January 2012 articles archive:

Is there a place for 'laissez-faire'?

Is there a need for laws to be passed to stop our society falling apart due to a lack of new laws to put things right.

Some of you, who may be law students, could be excused for thinking that laws need to be passed otherwise our society will fall apart due to a lack of new laws to put things right.  Is that really the case? 

These thoughts may have originated, in part at least, from our understanding that, when it comes to law making, there are limitations to law creation by the judiciary and that law making is one of the key functions of Parliament.  We are told as law students that there are good reasons why Parliament is tasked with law making, this includes the fact that members of Parliament are elected, meaning that parliamentary law-making is a democratic procedure.  In the same vein we are told that judges may be well qualified and experienced about the law but they are not elected meaning that judicial law-making would not be seen as democratic.

An increasing amount of new law derives from the EU in the form of directives which must be implemented in member states through the introduction of laws through domestic Parliaments. This is often seen as one reason why we may be experiencing an increase in legislation.  Some would argue that the EU is responsible for numerous rules and regulations and new laws which impede upon our daily lives and weigh us down with its bureaucracy and ‘red tape’.  To be fair it is difficult to see our judiciary being able to bring such legislation into effect as they are primarily arbiters of the law and preside over disputes. 

We have become accustomed to parliamentary sessions lasting a year and this is justified on the basis that Parliamentary time is extremely limited and a reasonable period is required to allow for the progress and completion of a reasonable legislative programme of reform.  In fact the lack of parliamentary time is one of the reasons why Parliament delegates some of its powers to legislate on its behalf i.e. delegated legislation.

This is an over simplification of course, but are we simply playing into the hands of political egos by passing new laws only to find that there is a strong case for repeal and reform of some laws? Many of these laws, if examined, came about as a result of some political ‘fancy’ or ‘fashion’ which seemed to make perfect sense at the time.

Prior to the nineteenth century we are reminded that we had a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to government and to state intervention.  Laissez-faire, a French term, means 'leave to do' or 'leave alone'.  In other words there was minimum involvement from the government and markets were unregulated. As a result government policy was often based upon the principle that markets would operate and determine economic well-being and, if this meant that levels of unemployment and social inequality followed, this was to be expected  There are those that question whether this is an acceptable face of capitalism.

In modern times Margaret Thatcher, prime minister from 1979 to 1990, advocated a return to ‘Victorian values’ meaning that we turn back the tide so to speak – the tide being the powers of the state, with less state intervention and lower levels of taxation and greater independence as a result.

 We are now living in a time of austerity and are all being asked to contribute to our recovery in one way or another. Have we seen the end of legislative programmes shaped as one after another, each government department bids for a slice of the Queen’s speech, fearful that if they lose out on the bidding process they will suffer as a result? Will this have any effect upon judicial law as less legislative opportunities arise?     



Recent Posts

The latest posts from the lawmentor.co.uk blog archives.

Caparo three part test – revisited

In Robinson the Supreme Court laid to rest the proposition that there is a Caparo test which applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence.

Statutory interpretation - penal legislation is construed strictly

The Supreme Court reminded everyone per Lord Reed and Lord Hughes that 'Penal legislation is construed strictly, particularly where the penalty involves deprivation of liberty'.

Court of appeal gives judgment acknowledging unmarried woman's rights

The claim related to bereavement payments under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as amended.

European union law – in the case of conflict between national law and european law

Walker (Appellant) v Innospec Limited and others (Respondents) [2017] UKSC 47 On appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 1000

Vicarious liability is alive and well

This decision extends the doctrine of vicarious liability in respect of foster carers for the fist time and it represents another example of the potential for the expansion of this form of liability.

Supreme court busy - make sure you are geared up for your course

The Supreme Court has been especially busy lately.

Gina miller v secretary of state for exiting the eu 2016 as an example of the importance of judicial independence

Law students are now required to take note of how the independence and work of the judiciary has been reformed

Policing and crime bill and provisions for bail after arrest but before charge

The clear intention is that decisions on pre-charge bail should come under scrutiny.