 The second, laid out in "National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC", is that the courts must assume the law to be correct, and as such could not support any charity which is trying to alter that law.Academic Alastair Hudson describes this argument as "a little thin.Given that judges contentedly take it upon themselves to interpret, limit and extend statutes (as well as occasionally recommending the creation of new statutes to shore up the common law), it is peculiar to see judges so coy in the face of an argument being advanced that legislation might be changed".