Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:13:29.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is law reform too important to be left to lawyers?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Peter North
Peter North*
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Oxford; England and Wales 1976–1984
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is always a good idea to start with a text. Where better for a lawyer to find his than in a speech by Lord Wilberforce. During the debate on the Bill which became the Law Commissions Act 1965, the Act which established the two Law Commissions in London and Edinburgh as full time law reform agencies, Lord Wilberforce said: ‘law reform is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to lawyers’. What I should like to try to do in this paper is to give some consideration to the role of lawyer and layman (especially legislators) in the process of reforming our law. By ‘reform’ I mean improvement of the law. Mere change should not be confused with useful reform.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1985 , pp. 119 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Based on the 1984 Colston Lecture, delivered in the University of Bristol to the Colston Society on 3 April 1984.

References

Notes

1. 264 HL Official Report (5th series) col 1177, 1 April, 1965.

2. As to the difference between ‘change’ and ‘reform’, see Kirby, Reform the Law (1983), pp 6–10 Google ScholarPubMed: Cretney (1985) 48 MLR.

3. Ramphal (1983) 9 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 1501 at 1504.

4. Derelict Land Act 1982.

5. Criminal Justice Act 1982.

6. Employment Act 1982.

7. Canada Act 1982.

8. Fire Service College Board (Abolition) Act 1982.

9. Lloyd's Act 1982.

10. Humberside Act 1982.

11. Highland Region (Banavie Level Crossing) Order Confirmation Act 1982.

12. John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) Act 1982.

13. SI 1982/771.

14. SI 1982/813.

15. SI 1982/848.

16. SI 1982/719.

17. SI 1982/717.

18. Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz [1984] AC 1.

19. R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Norwich City Council [1982] QB 808.

20. Preston v Preston [1982] Fam 17.

21. McGovern v Attorney-General [1982] Ch 321.

22. R v Local Commissioner for Administration, for the North and Eat Area of England, exp Bradford Metropolitan Cig Council [1979] QB 287 at 311.

23. See Lord Hailsham (1981) 34 Current Legal Problems 279 at 280–281.

24. Mandla v Dowell La [1983] QB 1.

25. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548.

26. R v Barnet London Borough Council, exp Nilish Shah [1983] 2 AC 309.

27. Legislative Drafting: A New Approach (1977).

28. Ibid p 332.

29. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 3.

30. For fuller discussion of the use of discretions, see Atiyah From Principles to Pragmatism and Treitel Doctrine and Discretion in the Law of Contract. 31. 437 HL Official Report (5th series) cols 606–639, 15 December 1982.

32. Ibid col 616.

33. This may be illustrated by the Parliamentary history of the Bill which became the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

34. Donaldson (1983) 36 Current Legal Problems 1.

35. 54 HC Official Report (6th series) written answers cols 346–348. 17 February 1984.

36. (1984) 81 LS Gaz 162.

37. (1983) 80 LS Gaz 3043.

38. Lord Roskill (1984) 37 Current Legal Problems 247 at 257.

39. By reason of s 11(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

40. Eg, Hartley (1971) 34 MLR 305 at 306–307; Cretney (1972) 116 SJ 654; Poulter (1971) 25 ICLQ 475 at 50g-508; James (1979) 42 MLR 533 at 536; Law Commission Working Paper No 83 (1982).

41. Hussain v Hussnin [1983] Fam 26.

42. Cf Lord Roskill, (1984) 37 Current Legal Problems 247, 257.

43. See now the announcement by the Lord Chancellor, 459 HL Official Report (5th series) written answers cols 1201–1202, 6 February 1985.

44. Engle [1983] Statute Law Review 7 at 14, 1520.

45. See eg Sawer (1970) 20 v Tor LJ 183 at 194; Ross, The Politics of Law Reform (1982), p 69 Google Scholar.

46. Law Commission Nineteenth Annual Report 1983–1984, (1985) Law Corn No 140, paras 2.16–2.17.

47. See eg Kirby, Reform the Law (1983), pp 15–16, 43–46Google ScholarPubMed.

48. See Atiyah (1985) 48 MLR 1.

49. Lord Hailsham (1981) 34 Current Legal Problems 279 at 290.