Evaluation of the courts as law-makers The main role of the courts is to resolve disputes. Precedent develops as judges reach decisions in the disputes heard by the courts, and laws are made as a result. In this sense, law-making is a by-product of the dispute resolution procedures undertaken by the courts

Courts can make laws quickly when relevant cases are brought before them Courts are able to develop and clarify the law, and fill in the gaps left by parliament. The doctrine of precedent ensures consistency Courts help to maintain flexibility (RODD) Courts can interpret words to apply to modern situations Judges are independent from parliament and government Judges are experienced professionals The appeals process allows for a system of review Strengths

Courts must wait for an appropriate test case to come before it Changes in law can be slow to develop in the courts Access to precedent is limited as it hard to locate and understand (time consuming and costly) Courts may be bound by old precedent Judges can be conservative Judges are unelected and not necessarily representative Courts have to rely on their own resources when investigating the need to change the law Law-making in the courts is only ever ex post facto Precedent can be over-ridden and abrogated by parliament. Weaknesses

Weaknesses Law-making in the courts is only ever ex post facto Precedent can be over-ridden and abrogated by parliament.