The role of the law commission
The Law Commission was set up in 1965 by the Law Commisson Act. Under S3 (1) of the Law Commission Act its job is to keep the law under review. It is the only independant, full-time and government funded body to perform this job. Five commissioners sit on the Law Commission. One is a chairman who is usually a high court judge and the other four are legal experts such as a solicitor. Each commisioner has their own support staff and parliamentary draftsmen. The Law Commission either picks an area of law and then seeks government approval or the goverment can refer them to an area of law such as Criminal Law. They research the area in detail and then issue a consulation paper which includes the current law, the problems with it and the possible options for reform. This allows for interested parties and the public to give feedback and express their ideas. After the response, the Law Commission issue a final report which includes the firm proposals of law reform. They usually attach a draft bill along with the final report in order to show Parliament how exactly the law should be made. If to become law it goes through the Parliamentary law-making process. Examples of a law that was made due to the Law Commission is the Bribery Act and the Law Reform (Year and a day rule). The Law Commission also plays a role in codifying and consolidating the law. They bring together all the law under one topic into one act and all the statutory provisions relating to one area under one act. The Sales of Goods Act is an example of a law codified by the Law Commission. The Law Commision also simplify and modernise the Law. For example the Fraud Act 2006 was simplified. The Law Commission also identify obsolete laws that are no longer used and bring them to Parliaments atttention so Parliament can repeal those acts.
Advantages and disadvantages
One advantage is that the Law Commission is made up of legal experts and is headed by a high court judge which means that Laws are more thorough, well informed and contain less mistakes. It also means that the draft bill they produce is perfect and less unambigious which helps to reduce workload for ministers. Furthermore legal experts aren't victims of the Whips system that is used in Parliament which results in less bias. To add to this, commissioners are changed every 5 years which allows for a range of different viewpoints to be brought onto the law-reform process. On the other hand, Parliament doesn't consult the Law Commission when making laws therefore laws are made without the expertise of the Law Commission. In addition to this, the Law Commission deals with 20-30 investigations at a time which may mean that one investigation interrupts another resulting in less thoroughness and more mistakes made. Furthermore Parliament may re-word the drafts bill which could result in an unambiguous bill and could even change the law making it totally different from what the Law Commission suggested which means their research and knowledge may no longer apply.
Another advantage is that the Law Commission consults interested parties and the public and takes objections into consideration which means that laws are being made for the protection and benefit of the public, rather than the benefit of political parties which decreases biasness. Parliament also benefits from this as it means that they are less likely to get voted out at the next general election. However Parliament is not obliged to enforce Law Commission laws therefore they may not enforce a law if it doesn't suit their political agenda regardless of the fact that it consults. This means that the Law Commission have a lack in power and cannot stop biased decisions from being made. Furthermore the Law Commission have to wait for Parliament to accept their proposals which usually takes a long time due to Parliament having limited time for 'pure' law reform and the lengthy parliamentary law-making process. An example of this