Understanding Acts of Parliament and Delegated Legislation

An Act of parliament is statutes that a parliament (Legislature) passes. Significant to note, an Act of Parliament first poses as a proposed law, which is referred to as a Bill. Notably, the Bill is first brought to the parliament (House of Representatives or the Senate) for debate and as such, it can have an approval and thus, enactment. A good example of an Act of Parliament is Data Protection Act 1998 (Manton, 2019).

Private member’s bill may be introduced through the following: First ballot, where members that have applied are drawn to a ballot and when they are successful, their legislation is passed. Secondly, through a ten minute rule, where a member is given ten minutes to talk about a motion, based on a standing order 23. Thirdly, is through presentation, where a member may introduce a bill if they had previously provided such intentions (Cretney, 1990).

A court exerts control over delegated legislation through judicial review. As such, a court can squash delegated legislation if it is noted to be outside the parameters that are provided in the parent Act. Secondly, it is worth noting that a court can also squash delegated legislation, based on unreasonableness. A good example of delegated legislation is statutory instruments, which are orders and by-laws in council (Carr, 2016).

Significantly, judicial precedent refers to a process in which judges purpose to follow the stipulations of previously decided cases, especially whilst giving reference to those that had sufficient similarity. In England and Wales, judicial precedent operates, such that inferior courts are required and mandated to be bound to applying the legal principles, which have been set by superior courts, in previous cases. Significant to note, this provides the aspect of consistency and predictability (Asimow, 1983).

A court of appeal is not bound by its own previous decisions in case of overruling, when the previous court failed in applying the law appropriately. Secondly, in the case of reversing, whereby, a superior court can overturn an appeal of the decisions of a lower court. Thirdly, in case of per incuriam, whereby, a decision reached due to a mistake, for example, as applied in the case of Morelle v Wakeling (Drewry, 2007).

The most important advantage of judicial precedent is that it enforces the aspect of certainty in law, whereby, when cases having sufficiently similar facts happen to be bound to past decisions, it provides a significant idea on the manner in which the case can be decided. On the contrary, the most import disadvantage is that the huge number of cases existing in law could be brought forth for consideration, thus causing confusion (Asimow, 1983).

There is need for statutory interpretation because of the following. First, statues complexity after being subjected to changes can lead to vagueness and this may create the need for appropriate interpretation. Second, anticipating the versions of a given case may lead to incoherence, which may need the correct law interpretation. Finally, using certain words can result into mistakes, which may make the court liable the correct implications, for further or future use (Radin, 1929).

The literal rule is a statutory rule that utilizes plain meaning of words. In the case of Fisher v Bell, the defendant displayed a flick knife, having a price ticket and was prosecuted for offering the sale of an offensive weapon, contrary to the provisions of Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. Notably, the high court stressed that the “offer for sale” phrase had to be taken literally according to its meaning (Radin, 1929).

Presumption against the retrospective application of a statute is a principle of statutes construction, in which courts decide whether a statute is retrospective in effect. To this effect, laws in which human action is regulated in thus looked forward to. This principles was not held to apply in the case of Huitson v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs because the legislation on retrospective application was deprived om form of alleged proprietary interest (Driedger, 1978).

In preparation for this TMA, I planned the time I needed for writing the assignment, whereby, I ensured that each activity was scheduled for. I analyzed the assignment question and purposed to understand how marks were to be awarded. I researched for reliable information and finally drafted an outline before coming up with the final work for submission. However, other than researching for reliable information, I would form a group discussion to gain more knowledge.

Take a deeper dive into Trust Validity and Beneficiary Entitlement with our additional resources.

Reference List

Asimow, M. (1983). Delegated Legislation: United States and United Kingdom. Oxford J. Legal Stud., 3, 253.

Carr, C. T. (2016). Delegated legislation. Cambridge University Press.

Cretney, S. M. (1990). The Forfeiture Act 1982: the Private Member's Bill as an Instrument of Law Reform. Oxford J. Legal Stud., 10, 289.

Drewry, C. (2007). The Court of Appeal. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Driedger, E. A. (1978). Statutes: Retroactive retrospective reflections. Can. B. Rev., 56, 264.

Manton, K. (2019). The 1984 Data Protection Act. In Population Registers and Privacy in Britain, 1936—1984 (pp. 193-216). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Radin, M. (1929). Statutory interpretation. Harv. L. Rev., 43, 863.