Concepts and theories of Judicial Interpretation-Free-Samples

Question: Why? And is this truly so rare in the English legal system? Answer: Introduction [1]Judicial discretion is the exercise of judgment by a court based on the fairness of circumstances and being guided by principles of law and rules. The court has power to act the way they want especially when a litigant is not entitled to act as a matter of right especially in hearings and court trials. Each judge brings his own life experiences and values to facts and law, which often results to different conclusions by different judges. The judicial interpretation The judges of the Supreme Court explicitly authorized the judges to defend their judgments by the press. They thus eradicated an erroneous impression of the long standing in the judiciary. The discussion did not exist, but the judges never had it clear. At first glance, the provision can be understood as a defensive measure of the Judiciary against press information.2 That interpretation confers an issue of confrontation. It is better to understand it as a measure of transparency in the most reserved of supreme powers. The mantra repeated by many judges on the impossibility of referring to their resolutions is a double-edged sword for society. On the one hand, it serves as a shield to hide mistakes and incorrect actions. On the other, it prevents unjust appraisals, whose persistent presence in public debate harms the reputation of judges and discredits the administration of justice. Why Judicial discretion is uncommon English law [2]Judicial discretion is uncommon in English law because there are so many precedents set in the law and therefore any case brought before the court of law has some legalistic similarities with an earlier adjudicated case. The press does not always succeed in reporting on court decisions and often transfers the prejudices of our society to the owners. 3Even so, the judge limited himself to pointing out the legislative error: Later, the main interpretation methods used to unravel the meaning of the norm, making some reflections on its application, then, an analysis of the interpretative arguments that are used to solve specific cases will be made, identifying the reasoning form belonging to each one of them; Next, some ideas on the interpretation of conformity will be addressed, understanding it as a consequence of the opening of the constitutional text towards a system of international norms; Subsequently, a reflection will be made of the jurisprudence of the Inter-English Court of Human Rights, understood as the interpretation of the law, and the importance of it in the resolution of conflicts4. Concepts and theories of Interpretation The above definition leads us to consider that a judicial interpretation can only occur when the text of the rule that will be the object of interpretation is obscure, debatable or if there is any doubt about its [3]application, and it is important to emphasize that when the legal text is clear and notNow, in a broad sense, interpretation is used to refer to any attribution of meaning to a normative formulation, independently of doubts or controversies.5From this conception any text or legal norm requires an interpretation, regardless of whether its content is clear or obscure, because the meaning of the easy to interpret norm, is the result of the interpretive process, which is considered as a necessary budget for the application of the right. Conclusion It is sometimes hard for judicial discretion to be felt in English jurisprudence. This is because it is nearly impossible to address infinite situations that are presented to the courts by using specific laws where a precedent has been established in previous adjudicated cases. When setting new laws it can sometimes conflict with earlier laws and thus judicial discretion is rare in English law. Although the judge is supposed to adjudicate using first hand evidence and facts of the case, they should be in a position to manage the process using the many laws and precedences in existence. References Curzon L,Jurisprudence(Cavendish 2005) Harris R,Black Robes, White Coats(Rutgers University Press 2008) Ratnapala S,Jurisprudence(Cambridge University Press 2017) Salmond S,Jurisprudence(Hardpress Publishing 2012) Smithburn J,Judicial Discretion(National Judicial College 2006) Wiklund O,Judicial Discretion In European Perspective(Norstedts Juridik 2003) B Curzon,Jurisprudence(Cavendish 2005). Rebecca C Harris,Black Robes, White Coats(Rutgers University Press 2008). Ola Wiklund,Judicial Discretion In European Perspective(Norstedts Juridik 2003). L. B Curzon,Jurisprudence(Cavendish 2005). Sir John William Salmond,Jurisprudence(Hardpress Publishing 2012). Suri Ratnapala,Jurisprudence(Cambridge University Press 2017).