The following comment appeared in a local Victorian newspaper - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 10 - 2012 - Paper 1

Courts have a crucial role in interpreting laws and can change the law under certain circumstances. This process includes:

1. Judicial Interpretation: Courts may interpret laws when cases arise, clarifying the meaning of legal provisions. For instance, a judge's decision on a particular statute can set a legal precedent that influences how similar cases are handled in the future.

2. Precedent: Courts follow the doctrine of precedent, meaning that past decisions influence future rulings. Higher courts can establish significant legal principles that lower courts must follow. This ensures consistency in the application of law, but it also means that judicial interpretations can effectively change existing laws over time.

3. Statutory Interpretation: When judges interpret laws, they can also expand or narrow the application of those laws, which can lead to changes in legal standards. For example, interpreting a vague statute in light of contemporary values can shift its application.

4. Impacts on Common Law: Though statutory law is made by Parliament, courts can develop areas of common law, filling in gaps where no statutory law exists. This can lead to innovative legal principles that address new societal issues.

5. Limitations: It is important to highlight that while courts can change the law, they do so within the framework established by existing statutes. Judges cannot create laws out of thin air, and their actions are subject to the higher authority of legislative bodies. Therefore, while they can influence legal standards, they cannot fundamentally change the law without statutory backing.

In summary, the ability of courts to change the law should be understood as part of their interpretative role rather than a straightforward legislative power.