MacCormick v Lord Advocate
Once upon a time, there was a man named Mr. Maccormick. He lived in a country called Scotland, where there were two different types of laws: one kind that was made by the people who run the country (called "statute law") and another kind that was made by judges after they decide on a case (called "common law"). Mr. Maccormick and some of his friends did not like one of their country's statute laws, because they thought it was not fair. So, they went to court to ask the judges to decide if this law was okay, or if it should be changed.
The judges listened to what Mr. Maccormick and his friends had to say, but they were not sure if they could actually make a decision about this law. See, there was another law in Scotland that said that the judges should not change the statute laws - only the people who run the country could do that. This was called the "Convention of the Estates". But Mr. Maccormick and his friends argued that this Convention was not really a law, and that the judges should be able to make their own decisions about the law they did not like.
In the end, the judges of the court decided that Mr. Maccormick and his friends were wrong. They said that the Convention was a real law, and that the judges could not change a statute law - only the people who run the country could do that. So, the law that Mr. Maccormick did not like stayed the same.
This court case became very important, because it showed that there is a limit to what judges can do. They can only interpret the law, but they cannot change it - that is the job of the people who run the country. And this is why the case is often referenced in discussions about the separation of powers and the rule of law.
The judges listened to what Mr. Maccormick and his friends had to say, but they were not sure if they could actually make a decision about this law. See, there was another law in Scotland that said that the judges should not change the statute laws - only the people who run the country could do that. This was called the "Convention of the Estates". But Mr. Maccormick and his friends argued that this Convention was not really a law, and that the judges should be able to make their own decisions about the law they did not like.
In the end, the judges of the court decided that Mr. Maccormick and his friends were wrong. They said that the Convention was a real law, and that the judges could not change a statute law - only the people who run the country could do that. So, the law that Mr. Maccormick did not like stayed the same.
This court case became very important, because it showed that there is a limit to what judges can do. They can only interpret the law, but they cannot change it - that is the job of the people who run the country. And this is why the case is often referenced in discussions about the separation of powers and the rule of law.