The laws that the courts use when considering cases includes statute law, common law and EU law – all of which are used together in order for a judge or jury to come to a fair and legal decision about the case they are hearing.
Generally speaking the court will firstly apply EU law to the circumstances of the case it is hearing as this takes precedence over UK statute and common law. If EU law is not applicable, statute law will then be considered. If this is relevant and offers a clear and unambiguous ruling, statute law will be used to resolve the case.The courts do have a level of flexibility when they have to consider a case in which EU and statute law are not directly applicable. Common law has developed over time as judges have considered cases and made a decision that provides a precedent in the case before their court. Future judges faced with a similar case can consult previous common law and use any precedent as part of a guide when making their decisions.
This flexibility in court is needed, as the direct and rigid application of EU and statute law may not be fair in the case that is being heard. This is why you sometimes hear that a case that is going through the court will set a new precedent, as common law does not always offer guidance on the case that is being heard. If a precedent does exist, the court generally follows the decisions that were made in the previous case.
This seemingly simple demarcation between EU, statute and common law is in fact more complex than it appears. In addition, the decisions that a court makes can have a bearing on other courts. For instance, a decision that the High Court makes will influence the decisions of lower courts. The courts, when applying the laws that are currently in force, always strive for consistency. The fair interpretation of the legislation that we all live by is a major component of the legal system.
