The relationship between courts and parliament

[Karapl13]

Hi everyone, whilst doing some practice questions I came up across this question

"Discuss the relationship between courts and parliament in law making, reference the above case study in your response (6 marks)

(Note the above case was the Kevin and Jenifer case, I don't know if people already know this case but it is basically a case where a judge had to interpret the word "man" in the marriage act and wether or not a woman that had a sex change could be married to a woman)

Does this question just want to me to mention how courts and parliament interact and reference the case?
I was going to approach this question by mentioning that
1- Courts only exist and have the power to interpret legislation through acts of parliament (i.e the family court act has the jursidiction of marriage affiars and where able to interpret the marriage act because parlaiment allowed this to be possible)
2- Parliament are able to codify the laws created by the courts (i.e parliament has since updated the marriage act to include the court's verdict

Judging from the fact (pun totally intended!  ) that it is a 6 mark question, I feel like I should include another point but I do not know how to reference this to the case, (I do not think I can mention abrogating as parliament accepted the precedent for example)

Thanks for your help!

[kbanks]

Hi everyone, whilst doing some practice questions I came up across this question

"Discuss the relationship between courts and parliament in law making, reference the above case study in your response (6 marks)

(Note the above case was the Kevin and Jenifer case, I don't know if people already know this case but it is basically a case where a judge had to interpret the word "man" in the marriage act and wether or not a woman that had a sex change could be married to a woman)

Does this question just want to me to mention how courts and parliament interact and reference the case?
I was going to approach this question by mentioning that
1- Courts only exist and have the power to interpret legislation through acts of parliament (i.e the family court act has the jursidiction of marriage affiars and where able to interpret the marriage act because parlaiment allowed this to be possible)
2- Parliament are able to codify the laws created by the courts (i.e parliament has since updated the marriage act to include the court's verdict

Judging from the fact (pun totally intended!  ) that it is a 6 mark question, I feel like I should include another point but I do not know how to reference this to the case, (I do not think I can mention abrogating as parliament accepted the precedent for example)

Thanks for your help!

Hi

I definitely think you're on the right track with answering this question, to discuss the points of relationship between the courts and parliament in relation to the case study is the best way to structure your answer.
You are correct in saying that you would need another point to make up the 6 marks (if we think that there is one mark for each relationship you note and one mark for each reference to the case study).

The other one that you could discuss is the idea that courts interpret legislation passed by Parliament.
In this case, the courts would be interpreting the Marriage Act to determine whether or not the word 'man' as used by Parliament when they wrote the law, would be able to mean that a woman who had a sex change could be married to another woman. You would need to ensure this was separate enough from your answer about legislation creating courts, as in: in your first point, simply discuss that Parliament grants the courts the jurisdiction to HEAR the case, and then on a second point, discuss how the courts INTERPRET legislation passed by Parliament.

Hope that helps!
Good luck,
Karly.