ooooh! This is my chance to look clever – so here goes…
Ok. In the UK we have two approaches to the law. By approach, we mean we have two ways by which the courts interpret the law. On is civil law, which are laws which are set in stone and are more or less non negotiable shall we say. They are clear cut and decisions of the court are fairly straight forward. You either did it or you didn’t.
With regards to common law, things get a bit more complicated. The courts refer to decisions previously made when applying the law. So for example, when someone who is your employer folds the company and runs away with your wages, funnily enough, this is not actually what we would deem illegal in civil law. So, you have to sue them, and the court decides based on previous cases which are similar to yours. It is not easy to sue someone in the UK.
There are a few provisions in civil law, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, which tells the courts that they are to take European Jurisprudence into consideration when “interpreting the law” in common law cases. This means when human rights issues come into courts, although it is no longer a civil matter, the courts must interpret the law so that it is compatible with the EU convention rights. In other words, although we do not have a written constitution in the UK for human rights issues, we do respect the ECHR unless provisions are made to safeguard the public, i.e. national security. So, not only do they refer to previous cases, but they must also make sure that the ECHR are upheld as written in the Human Rights Act 1998.
I hope this helps.
