I agree totally. However we have several levels of law in this country. I'm not an expert on them but what I can say is that primary legislation ie on the statute requires primary legislation to remove it and sorry, as a civil servant, we really don't have the time. Priority is given to bringing in NEW primary legislation. You then have secondary legislation, which IIRC a judge can change or certainly challenge. Again they kind of have enough to do.
It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.
Sadly, I think over here on this side of the pond that we have the same sort of problem. As not too long ago one of our local TV stations ran a story about the "dumb laws" that are still on the books. As part of that story they interviewed an legal expert from Stetson University. And according to her it would be "too expensive" to conduct such a review of the existing laws.
I'm sorry don't see how it could be "too expensive," as correct me if I'm not mistaken, but isn't it "too expensive" not to? I mean couldn't a good defense attorney use as part of their defense to get their client off is: "Well your honor we still have the law on the books that requires all drivers of an automobile to pull over to the side of the road, dismantle their car and 'hide' it behind the bushes," or "Your honor we still have on the books a law that requires the operators of a motor vehicle to stop every so many feet/yards and fire a shotgun/rifle/pistol into the air to warn any livestock that a car is coming." And neither law is enforced today so way should my client be charged with violating the speed limit? Or "Your honor, as you know we still have on the books laws prohibiting 'unnatural sex acts, yet I'd be willing to bet that
EVERYONE in this courtroom today has commited an 'unnatural sex act.'"
The real irony is that a lot of the old/"dumb" laws that are still on the books the LEO's(Law Enforcement Officals)/Bobbies would have to break the law themselves in order to enforce them. And as I think we all know "the ends do
NOT justify the ends.
That is a very good idea, a 5 (or whatever period) year review of the laws to repeal those that are no longer enforceable/effective/enforced.