🚀 go-pugleaf

Mr. Lynne is on the right track, but there are a few points which
ought to be added to his writing on jurisprudence.

sl@whiskey.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) wrote:

>In article <4shk6f$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:

>>	Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but the law is more 
>>about precedents than actual law. If one can prove/demonstrate/cite 
>>precendents then one is lawfully correct. If one can disprove or debunk a 
>>current precedent, then that will be how current law will be interpreted.
>>	The "law" is interpreted by lawyers, for lawyers. Some precendents go 
>>back to the 18th century in British common law. Small wonder that some 
>>current decisions are suspect. Cite that precedent!!

>You are (wrong). What you are describing is Common Law. Which for the most
>part governs how civil suits work.

>Criminal Law is stature based. I.e. based on a statute enacted out law makers
>the legislature.

The criminal law is overwhelmingly rife with common law.  The
presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and myriad fundamental
aspects of criminal law is entrenched in common law.  Since 1982 and
the passage of the Constitution Act there has been a return to the
primacy of judge made law over statutory law in cases where
individuals' constitutional  rights are at stake.

Statutory interpretation is common law. 

>Statute based law is interpreted differently from precendant based law. The
>former is interpreted strictly according to the statute itself .

But the court can find that the statute offends the constitution and
void the section.

>In many cases Statute based law will override Common Law. So in many cases
>you have to base your behaviour on multiple overlapping and perhaps
>contradictory statutes which modify Common Law and other more general 
>legal principles. 

Statutes may displace common law or exist along side of the common
law.  In many situations law from both sources of may be applied.

In Michigan, after Dr. Kevorkian was acquitted of the offence of
assisting in a suicide, the DA tried to get a grand jury to indict
Kevorkian on charges of murder at common law.  The charge of statutory
murder was unavailable.

>Which is why everyone always says consult your lawyer......!!!!


Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor