2.4 The European Court of Human Rights Common law and the court hierarchy, statutory interpretation and judicial precedent are all peculiar to the domestic English law. The European Court of Human Rights operates in a different way. The rights in the European Convention on Human Rights are stated in general terms and are interpreted according to international legal principles. For example, Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: 2.3 Application of the ECHR The ECHR places an important emphasis on individual rights whilst trying to strike a balance between individual and collective rights. 2.2 The Convention itself The ECHR is essentially a charter of rights. Any charter of rights represents a consensus, a negotiated agreement between the drafters. Every state intending to adopt a charter will have its own vision and aims, and the drafters have to find a way of accommodating these visions and aims. This often results in the creation of provisions that are a compromise and are drafted in the widest possible terms. The ECHR is drafted in such a way. It is a vaguely worded aspirational charter inten 2.1 History The Council of Europe was set up in 1949. It is an intergovernmental organisation (based in Strasbourg, France) set up to protect human rights, promote cultural diversity and to combat social problems such as intolerance. Its creation was seen as a way of achieving a European approach to the protection of certain individual rights. Although presented now as historical events, the horrors of what had taken place in the Second World War were then fresh in the minds of the governments and 1 Unit overview Apart from the English Parliament and common law, there are other major sources of legal rule-making that impact on English domestic law. These are the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union (EU) law. In comparison with parliamentary legislation and common law, these sources are a recent development. In fact, both the ECHR and EU are just over 50 years old, having emerged as sources of legal rule making in the mid-twentieth century. This makes them relatively dev Next steps After completing this unit you may wish to study another OpenLearn Study Unit or find out more about this topic. Here are some suggestions: 10 Review of the learning outcomes After studying this unit you should be able to: Part A explain what the common law is and how it developed: In 1154 Henry II institutionalised common law. Judges travelled throughout the country bringing consistent justice to every citizen, and the practice developed where past decisions would be cited in argument before the courts and would be regarded as being of persuasive authority. 9 Part H Consolidation The purpose of this part is to bring together your knowledge of law making in the English legal system. Through a series of activities you will be provided with the opportunity to review and consolidate your knowledge of the English legal system gained so far. 8.2 Summary of Part G In Part G you have explored the difference between common law and civil law systems. Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence 8.1 The differences between common law and civil law systems Having explored the origins and development of the common law and its characteristics, the final part of this unit will compare and contrast the common law with civil legal systems. The terms common law system and civil law system are used to distinguish two distinct legal systems and approaches to law. The use of the term ‘common law’ in this context refers to all those legal systems which have adopted the historic English legal system. Foremost amongst these is, of course, th 7.3 Summary of Part F In Part F, we have compared and contrasted: common law and equity common law and statute law. Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creati 7.2 Statute law and common law The ‘common law’ means the substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judges through the decisions in the cases they have heard. I have here lumped together two types of common law: substantive law and procedural law. Let me explain the difference between them. A substantive rule is a rule about our behaviour, for example, that we cannot commit murder or that we will be forming a contract if we do such-and-such on an email exchange. These substantive rul 7.1 Equity This term refers to a particular division within the English legal system. As the common law progressed, there developed a formality among judges, typified by a reluctance to deal with matters that were not or could not be processed in the proper form of action. Such a refusal to deal with injustices because they did not fall within the particular procedural and formal constraints, led to much dissatisfaction with the legal system. A modern analogy would be with a company or Government depart 6.9 Summary of Part E 4.1 Introduction You cannot cite precedents to a judge and ask him or her to follow them if you don't have a good record of all the earlier cases and how they were decided. The operation of binding precedent, therefore, relies on the existence of an extensive reporting service to provide access to previous judicial decisions. This section will briefly set out where you might locate case reports on particular areas of the law. This is of particular importance to advocates (usually barristers but s 3.5 Summary of Part B In Part B you have learned that: the system of precedent requires later courts to use the same reasoning as an earlier court, where two cases raise the same legal issues; the contents of a case report can be divided into two categories:
ratio decidendi – the statement of legal principles essential to the decision. The ratio is the binding element of the case 3.4.3 Summary of binding precedent In this section you have seen: that not everything in a court case sets a precedent the difference between ratio decidendi (the statement of legal principles material to the decision) and obiter dictum (the discussion of legal principles raised in argument but not material to the decision) that the binding element in a future case is the ratio and that, while the obiter will never be bindin 3.4.2 Distinguishing In comparison with the mechanism of overruling, which is rarely used, the main device for avoiding binding precedent is that of distinguishing. As has been previously stated, the ratio decidendi of any case is based upon the material facts of the case. This opens up the possibility that a court may regard the facts of the case before it as significantly different from the facts of a cited precedent, so it will not find itself bound to follow that precedent. Judges use the device of dis 3.4.1 Overruling Overruling is the procedure whereby a court higher up in the hierarchy sets aside a legal ruling established in a previous case. It is strange that, within the system of stare decisis, precedents gain increased authority with the passage of time. As a consequence, courts tend to be reluctant to overrule longstanding authorities even though they may no longer accurately reflect contemporary practices or morals. While old principles are not usually good in dentistry or computer sci 3.4 Binding precedent Not everything in a court case sets a precedent. The contents of a case report can be divided into two categories: 1. The reason for the decision – ratio decidendi The ratio decidendi of a case is not the actual decision, like ‘guilty’ or ‘the defendant is liable to pay compensation’. The precedent is set by the rule of law used by the judge or judges in deciding the legal problem raised by the facts
<
Activity 1 Drafting a charter of rights
Activity 18 Common law
Rule, approach or aid
Comment
Cases
The literal rule
Uses plain ordinary grammatical meaning of words and avoids judicial law making, but can lead to absurd decisions and injustices and assumes unattainable perfection in draftsmanship
Fisher v Bell (1960)
The golden rule
This start













