Judges Rule on the Basis of Law - Case Study Example

 Judges Rule on the Basis of Law Introduction In the legal systems of any given state, judges play a very significant role. However, for the judges to work efficiently the independence of the legal system need to be upheld. This is because judges should make rulings as per the law but not the opinions of the public. Judges are also required to differ from pressures in existence if their ruling is to be regarded as fair. In any given case, pressure from either groups of people or individuals should not deter the judges from making their rulings according to the law (Reavley, 2002). However, there is an argument made that the government is a human affair. Contrary to the fact that the judge should rule in accordance to the law, critics made argue that people are well ruled if the judges understand the people’s thinking as well as put into consideration their opinions. They further argue that there is a danger that arises if the law and justice become rigidly bound to recorded laws or statutes. This raises an urge for the judges to put into consideration the public’s opinion (Bingham 2011, p.13). Discussion Judges should restrict their ruling on the basis of law only without being driven by any public opinion. However, judges should not only rely on only the written statutes and laws and this calls for them to seek public opinion as well as what the public think (Reavley, 2002). In the Case [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin), there are tragic cases in consideration. The cases presented the society with ethical and legal questions of unique and difficult kind. The cases also raised some constitutional questions which called for the attorney general’s intervention. The court was forced to invite the attorney general. The cases involved two claimants who suffered from catastrophic physical disabilities. However, the claimants’ mental processes were unimpaired by the fact that they were fully conscious of the predicament they were going through. Both of them suffered a locked in syndrome. The claimants had a determination in that they wished to die with dignity without further going through the suffering they were going through under their current condition. This supported their claims by arguing that they needed to die because they were incapable of ending their lives. None of them was terminally ill and had the probability of living for many years. The judicial court out ruled the challenges to the aspects of the law that were in relation to the dying. They said that it would be not constitutional to change the rule of law to be made in this area. This would be otherwise be made by the parliament (Reavley, 2002). The claimants in this case did suffer from the locked in syndrome. The syndrome made each one of them desire to die with many dignities. However, each one of them would require the help of other people in order to attain this. Mr. Nicklinson made the claim that the interpretations of the law should be in such a way that the necessity is considered as a defense to the charges against murder. They should also be considered as assisted suicide in the case of voluntary euthanasia in assisting suicide (Bingham 2011, p.17). The AM made the allegations that the SRA, GMC and also DPP were obligated to clarify the policies as far as the prosecutions of these cases concerning suicide are involved. The same judgment in this case is related to another case of a person referred to as martin. The judge heard the case by the name Lord Justice Toulson. In his ruling, he said that In simple terms the person who made the claims was indeed suffering from physical disabilities. This did not mean that they had a mental impaired condition. This meant that the claimant was fully aware of the predicament. Both of the claimants were very determined that they would die with many dignities and without suffering anymore. Due to their physical problems they were suffering from, they required help to end their lives. The judge illustrated that none of them was sick and they had the chances of living for many years. At the previous times of the case, records show that judge Charles J had given the authority for the case to be taken to the full hearing procedure. That act posed a tricky issue on whether a judge should cross the Rubicon. This would result into making a ruling in the favor of Mr. Nicklinson. However, the claims concluded that it was not possible for the judge to rule in his favor. Despite the fact that Mr. Nicklinson received many sympathies from the judges, they failed to alter the law and claimed that it was the duty of the parliament to make the alterations of the law (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.93). Few weeks later after the judgment of these claimants was handed down, the Justice Lord Walker who was the Supreme Court judge at Gestingthorpe commented concerning the roles of the judges. While speaking in Australia he touched on the obligations the judges had and the extent to which they were capable of amending the law. Despite the fact that his speech did not cover the Nicklinson’s case, it, however, raised some considerable interests (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.88). Putting into consideration the claimants’ cases, martin asked the office of Public Prosecutions to make various amendments on the issued guidance of assisting someone else to commit suicide. The House of Lords gave this guidance. The basic relief that martin was seeking was the DPP’s order that would clarify the Director of Public Prosecutions’ policy in order for other people who were willing to help martin commit suicide on compassionate grounds would offer that hand of help. Martin further requested further clarification whether the individual who would help him commit suicide through dignities, whether they were liable of facing prosecutions in England. In Mr. Nicklinson's case, tony had pledged to help him end his life using a voluntary euthanasia. This meant that he would not necessarily end his life with immediate effect, but he would give him room to establish his very right time to die with dignity (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.94). Many reasons were raised as to why the judges could not amend the laws so as the wish of the claimants. Martin’s and Tony’s cases were deeply moving. The desire they had of having control over ending their lives demanded most sympathetic and careful attention. However, it was necessary to put into considerations many other issues. If the judges made a decision of allowing the claimants to go ahead and fulfill their claims, the results would be far beyond the results of their current cases. Implementing martin’s decision would make major changes in the law. This would also be compelling the DPP and hence go beyond the DPP’s established legal part. These things were beyond the courts power. It was not for the court to make a decision on whether the law on assisted death should be amended. Under the available government’s system, these types of decisions are left to be made by the parliament. The parliament represents the society at large. The issue was to be scrutinized by the parliament. It was because this reason the judge refused the applications for judicial review. Short concurring judgments that were delivered by Royce said that he agreed with the analysis of Toulson LJ. He also agreed to the reasoning and also the conclusions of the same person. However, he added that the two men should strike everyone at a time. It was also unfortunate that their future had no hope. Every one of the issues had the components of moral, religious, political and also social issues. It may occur in the mind of the public and different groups that the judiciary toTake step into changing the law. Other organizations may also be tempted to do so. However, this is not right as the changing of the law lies strictly to the parliament. This was a very sensitive area and needed allot of safeguard and this was only possible in the parliament. Lady Justice Macur also made her ruling in which she said that, she agreed with Toulson LJ’s judgment. She also endorsed the Royce J’s comments such that it appeared that she was not compelled to make any remarks. The dire emotional and physical predicament faced by tony and martin. Their families may also intensify the unease in the tribunal that were identified by Lord Must. There was a difference between what can be interpreted as mercy killing and also withdrawal of life. The case also involves the identification of sustainable treatment and also the necessity of life. Family division judges were also involved in the case where there were discussions of the protection for the adjudicate declarations in relation to the case. They had become well accustomed to the best interest of the case (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.83). This was the basis on the decisions took by the court. Lady Justice went on to explain that Mr. Bowen QC was not successful in persuading her that the process they were undergoing could be able to convince the society that there s the development of the general law. The common law development was merited on the consideration of the particular conditions by the different tribunals. They had their own stature and also experience. The conditions were raised by the individuals, tony and martin’s cases that required to be adjudicated by the parliament. This part was not to be taken by judges and the DPP as officers of the state who are not elected. The judges are in a position to alter the law. There are a huge number of cases when judges have made changes to the law. In many of the cases, the judges have recorded to make a long standing judgment. The best example of these changes is when the Lords did away with the rule that said that a man cannot be accused of raping his wife. During these discussions, the House of Lords addresses the problem as the removal of fiction in the common law that had become very anachronistic and also offensive. The house took this issue as their responsibility to change the rule from the common law. One of the representatives of the Supreme Court Lord Walker delivered a speech in Australia in which he included a number of conditions that have seen judges develop the common law (Slapper 2011). He also outlined situation in which the judges have not been able to amend the common law. He recorded that if the judiciary stand is back it will not be very easy to discern from the ruling of the House of Lords and that of the court in the areas that he has observed. He moved on to state that clear policies as to what is involved or what is not involved to developing of the common law. This was addressed as per the court of last resort. Many issues as he states depends upon the judicially to be solved. However, in these issues the common law which is as well described as a lawyer’s laws are what judges need to improve. Some of them include mistake of law or the witness immunity. Lord Goff has moved on to share his passionate views about the mistakes done by the law. However this topic is not commonly addressed in the Clapham bus. These are issues that are very of social, economic and also political influence. These cases are left to the decisions of parliament. Lord Walker makes a point that, in the area of mortality, the parliament has shown much reluctance (Bingham 2011, p.27). They are reluctant on whether to clarify or change the law. Nicklinson judgment was briefly looked to as Assisted Dying to the people involved. This is because they were not terminally ill and they wanted to be assisted in ending their life because of the physical challenges they had. The Bills that were introduced by Lord Joffe in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 said that the case of tony was heard and decided upon by the House of Lords. These hearings occurred for the last 20 years, but there had been no actions on the legislative and this area was very sensitive. The mental act of the year 2005 made provisions for public to make advance decisions towards refusing treatment is a major exception (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.93). The remarks that Lord Walker made were very interesting. This is because the remarks make the possibility that the judges might eventually have the opportunity to step up and solve cases that involve controversial cases. Lord Walker also addressed a comment made by Lord Browne Wilkinson in the case of Bland. He stated that the function of the judge at that edge of the law was to use the principles that are adopted by the society through the democratic process. Judges should be indifferent to pressures of the times. It should be the obligation of a judge not to be drawn into jurisprudence as a science. This also includes the laws of the land. The judge is likely to be lured to this by the plaintiffs and also the defendant lawyers. In this case, the public had also had an impact in the ruling of the case. The main character that the judge should have in such a case is integrity. The judges do not require the opinion of the citizens of the United States so that they make a ruling. They should make a ruling in the provisions of the constitution. However, if such a case is not represented in the constitution, the judges should let the makers of the law address the issue (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.94). There are many consequences when there is populism in the judicially. Allowing the interests of the public and other groups of people to impact the integrity of the court is a judicial populism. This can eventually destroy the rule of law that is present. It can destroy the supremacy of the constitution. This will also affect the judiciary’s independence. It is the responsibility of the judges to protect the constitution since they took an oath to fulfill this duty. The public, on the other hand, did not take any oath. The judges should understand that any failure will not be a public failure rather they will be held accountable (Slapper 2011). The judges have several mandates as far as making the ruling. The main obligation of the judge is ensuring that justice is served to the right party. However, judge has a responsibility of confining the ruling on the basis of the common law. In the case Mr. Nicklinson and Martin, it was the responsibility of the judge to make a ruling that is in line with the common law. This was irrespective of the claimant’s wishes as well the pressure from the public. It is unlawful to take someone’s life irrespective of any circumstances present (Bingham 2011, p.23). It is also the judge's duty to give the jury guidelines on the law that applies in a given case and the standards that they must use in the case. This happens before the jury starts their discussions about the facts presented in the case. In this case, the judges could not allow the claimants to be killed because it was unconstitutional. All the guidelines that the judge give should adhere to the common law. The Mr. Nicklinson and Martin’s cases were not represented in the constitution and the ruling relied on the judge’s integrity (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.87). In the law system, judges are supposed to make rulings that are similar to the reasoning of the previous rulings. This happens to matters of the same subject. The terms of these cases lacked references from earlier ruled cases. It was also not represented in the legislative law. The rulings made by judicially are not binding to the legislature. This is because the legislature can pass laws that can overrule the decisions of the court (Shahabuddeen 2007, p.95). The common law can be referred to on the conditions that are not decided upon by the legislature. This phenomenon has two advantages first the judge must use the precedent cases of a similar problem. In these cases it does not occur, therefore, it became impossible for judges to predict what the law indicates. The second option is that with the many cases that are decided upon daily it becomes difficult to follow the cases. This results to some courts making decisions of a particular subject. Courts may also make different rulings on the same case. In this case, the Australian Supreme Court’s judge Lord Walker differed with the ruling concerning these cases (Slapper 2011). References List Bingham, T. H. (2011). The rule of law. London, Allen Lane. Pp.13-37 Reavley, T. M. (2002) “The Rule of Law of Judges”. 30 Pepperdine Law Review 79. Shahabuddeen, M. (2007). Precedent in the world court. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 86-95. Slapper, G. (2011). How the Law Works. New York, Routldge. Read More