"HNC LAW UNIT 1SOURCES OF LAW AND JUDICIAL REASONING1. The functions of law include defence against evil, promotion of common good,dispute resolving over limited resources and encouraging people to do what isconsidered to be right.The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights in the United Kingdom(UK) has witnessed significant evolution over the years (Aulette and Wittner, 2012).Sisters marrying each other would be an incestuous act which is considered to beillegal across the world. Marriage in the UK has been recognised in religious andcivil unions that takes place between a woman and a man. Since the year 2005, civilpartnerships were made available to same gender couples in the United Kingdom. Inthe year 2013, the Marriage Bill was introduced by the UK Government to theParliament that would legalise same gender marriage in Wales and England.Since same gender marriages were not recognised earlier, hotel owners whosereligion made them believe physical intimacy outside marriage to be amoral andrenting out a room to a couple who were not married would be promoting sin andhad to pay penalty for the same. Such penalty was imposed due to the unequaltreatment towards people which was discriminatory in an unlawful manner and notdue to the religious beliefs of the hotel owners (Miller, 2012).2. The legal implications and regulations that the citizens of the country require to abideby plays a significant role in the delivery of judgements by the different levels of thejudiciary system existent in the UK and other member nations of the European Union(EU) (Smith, 2005). The extent of applicability of such implications of legalframeworks and the method of working of the judiciary system of the country requireproper establishment to provide clarity of implications to the people. Such frameworkis greatly dependent on the legal structure prevalent in the countries of the EU and thecitizens should be in a position to understand the extent to which the provisions areapplicable. They should also be aware of which of these legal establishments arebound to follow the provisions of the other. The local council by-laws are dependenton the judgements of the Parliament. The Parliament is the ultimate legal authority inthe country and all the other courts of law need to abide by the regulations and legalframeworks of the Parliament. Though the UK legal structure is dependent on the EUregulations, in situations where conflicts arise, the final decision of the Parliament1 will be followed as the Parliament is the final jurisdiction authority (Mackenzie,1959).A common law can be considered to be void for judgment on relation to a particularcase when it contradicts with the provisions of the Parliament. This is considered tobe outdated in comparison with the latest provisions and is challenged in a highercourt of law, the verdict of which is ruled in favour of the petitioner.3. In the delivery of the judgement of the Morley v Police (1996) case, the District CourtJudge felt that the Hilder v Police case could be rejected and the outcomes of thecases of Cantley v Barton and Mieckle v Police cases could be taken as a precedent tothe case because the judgement that had been delivered in case of the latter were inaccordance with the legal provisions of the Parliament of UK. The focus of Hilder vPolice was more on the relevance of the council by laws. This was in the delivery ofthe judgment and the judge probably felt that the same were not completely inaccordance with the legal provisions of Parliament (Lender, 2006).4. In the English legal system, stare decisis or doctrine of binding precedent isconsidered to be basic where a precedent is the statement with regard to the law givenby the judge in the decision of a case (Slapper and Kelly, 2004). According to thedoctrine, within the hierarchy of the courts the inferior courts are bound by thedecisions of the superior courts. In situations where there has been precedence set upby a superior or equal court, the judge needs to adhere to the ruling of the same. Ifprecedent is set by an inferior court, the judge need not adhere to the ruling. Only theSupreme Court need not adhere to its own precedent (Wiseman, 2011). The statements related to the law are binding which is called ratio decidendi or reasonfor decision. Reasons other than these are known as obetir dictum or by the way. Acourt is not bound by precedent if there had occurred any sort of lack of care in theoriginal. In situations where there is material difference between the cases, then itdepends on the court to select the precedent or not.Decisions of the lower courts areincluded in the persuasive precedent. Such decisions are not binding but can bepersuasive. A subsequent decision is in a position to overrule a precedent by an Act ofParliament or a superior court.5. The defence in the case of a young man letting a pig inside a mosque would includethe fact that it was meant as a joke and not to hurt the sentiments or demonstrate2 disrespect for anybody. Also, the mosque was empty when the pig was let in, henceno individual was disturbed. People of the Islamic faith do not consume the meat ofpigs, but a live pg would pose to be of no harm to anybody as it is not a viciousanimal. The intention of the young man was to just have a laugh when the people sawthe pig inside the mosque on the next day, he did not intent to outrage the culturalbelief of anybody.The defence in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ Triumphant would be that firstlythe French nationals were not aware of the fact that the people singing wereassociated with the church and were singing with God in mind. Secondly, a station isa common area, where many people perform various things and for people whovisited the station for the first time would be difficult to identify who was singing inpraise of the lord and who was singing to earn some money and who was singing justto entertain the people. Thirdly, for people from a different country, it is difficult tounderstand the religious sentiments of a different country. Fourthly, just because aword coincided with the song being sung by the church representatives, it could notbe assumed that the French nationals were displaying disrespect towards them.The defence for the case of the members of Haringey Women’s society being abusedby two drunken men would be that the men were under the influence of alcohol anddid not act in their senses. Their hatred towards women would also be considered apersonal perception and if they voiced their views, it was not directed only towardsthe women present but towards women in general. The Town Hall is a place wherepeople of the area meet up, it neither is religious nor is related to a person’s culturalorientation. Culture includes beliefs, customs and other practices of the community,here however the comments were directed towards women in general and not towardsthe cultural beliefs or norms of anybody.6. Statutory Interpretation has a number of rules (Sullivan, 2007). A significant such ruledeals with the plain language of statute. The rule explains the statute means what itsays. This can be explained by saying that if a statute says motor vehicle, it is possiblethat the court will construe it as being referred to the elaborate range of motorisedvehicles that are useful for travelling on roadways by the legislation. This would notindicate any other mode of transport like a bicycle or aeroplane though a bicycle isuseful on the roadway and aeroplanes include a motorised propeller. 3 Intrinsic aids are contained within the statute that is being interpreted. In general, as ageneral rule, prima facie has to be given for statutory interpretation. Clarity of wordswith freedom from ambiguity would result in to requirement for reference to anyother means of interpretation. In the case where the words of the statute areambiguous and vague, consultation to internal aid is required for the purpose ofinterpretation. This would result in reading the statute thoroughly and things that arenot clear in a certain section may be explained in another.Extrinsic aids to interpretation are composed of everything that are not to be foundwithin a statute. The application of extrinsic aids implies non adherence to literalism.External aids of a statute can also be utilised as recourse.In case of conflicts between the different sources of law where there is a conflictbetween the case law and the legislation, there is a presumption that precedenceoccurs with regard to legislation due to the inconsistency. Such principle is termed asParliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom. There exists a presumption thatthe Parliament does not legislate in a way so that UK would be involved in a breachof its international obligations.rd In the case of Sir Rupert Cross, Statutory Interpretation (3 ed, 1995), the involvedEnglish approach did not include many choices between the alternative rules. Thejudge primarily considered the ordinary meaning of the words in a general contextwith regard to the statute and a context based broad view was taken later. Finally,other possibilities were considered where an absurd result was obtained for theordinary meaning. Such contextual unified approach obtained support from dicta inthe decisions of the House of Lords where there has been a discussion of the generalprinciples of the statutory interpretation.7. A situation where it is required of the national courts to interpret the national law inaccordance with the unimplemented or poorly implemented directives in contrary toignoring the national law providing preference to the directive is called the IndirectEffect.The approach where it is demanded that the courts give preference towards theconstruction that provides effect to the spirit of legislation is called the TeleologicalApproach (Levering, 2008). The courts need to consider questions related to social4 economic policies. This approach is much broader and predominantly applied for theinterpretation of the European Law as such law is often drafted in terms that areconsidered to be wide. Pickstone v Freemans plc (1998) 2 ALL ER 803, HL is a casewhich relates to this. The European Commission Law (EC Law) creates frameworks for the State tooperate within. Direct Effect is used by the European Court of Justice that enables thecitizens to use the EC Law towards personal advantage. Directives are considered to be binding only for the member states they areaddressed to. On adoption, the directives provide the member states animplementation timetable with regard to the intended outcome. Doctrines and DirectEffect were developed by the European Court of Justice for applying direct force ondirectives that were unimplemented or implemented not as per standards.5 "