving the EU, the UK's Parliament has been amending some laws that were set by the EU since we no longer need to follow them. To conclude, the EU laws have been very effective in the law-making process of the UK as the UK was obligated to follow them however since brexit, many of the laws set by the EU benefited us so they were kept by Parliament.

In conclusion, the law-making process is different from inside and outside of Parliament as inside Parliament, law-making is taken more seriously and is more well managed whereas outside of Parliament, the law-making process is taken less seriously and is not as well managed. Both law-making processes are exceptionally effective as they both lead to Parliament being more aware of the issues and therefore making amendments to fix any issues.

References:
- https://www.elawstudent.com/
- Unit 2 investigating Aspects of Criminal Law and the legal System book
- Sampler work