國(guó)外鄧迪大學(xué)留學(xué)生法律類作業(yè)寫(xiě)作范例
10-13, 2014
法律中，必須要打印的文件我們可以歸結(jié)在問(wèn)題之中。2003年部分中提到的性侵犯法案(年代。5和s。13)連同歐洲人權(quán)公約》的第八條中有所體現(xiàn)。法律允許引用這些案例并且第五場(chǎng)景R G b部分[1]提到,為了簡(jiǎn)化指的這種情況,閱讀很重要的案件的判決要點(diǎn)并復(fù)制到一個(gè)單獨(dú)的文檔中，這樣人們可以找到。
當(dāng)閱讀到B部分時(shí),重要的是,找出什么是預(yù)期的答案,它重要的是為了突出關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題。這是所需的問(wèn)題實(shí)際上總在我腦海里回想。當(dāng)談到積極詞匯的問(wèn)題,可以理解為:“上訴法院駁回上訴之前,R v G[2008]UKHL 37決定”[2],主要因?yàn)樗硎?這種情況下非常重要的答案。
Afterwards it was then necessary to print off the law that was referred to in the question. Therefore the sections mentioned in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (s. 5 and s. 13) along with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, was printed off, thus allowing reference to these pieces of law easier when it came to section B. In the scenario R v G [1] was mentioned, in order to make referring to this case easier, it was important to read through the judgement of the case and copy the key points onto a separate document along with the details of the person who said them and where they can be found.
When it came to section B, it was important, to find out what exactly was expected from an answer and so it was important to highlight the key or action words in the question. This was to ensure that what the question actually required was always at the forefront of my mind. When it comes to the active words in the question, these were understood to be: “Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal prior to R v G [2008] UKHL 37 being decided” [2] , primarily because it indicated that this case would be of great importance to the answer. The active words were also thought to include: “address the main arguments for the prosecution and appellants” [3] , “use of case and materials” [4] and “factor in cases and materials [5] ”.
After identifying the active words, it was important to find the legal and material facts of the case. After another careful examination, it was found that the material facts of the case were that the sex between the appellant (Ryan) and the complainant (Jenny) was consensual and so no-one had been forced against their will into sexual intercourse, the fact that Jenny had also lied as to her age was also a material fact. It was also believed to be of high importance that Ryan had pleaded guilty to the offence of s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
After a second examination of the scenario it was possible to identify the legal issues which were that Ryan plead guilty to s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whether or not Ryan should have been charged with s.13 Sexual Offences Act 2003 instead of s.5 Sexual Offences Act 2003, and whether this contradicted Article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights. When the legal and the material facts had been identified, it was time to begin finding support for the various different arguments that could either support of contradict the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the conviction. The search for any relevant case law went first.
When searching for the cases it was necessary to open a law records website, for the purpose of this search the Lexis Library [6] was used. Firstly, the case mentioned in the scenario [7] was researched, by placing the case citation into the relevant search box on the search page of Lexis Nexis. When the results page was shown, the case was read through and any pertinent passages were copied, along with their locations within the judgement, onto a separate document for easier referencing later on. Any of the cases that were mentioned in R v G were also read over to see if any were relevant to the arguments for the scenario.
Second to this, a new search was started on Lexis Nexis, this time using the terms “Article 8”, “Sexual Offences” and “Minor” and using the connector “w/p” to ensure the words were related to each other, the result returned was the same case of R v G. However, using the panel to the left of the results screen, I found the case of S v DPP, which after reading was found to be highly relevant to the scenario and so this was chosen to go into the main essay.
Following this, a search was then ran on the European Court of Human Rights webpage [8] , with the search terms this time being “article 8” and “Sexual Offences”. Despite this however, the search returned no results. As a result of this ‘Google’ searches [9] were then ran using the phrase “European Court of Human Rights cases, sexual offences by a minor”, however this, once again, led to no results.
Prior to writing the answer to section B a detailed plan was written detailing the arguments for and against the convictions compatibility with article eight. Throughout the essay, it was necessary to read through it to ensure that the plan was adhered to.
In R v Ryan, many controversial areas of the law come into play, of these almost all may be used by either the prosecution or the defence counsels to assist with their arguments. Following the procedure of the court room, the defence arguments will be laid-out first, followed by the arguments for the prosecution.
The principal point that has to be made with regards to the defence’s argument is whether the conviction of the appellant under s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act), when his plea establishes that the offence fell within the realms of s.13 the Act, violates article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).
It’s important to note that the Act is set out in clear terms, with section (s.) 5 stating the actus reus of the offence of ‘Rape of a child under 13’. For this offence, no mens rea is required as it’s an offence of strict liability. It must be first pointed out that another offence would be better suited to cover the situation that arose on the 15th June 2005, that section is s.13 of the Act, which covers “Child sex offences committed by children or young persons”. Not only does s.13 carry a lower maximum sentence, only five years in custody as opposed to the maximum of life for conviction under s.5, but it also doesn’t require the appellant to sign the sex offenders register. Therefore, it must be pointed out that by upholding the conviction under s.5 of the Act, the appellant’s life will be massively affected; he will be unable to work with children or to hold many public offices, all because he had consensual sex with a girl who lied as to her age.
Article 8 refers to the protection of a ‘right to a private life’. This article actually “affects a large number of areas of life ranging from surveillance to sexual identity” [10] ; therefore, this article does cover the matters that arose on the 15th June 2005. The article would also suggest that the appellant’s conviction under s.5 of the Act is contradictory to this article as people are allowed to have private, consensual, sexual intercourse, as there was in this case, without the interference of the courts.
Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has also issued strong guidance for when it would not be in the public interests to prosecute a person under the age of sixteen for having consensual sex. These guidelines are set out in the CPS’ Sexual Offences Act 2003 document, which states: “young people should not be prosecuted or issued with a reprimand or final warning where sexual activity was entirely mutually agreed and non-exploitative” [11] , therefore it stands to reason that the appellant shouldn’t even have faced trial for this matter, as the court accepted that the intercourse was consensual and thus the conviction should be quashed.
Following on from this, the case of R v G [12] set out that in order to prove that a person is guilty of s.5 of the Act the court first has to prove that there was sexual intercourse and whether or not the victim had consented to the intercourse. As is obvious from the situation in R v Ryan, the first element (sexual intercourse) was present as too was the second element (consent). Therefore, it would suggest that the court in this case should follow the example of the Crown Prosecutors in the case of S v DPP [13] . Here the prosecutors agreed to lower the charge of s.5 to s.13 of the Act, their reasons were that the appellant and the complainant were both under the age of sixteen and both had consented to the intercourse. Therefore, it must be argued that these cases are similar enough to insist that this court follow the decision laid out in this case and that the conviction under s.5 be quashed or lowered to a charge under s.13 of the Act. It’s understood, that as S v DPP [14] was heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, the Lordships of the House of Lords are not bound to follow this decision but once again the adverse effects that maintaining this conviction under s.5 would have on the appellant must be considered, as well as whether or not these effects are fair, taking into account what the courts accept, happened on the 15th June 2005.
Finally, it’s also necessary to point out that although the judgement in R v G [15] finds in favour of the complainant, two of the five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, sitting on the case actually dissented to the verdict. It’s these dissenting judgements that the defence would draw attention to, especially that of Lord Carswell who stated that he is “of opinion that to continue the prosecution under s 5, instead of substituting a charge under the appropriate s 13, was a breach of the Appellant's art 8 rights” [16] . Lord Carswell here is clearly of the belief that the decision regarding the possible violation of article eight has not correctly been reached.
It’s possible that the House of Lords may invoke the Practice Statement of 1966 which allows for the House to depart from its previous decisions ‘where it appears right to do so’, or where such decision was made ‘per incuriam’, which is what the dissenting Lords and the defence believe happened in R v G.
When focusing on the argument for the prosecution, it must be said that the case R v G [17] provides strong support for the prosecution in the case of R v Ryan. In R v G [18] the House of Lords ruled that the conviction of the fifteen year old defendant under s.5 of the Act when, as in this case, the plea accepted places the offence within the realms of s.13, does not breach article 8 of the Convention. It must be noted that as these cases (R v G and R v Ryan) are so similar, following the precedent is unavoidable.
A further case that can be used by the prosecution to support their argument is the Scottish case of Logan v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow [19] . In this case, the Scottish High Court of Justiciary ruled on whether the conviction of a sixteen year old male for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl below sixteen, would breach article eight of the Convention. In their judgement, the court ruled that the conviction was not in breach of the article and therefore, a newer judgement from the highest criminal court of Scotland [20] , supports the decision of R v G and so it would further support the idea of the R v Ryan case also following the House of Lords precedent of 2008.
Although not relating to the sexual activities of minors, the case of Brown and Others v United Kingdom [21] did relate to whether or not the criminalisation of sexual activities breached article eight of the convention, this case also made its to the European Court of Human Rights. Here the court ruled that the prosecution of the appellants did not constitute a breach of article eight. Therefore, using this logic it makes sense to understand that the case of R v Ryan, will also be dealt with in the same way.
In response to the claim by the appellant that the case should not have even come to trial on the basis of the CPS guidelines, it should be noted that the CPS when they decided to bring the case to trial, were under the belief that that complainant had not consented to the sexual intercourse and thus the decision to bring to trial was the correct one; beyond this, the appellant plead guilty to the offence. As for the matter regarding the choice of section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to charge the defendant with, the acts that took place on the 15th June 2005 allow for a charge under either s.5 or s.13 and so the final decision ultimately rests with the CPS.
A further point that has to be made at this point is that upholding the conviction in R v Ryan sends out an awfully strong message to other people who may find themselves in similar situations. Those vulnerable young people, who may very well hear of this judgement in the news, will be aware of the punishment that awaits them if they engage in sexual intercourse before the age of sixteen. In this way this could act as a deterrent to stop other youngsters from following in the footsteps of the parties in R v G and in R v Ryan, and possibly also reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Although this thought process is a bit fanciful, surely it’s worth the attempt?
Finally, with regards to the stigma that the appellant’s so worried about, it must be said that any stigma attracted due to the conviction under s.5, will remain the same if the appellant had been charged with s. 13. For that reason this argument should be disregarded in its entirety。
Belongs to the people of socialism refers to laws apply to a group, nation, and every people in this nation also has the law, no matter where, all the applicable laws.Montesquieu in its "in the spirit of law" is analyzed the causes of the Germanic law belongs to the people, and he thinks that environmental factors affect the German way of living, they like to live apart, separated from the living caused groups to produce their own habits and their respective methods to deal with problems, on the day of the Germanic groups together, they naturally have respective some habits to deal with the problem, this is the origin of the belongs to the people of montesquieu understanding socialism.
Germanic this belongs to the people thinking deeply affects the development direction of world law, William had turned out to be the duke of Normandy, France, England kingdom after the conquest of England, he did not make their territory a set of legal system of original infusion in England, but in the original custom habits to respect the local people of England do judgment, so effectively reduce contradiction with the anglo-saxons, consolidating his rule in England.Later, Henry ii continue to belong to the implementation of the people in England, a series of judicial reform, he regularly send assizes commissioner to, and in case the commissioner, except on the basis of the king the rescript edict, mainly on the basis of Germanic law and local habits.Whenever they think correct and reasonable, and the king's legislation does not contradict the habits and practices, has been identified as the basis of a sentence.They often exchange views gathered in the central location of Westminster and recognized each other's decision.So, based on some cited habit becomes take the form of case law in common law.In short, Britain's "most of the common law is accepted and the habit of generalization or popular throughout the country; on the basis of the ordinary, commonly used into common law".By this measure, the central judicial power are unified, local lords judicial power is weakened.
Carry through the habit good later of British colonial rule, when the British rule in Hong Kong at that time, also did not British law directly applicable to the Chinese community, only when the two sides or unilaterally is English is apply English law, the resulting in British colonial rule in the implementation of belongs to the people.Expressivity of the local Chinese community is still the qing statutes, and only when their legal serious violation of human rights value, port of the legislature will interfere.So it appears that such a phenomenon, a government, the two jurisdictions, with the passage of time, the local Chinese to accept and agree with the value of the English law, they are in the 1970 s, take the initiative to give up qing statutes as a basis for the legal application, from the original belongs to the people, eventually evolved into territorialism.Qing statutes are no longer applicable, but inside some of the rules, exist in the Chinese community in the form of habit.Jennings, points out that the function of the rule is a kind of cooperation, and the rule of law cannot alone contributed to cooperation.Practice helps democratic system operation, can cause more coordination state institutions, otherwise, will produce friction.This is belongs to the people, the advantages, it is a way of easing promote judicial unification, it be helpful for maintaining the rule of the ruler, promote social stability, promotes the development of the economy.Belongs to the people, like a soft fire boil soup, soup nutritional value to obtain the very good preservation.England and Hong Kong are all the same, good habit of local people are well preserved.These are all benefit local law continue to inheritance of culture.
Books
Bradley, Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2010, 15th edition
Cases
R v G [2008] UKHL 37
S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 2231
Logan v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow [2010] HCJAC 109
當(dāng)閱讀到B部分時(shí),重要的是,找出什么是預(yù)期的答案,它重要的是為了突出關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題。這是所需的問(wèn)題實(shí)際上總在我腦海里回想。當(dāng)談到積極詞匯的問(wèn)題,可以理解為:“上訴法院駁回上訴之前,R v G[2008]UKHL 37決定”[2],主要因?yàn)樗硎?這種情況下非常重要的答案。
Afterwards it was then necessary to print off the law that was referred to in the question. Therefore the sections mentioned in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (s. 5 and s. 13) along with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, was printed off, thus allowing reference to these pieces of law easier when it came to section B. In the scenario R v G [1] was mentioned, in order to make referring to this case easier, it was important to read through the judgement of the case and copy the key points onto a separate document along with the details of the person who said them and where they can be found.
When it came to section B, it was important, to find out what exactly was expected from an answer and so it was important to highlight the key or action words in the question. This was to ensure that what the question actually required was always at the forefront of my mind. When it comes to the active words in the question, these were understood to be: “Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal prior to R v G [2008] UKHL 37 being decided” [2] , primarily because it indicated that this case would be of great importance to the answer. The active words were also thought to include: “address the main arguments for the prosecution and appellants” [3] , “use of case and materials” [4] and “factor in cases and materials [5] ”.
After identifying the active words, it was important to find the legal and material facts of the case. After another careful examination, it was found that the material facts of the case were that the sex between the appellant (Ryan) and the complainant (Jenny) was consensual and so no-one had been forced against their will into sexual intercourse, the fact that Jenny had also lied as to her age was also a material fact. It was also believed to be of high importance that Ryan had pleaded guilty to the offence of s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
After a second examination of the scenario it was possible to identify the legal issues which were that Ryan plead guilty to s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whether or not Ryan should have been charged with s.13 Sexual Offences Act 2003 instead of s.5 Sexual Offences Act 2003, and whether this contradicted Article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights. When the legal and the material facts had been identified, it was time to begin finding support for the various different arguments that could either support of contradict the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the conviction. The search for any relevant case law went first.
When searching for the cases it was necessary to open a law records website, for the purpose of this search the Lexis Library [6] was used. Firstly, the case mentioned in the scenario [7] was researched, by placing the case citation into the relevant search box on the search page of Lexis Nexis. When the results page was shown, the case was read through and any pertinent passages were copied, along with their locations within the judgement, onto a separate document for easier referencing later on. Any of the cases that were mentioned in R v G were also read over to see if any were relevant to the arguments for the scenario.
Second to this, a new search was started on Lexis Nexis, this time using the terms “Article 8”, “Sexual Offences” and “Minor” and using the connector “w/p” to ensure the words were related to each other, the result returned was the same case of R v G. However, using the panel to the left of the results screen, I found the case of S v DPP, which after reading was found to be highly relevant to the scenario and so this was chosen to go into the main essay.
Following this, a search was then ran on the European Court of Human Rights webpage [8] , with the search terms this time being “article 8” and “Sexual Offences”. Despite this however, the search returned no results. As a result of this ‘Google’ searches [9] were then ran using the phrase “European Court of Human Rights cases, sexual offences by a minor”, however this, once again, led to no results.
Prior to writing the answer to section B a detailed plan was written detailing the arguments for and against the convictions compatibility with article eight. Throughout the essay, it was necessary to read through it to ensure that the plan was adhered to.
In R v Ryan, many controversial areas of the law come into play, of these almost all may be used by either the prosecution or the defence counsels to assist with their arguments. Following the procedure of the court room, the defence arguments will be laid-out first, followed by the arguments for the prosecution.
The principal point that has to be made with regards to the defence’s argument is whether the conviction of the appellant under s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act), when his plea establishes that the offence fell within the realms of s.13 the Act, violates article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).
It’s important to note that the Act is set out in clear terms, with section (s.) 5 stating the actus reus of the offence of ‘Rape of a child under 13’. For this offence, no mens rea is required as it’s an offence of strict liability. It must be first pointed out that another offence would be better suited to cover the situation that arose on the 15th June 2005, that section is s.13 of the Act, which covers “Child sex offences committed by children or young persons”. Not only does s.13 carry a lower maximum sentence, only five years in custody as opposed to the maximum of life for conviction under s.5, but it also doesn’t require the appellant to sign the sex offenders register. Therefore, it must be pointed out that by upholding the conviction under s.5 of the Act, the appellant’s life will be massively affected; he will be unable to work with children or to hold many public offices, all because he had consensual sex with a girl who lied as to her age.
Article 8 refers to the protection of a ‘right to a private life’. This article actually “affects a large number of areas of life ranging from surveillance to sexual identity” [10] ; therefore, this article does cover the matters that arose on the 15th June 2005. The article would also suggest that the appellant’s conviction under s.5 of the Act is contradictory to this article as people are allowed to have private, consensual, sexual intercourse, as there was in this case, without the interference of the courts.
Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has also issued strong guidance for when it would not be in the public interests to prosecute a person under the age of sixteen for having consensual sex. These guidelines are set out in the CPS’ Sexual Offences Act 2003 document, which states: “young people should not be prosecuted or issued with a reprimand or final warning where sexual activity was entirely mutually agreed and non-exploitative” [11] , therefore it stands to reason that the appellant shouldn’t even have faced trial for this matter, as the court accepted that the intercourse was consensual and thus the conviction should be quashed.
Following on from this, the case of R v G [12] set out that in order to prove that a person is guilty of s.5 of the Act the court first has to prove that there was sexual intercourse and whether or not the victim had consented to the intercourse. As is obvious from the situation in R v Ryan, the first element (sexual intercourse) was present as too was the second element (consent). Therefore, it would suggest that the court in this case should follow the example of the Crown Prosecutors in the case of S v DPP [13] . Here the prosecutors agreed to lower the charge of s.5 to s.13 of the Act, their reasons were that the appellant and the complainant were both under the age of sixteen and both had consented to the intercourse. Therefore, it must be argued that these cases are similar enough to insist that this court follow the decision laid out in this case and that the conviction under s.5 be quashed or lowered to a charge under s.13 of the Act. It’s understood, that as S v DPP [14] was heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, the Lordships of the House of Lords are not bound to follow this decision but once again the adverse effects that maintaining this conviction under s.5 would have on the appellant must be considered, as well as whether or not these effects are fair, taking into account what the courts accept, happened on the 15th June 2005.
Finally, it’s also necessary to point out that although the judgement in R v G [15] finds in favour of the complainant, two of the five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, sitting on the case actually dissented to the verdict. It’s these dissenting judgements that the defence would draw attention to, especially that of Lord Carswell who stated that he is “of opinion that to continue the prosecution under s 5, instead of substituting a charge under the appropriate s 13, was a breach of the Appellant's art 8 rights” [16] . Lord Carswell here is clearly of the belief that the decision regarding the possible violation of article eight has not correctly been reached.
It’s possible that the House of Lords may invoke the Practice Statement of 1966 which allows for the House to depart from its previous decisions ‘where it appears right to do so’, or where such decision was made ‘per incuriam’, which is what the dissenting Lords and the defence believe happened in R v G.
When focusing on the argument for the prosecution, it must be said that the case R v G [17] provides strong support for the prosecution in the case of R v Ryan. In R v G [18] the House of Lords ruled that the conviction of the fifteen year old defendant under s.5 of the Act when, as in this case, the plea accepted places the offence within the realms of s.13, does not breach article 8 of the Convention. It must be noted that as these cases (R v G and R v Ryan) are so similar, following the precedent is unavoidable.
A further case that can be used by the prosecution to support their argument is the Scottish case of Logan v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow [19] . In this case, the Scottish High Court of Justiciary ruled on whether the conviction of a sixteen year old male for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl below sixteen, would breach article eight of the Convention. In their judgement, the court ruled that the conviction was not in breach of the article and therefore, a newer judgement from the highest criminal court of Scotland [20] , supports the decision of R v G and so it would further support the idea of the R v Ryan case also following the House of Lords precedent of 2008.
Although not relating to the sexual activities of minors, the case of Brown and Others v United Kingdom [21] did relate to whether or not the criminalisation of sexual activities breached article eight of the convention, this case also made its to the European Court of Human Rights. Here the court ruled that the prosecution of the appellants did not constitute a breach of article eight. Therefore, using this logic it makes sense to understand that the case of R v Ryan, will also be dealt with in the same way.
In response to the claim by the appellant that the case should not have even come to trial on the basis of the CPS guidelines, it should be noted that the CPS when they decided to bring the case to trial, were under the belief that that complainant had not consented to the sexual intercourse and thus the decision to bring to trial was the correct one; beyond this, the appellant plead guilty to the offence. As for the matter regarding the choice of section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to charge the defendant with, the acts that took place on the 15th June 2005 allow for a charge under either s.5 or s.13 and so the final decision ultimately rests with the CPS.
A further point that has to be made at this point is that upholding the conviction in R v Ryan sends out an awfully strong message to other people who may find themselves in similar situations. Those vulnerable young people, who may very well hear of this judgement in the news, will be aware of the punishment that awaits them if they engage in sexual intercourse before the age of sixteen. In this way this could act as a deterrent to stop other youngsters from following in the footsteps of the parties in R v G and in R v Ryan, and possibly also reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Although this thought process is a bit fanciful, surely it’s worth the attempt?
Finally, with regards to the stigma that the appellant’s so worried about, it must be said that any stigma attracted due to the conviction under s.5, will remain the same if the appellant had been charged with s. 13. For that reason this argument should be disregarded in its entirety。
Belongs to the people of socialism refers to laws apply to a group, nation, and every people in this nation also has the law, no matter where, all the applicable laws.Montesquieu in its "in the spirit of law" is analyzed the causes of the Germanic law belongs to the people, and he thinks that environmental factors affect the German way of living, they like to live apart, separated from the living caused groups to produce their own habits and their respective methods to deal with problems, on the day of the Germanic groups together, they naturally have respective some habits to deal with the problem, this is the origin of the belongs to the people of montesquieu understanding socialism.
Germanic this belongs to the people thinking deeply affects the development direction of world law, William had turned out to be the duke of Normandy, France, England kingdom after the conquest of England, he did not make their territory a set of legal system of original infusion in England, but in the original custom habits to respect the local people of England do judgment, so effectively reduce contradiction with the anglo-saxons, consolidating his rule in England.Later, Henry ii continue to belong to the implementation of the people in England, a series of judicial reform, he regularly send assizes commissioner to, and in case the commissioner, except on the basis of the king the rescript edict, mainly on the basis of Germanic law and local habits.Whenever they think correct and reasonable, and the king's legislation does not contradict the habits and practices, has been identified as the basis of a sentence.They often exchange views gathered in the central location of Westminster and recognized each other's decision.So, based on some cited habit becomes take the form of case law in common law.In short, Britain's "most of the common law is accepted and the habit of generalization or popular throughout the country; on the basis of the ordinary, commonly used into common law".By this measure, the central judicial power are unified, local lords judicial power is weakened.
Carry through the habit good later of British colonial rule, when the British rule in Hong Kong at that time, also did not British law directly applicable to the Chinese community, only when the two sides or unilaterally is English is apply English law, the resulting in British colonial rule in the implementation of belongs to the people.Expressivity of the local Chinese community is still the qing statutes, and only when their legal serious violation of human rights value, port of the legislature will interfere.So it appears that such a phenomenon, a government, the two jurisdictions, with the passage of time, the local Chinese to accept and agree with the value of the English law, they are in the 1970 s, take the initiative to give up qing statutes as a basis for the legal application, from the original belongs to the people, eventually evolved into territorialism.Qing statutes are no longer applicable, but inside some of the rules, exist in the Chinese community in the form of habit.Jennings, points out that the function of the rule is a kind of cooperation, and the rule of law cannot alone contributed to cooperation.Practice helps democratic system operation, can cause more coordination state institutions, otherwise, will produce friction.This is belongs to the people, the advantages, it is a way of easing promote judicial unification, it be helpful for maintaining the rule of the ruler, promote social stability, promotes the development of the economy.Belongs to the people, like a soft fire boil soup, soup nutritional value to obtain the very good preservation.England and Hong Kong are all the same, good habit of local people are well preserved.These are all benefit local law continue to inheritance of culture.
Books
Bradley, Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2010, 15th edition
Cases
R v G [2008] UKHL 37
S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 2231
Logan v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow [2010] HCJAC 109
Get expert help on all your writing
立即預(yù)定