Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes.

While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines theappropriate sentence based on the jury s verdict. Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by judges. Alongside, every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes. The relationships between statutes and judicial decisions can be complex. In some jurisdictions such statutes may overrule judicial decisions or codify the topic covered by several contradictory or ambiguous decisions. In some jurisdictions judicial decisions may decide whether the jurisdiction's constitution allowed a particular statute or statutory provision to be made or what meaning is contained within the statutory provisions. Statutes were allowed to be made by the government. Common law developed in England, influenced by Anglo-Saxon law and to a much lesser extent by the Norman conquest of England which introduced legal concepts from Norman law, itself having origins in Anglo-Saxon law. Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis or precedent by courts is the major difference to codified civil law systems. In 1999, one professor (Makdisi) theorized that Common law was influenced by aspects of Islamic law.[2] however this theory isn't considered legitimate or factual by the majority of legal historians, more rather an attempt to take 'possession' of Common law. Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, most of the United Kingdom (England and Wales and Northern Ireland), Australia, New Zealand, India (excluding Goa), Pakistan, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), Hong Kong, the United States (excluding Louisiana) and many other places. In addition to these countries, several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, Nigeria operates largely on a common law system, but incorporates religious law. In the European Union the Court of Justice takes an approach mixing civil law (based on the treaties) with an attachment to the importance of case law. One of the most fundamental documents to shape common law is Magna Carta[5] which placed limits on the power of the English Kings. It served as a kind of medieval bill of rights for the aristocracy and the judiciary who developed the law.

This system developed from a set of traditional laws first brought together in England around the 12th Century. The name derives from the fact that it was one set of laws "common" to the whole kingdom, rather than different sets of laws used by individual communities or tribes. One of the distinguishing features of common law is that it developed through usage rather than being imposed by codified legislation as with the civil code system.(Legislation means laws - sometimes also called statutes - that are made by a representative body such as a parliament. Codification is when individual laws of a similar nature are bundled together under one new, overarching law.) Common law developed based on the outcomes of individual court cases. Each court case provided a basis for judging the next case of a similar nature. Over the centuries and many thousands of court cases, this process led to a body of laws covering most aspects of society and based on principles shared by the society in general. There are several core principles which guide common law, though they are not necessarily unique to it. These include: 1. The rights of the individual exist alongside those of the state; 2. It is adversarial; 3. It has a presumption of innocence; 4. It develops case law through judgments and precedents; 5. Case law co-exists with statute law and - in most cases - a constitution; 6. Crimes are punished and civil wrongs are rectified by compensation.

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.

Civil law is the most widespread system of law around the world.[citation needed] It is also sometimes known as Continental European law. The central source of law that is recognized as authoritative are codifications in a constitution or statute passed by legislature, to amend a code. While the concept of codification dates back to the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon ca. 1790 BC, civil law systems mainly derive from the Roman Empire, and more particularly, the Corpus Juris Civilis issued by the Emperor Justinian ca. AD 529. This was an extensive reform of the law in the Byzantine Empire, bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law was also partly influenced by religious laws such as Canon law and Islamic law.[1][2] Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only legislative enactments (rather than legal precedents, as in common law) are considered legally binding. Civil code systems

This is the most common type of legal system in the world, either in its pure form or as a basis upon which other elements such as religious law are added.

The civil code or civil law system is also called by other names such as Roman law, Continental law or Napoleonic law. All are systems where laws are legislated by parliament or some other form of representative government and codified (i.e. brought together). They are distinguished from common law mainly because they come from parliaments, not from court cases. Indeed, in civil code systems the courts do not usually have as much freedom to interpret laws. In the original Napoleonic courts judges were specifically banned from interpreting statute laws.

The underlying principle of civil code systems is that the laws applied to citizens are made by citizens through their political representatives. Judges are there to administer laws, not make them.

Laws are codified, which means laws of a similar nature are bundled together to create a rational system across the whole area. Advanced societies try to ensure that all laws have consistent principles and interact with each other in a logical way without conflict between laws. In complex societies codified laws are vast and detailed. Critics say this means they are hard to change but proponents argue they give certainty and predictability.

Civil code systems are mainly inquisitorial rather than adversarial. That means courts are there to track down the truth, not to be a forum where two sides battle to demonstrate to a judge or jury who is right and who is wrong. Judges in civil code trials are usually more active in questioning witnesses, challenging

evidence and even - in some cases - directing investigations. This is quite different to common law trials where the judge is supposed to be impartial.

Although the presumption of innocence is not usually stated explicitly in civil code laws, many countries have subsequently built it into their systems by adopting external or international obligations. For example, most European countries have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Thus these principles have become part of their national laws.

Trial by jury is less common in inquisitorial systems, especially when judges have a strong role in hunting down the "truth' in a case rather than arbitrating between two adversarial parties. The common law developed to give accused people the option of trial by their "peers", meaning people from society in general rather than from the country's rulers. Juries are, however, used in some civil code countries such as France, Norway, Spain and Brazil, albeit usually for a limited range of offences, mainly criminal.

However, even in some common law countries trial by jury is either unusual or unused, especially in societies where tribal or clan loyalties might make it difficult to find people unaligned to either party (i.e. the accused or their alleged victim) to make the objective judgment so important to the jury system. Papua New Guinea's Constitution provides for trial by jury but they are not used. They were abolished in India in 1959 after a particularly contentious case.