Jamesy D

I just want something cleared up for me, and that thing is the distinction between Common law and Primary Legislation/Statute law.

As far as I am aware, Statute Law (that what is cooked up in them Houses of Commons) are the laws that are enacted by those we have elected to that position to govern us in our representative democracy. These are things like the Road Traffic Act, the Anti-Terror acts et cetera. These are relatively rigid, requiring another act of parliament to amend or strike them down.

Common Law, on the other hand, is the living, breathing side of UK law and, in other countries, is referred to as case law: it is a law of precedents, set by judicial decisions in reference to a certain act, in that it interprets the specific wording and spirit of legislation where there are grey areas. This is 'living' as these precedents can be upheld or struck down by judicial decisions on a day-to-day basis (although normally by a higher-tier court), depending (to a certain extent) on the prevailing political Zeitgeist.

An example of this would be Ladd v Marshall (1954), which set the precedent for the presentation of fresh evidence to a court following the passing of a judgement - there was no act of parliament, but there IS a legally binding precedent that is still in effect.

That means that the use of the Common Law excuse is moot; if a judgement has been passed in any UK court involving Statute law, it becomes de facto Common Law through precedent, and any old common law has been superseded by either Primary legislation or case law.

(At least that's how I interpret it from my research and dad's explanation)

Oh, and also as far as I'm aware you have to be made a freeman (if we're taking it in the literal sense, a Freeman is someone who has been declared as to not be bound to the Lord upon whose land they live), you have to be granted your freeman-nes, it's not automatic.