The methods of directive making in the joined empire?

have a assignment where it say compare and contrast the methods of law making, help please
Firstly you own to understand the Separation of Powers Act. This sets a a constitutional basis from which the imperative functions. The Judiciary - The legislative - The Executive. This defines that the individual is secure single if these three primary functions of the state are exercised independently
The establishing of laws is done in varying ways.
(1) The Executive or The Government form law in the House of Commons by setting out Bills. This may have come from their see mandate for example > The Labour Party state - if you elect us we will ban Fox Hunting ? They are elected so when in parliament they set out a Bill to become an ACT which is passed through the house and next to the House of Lords as a checking procedure. If the H o L vote against it the Executive ( because they were elected by the people) can ignore the house of lords and slip away the Act. Thus Fox Hunting is illegal.
(2) Statutory Instrument. - This is when the minister, lets say-so the Minister overseeing Fox Hunting or the Hunting of animals in general > can enact or remove element of the composite law EG > When the law on fox hunting be passed it may have included within its written form clauses whereby the Minister can spawn a decision without have a full debate or vote in the house. So he may say "I will allow Fox Hunting on Saturdays just on one day per year" ( silly but the point is evident) but his power to do this must have be permitted in the first draft within the accomplishment therefore he is acting legally and not as a dictator.
(3) Case made Law - This is when the court of appeal act on a decision made by a lower court and in doing so establishes it within law. But the judges can single operate within the statute / Act set by parliament. another example - Judicial Review ( a hearing contained by front of a judge on administrative matters to ensure that public officer - prison staff - police - Benefits office - and the like do not operate beyond their powers) A true covering > years ago prisoners who were refused parole be NOT told the reason why, four prisoners took their case to Judicial Review stating it be unfair and that the Prison Service were acting beyond their powers. The pass judgment upheld their case, thereafter the Prison Service had to supply reasons to all prisoners. This be now law.
(4) The House of Lords solitary deals with Appeals which are a point of canon but once they rule their decision becomes ruling.
(5) Bye Laws - laws when say a local Council rule on a business - yellow lines - pubs closing etc.
The main point is NO ONE PERSON OR BODY can be a dictator they can solely operate within the Act of parliament or Statute Law.
So when a man is convicted of Murder the Judge MUST give him a LIFE SENTENCE, he have no choice - even if he thinks the man was of biddable standing with no previous convictions, the judge can not make available him any other sentence - say 3 years in prison ? he must dispense him a life sentence. Because the statute law (passed within parliament) states this. equally the man cannot appeal against sentence he can only appeal against conviction because there is no other sentence available for a murder conviction.
A long answer but I hope it help a little.
PS > Recently a man took the government to court surrounded by regard of the election system via Judicial Review - his claim be that when a party stands for election and is voted on their mandate, win and become the administration, then they must carry out adjectives of that mandate because that was why they were elected. The Judge DID NOT RULE IN HIS FAVOUR, so an elected party does not have to follow its mandate . IN SHORT - WHATS THE POINT ?

Related Questions: