Preview

Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1908 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent
Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent
This question raises the issue of the role of precedent. In order to examine the statement, scrutiny of the doctrine of the judicial precedent is required.
Case law is used to describe the collection of reported decisions of the courts, and the principles which stem from them. Lord Macmillan made this observation that the case by case development is superior to those based on hypothetical models.
“.....any fixed theory and that principles always fail because they never seem to fit the case in hand, and so prefers to leave theory and principle alone.”
The doctrine of judicial binding precedent, concerns itself with the importance of case law. When cases are examined, the facts of the case are considered. More importantly, how the law applies to these facts is scrutinised. It is the latter that produces precedent, based on the maxim of stare decisis. Precedent can only operate, if the legal reasons for past decisions are known. The ‘reason for deciding’ or ratio decidendi, as a general rule is binding on all lower courts.
It is important to distinguish between the different types of precedent. Original precedent concerns a point of law that hasn’t been decided. What is derived from this is, a new precedent for future use.
Binding precedent stems from earlier case law and must be followed. Persuasive precedent is not binding, but courts may take it in to consideration when considering a particular principle.
The statement suggests that precedent does not develop different principles ‘into a coherent whole’. This is supported by the fact that the sheer volume of decided cases, increases all the time. Judgements are often long, and not necessarily ‘coherent’ in nature. This continuous nature of the judgements makes it very difficult to distinguish between the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, as seen in Donoghue v Stephenson.
In order to avoid binding precedents, judges have sought to distinguish cases on differing facts.



Bibliography: Books Ward, Richard & Akhtar, Amanda, (2008), Walker & Walker’s English Legal System, 10th edn., (Oxford University Press). Elliot & Quinn, (2009), English Legal System, 10th edn, (Pearson Education). Martin, Jacqueline, (2007) The English Legal System,5th edn.,(Hodder Education). Elliot, Catherine, (2009) English Legal System Essential Cases and Materials, 2nd edn.,(Pearson Education). Cross, R. (1991), Precedent in English Law 4th edn., (Oxford: Clarendon Press). [ 6 ]. (1991) [ 7 ] [ 8 ]. (1898) [ 9 ] [ 14 ]. (1971) [ 15 ] [ 16 ]. (1961)

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    In theory the doctrine of binding precedent means that judges declare what the existing law is. However many people think that judges actually make law, especially in the High Court of Australia.…

    • 1288 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Student

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The definition of the doctrine of precedent is lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts within the same judicial hierarchy if the facts are similar. For example, in south Australian there are three tiered or layered court system. The lower layer is Magistrate court; the Middle layer is District court and the upper layer is the Supreme Court. The highest court is the high court of Australia. So if a decision made by the Supreme Court, the Magistrate court has to follow. Moreover, the Doctrine of precedent consists of binding precedent and persuasive precedent. Binding precedent mean is that lower courts must follow higher court’s decisions when the fact is similar. Persuasive precedent means is that if decision is made by a different judicial hierarchy, lower courts do not have to follow the decision, but encourage following it.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The centuries-old tradition of English law is that judges decide each case as it comes to court, and give reasons for their decisions. These reasons, or judgments, are published in books called law reports (and now also on the internet). The accumulation of judges’ decisions over many years is what is called the common law – law made by judges in deciding common disputes. NSW inherited the English common law, and from early in the 19th century judges in NSW have been developing the common law in Australia. The key to the law being “common” is its consistency of application.…

    • 3531 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    P6 P7

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages

    A precedent that is not binding on the court, the judge may consider and decide that the principle that is chosen is correct so it is persuaded for it to be followed.…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this question I will be defining what the Binding Precedent is and its main principles that are applied in judicial precedent. I will look at the structure of the court system and whether in this structure the courts are being bound by the decision of others higher courts. I will reflect at how far the binding precedent goes to ensure the existence of both certainty and flexibility in common law. I will talk about the advantages and disadvantages that contribute to the doctrine of binding precedent including examples of previous cases. Finally I will come to a conclusion if I agree overall with Gardiner’s practice statement of 1966.…

    • 2569 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Let's say that a Court establishes that it is illegal for people to smoke or be in possession of Tobacco. The Court has clearly explained, in its decision, why it is illegal according to law to smoke Tobacco. This is Case A.Now, someone is arrested for smoking Tobacco, and is tried in Court for breach of this new law. The Judges in this case, in order to explain why they are holding the person guilty, will refer to Case A, which put down the principles concerning this offence. Case A thus becomes a precedent.A precedent is usually a decision which is so important and so well explained that it clears the fog surrounding certain issues and, in so doing, guides Courts in the future, whenever any dispute arises concerning those issues.…

    • 1148 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Superior courts do not have to follow decision made in lower courts however they may use them to help make a decision.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Inbrief.co.uk,. 'Precedents: What Are They And When Are They Used? '. N.p., 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.…

    • 1917 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Business Law Quiz

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages

    | Incorrect. The use of precedent--the doctrine of stare decisis --permits a predictable, relatively quick, and fair resolution of cases. Under this doctrine, a court must adhere to principles of law established by higher courts.…

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    LA 245 Midterm 1

    • 4060 Words
    • 19 Pages

    The principle that precedent is binding on later cases is called stare decisis - “let the decision stand”…

    • 4060 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The theory of legal precedent has changed the face of the Criminal Justice System and Criminal Courts in many ways. Previously judges made decisions solely on what they believed, without mentioning existing cases. The decisions were only base on what they were told about the pending case, and with that information they provided a suitable conclusion. Today judges base their decisions on previous cases, to be able to justify their actions. Legal precedent is extremely beneficial to our Criminal justice system and our court system because it allows consistency, reliability and predictability within our decisions.…

    • 236 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial precedent in its broad definition is the process by which judges follow previously decided cases to aid in their decision providing that the facts are sufficiently similar. The doctrine of judicial precedent seeks to provide consistency and predictability in law by virtue of the application of the principle of stare decisis which means to stand by the decided. Through the application of this maxim, judicial precedent ensures inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles which were set down in the decisions made by superior courts. The decision of a judge may fall into two parts, ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision and it is the principle of law on which a particular decision is made. When a judge has come to a decision he outlines the facts which he finds has been proved on evidence, he then applies the laws to those facts and arrives at his decision for which he gives a reason; this reason is the ratio decidendi. Therefore it is important to note that, it is not necessarily the decision which is of utmost importance in judicial precedence but the reason for arriving at the decision. The ratio decinidi is not as clear cut as it sounds though as there are a number of instances where the ruling judge does not explicitly say what the ratio decidendi is and it is sometimes left for a later judge to determine and this is an issue in and of itself as there maybe disagreements as to what the reason actually is. The obiter dictum on the other hand is speculation so to speak. This is where…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Do Judges Make Law

    • 2123 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The application of precedent by judges, whether they are developing the common law (for e.g. in areas such as negligence or…

    • 2123 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Do Judge Make Laws?

    • 2186 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The doctrine of judicial precedent in the English law is one that involves the application of the principle of stare decisis. This principle is set that the Courts of Appeal is bound to follow it’s own previous decisions, and that each court is bound to follow the decisions imposed by the courts above them in the hierarchy. However, since the UK joined the European Union, the courts are bound to follow the EU law given by thee European Courts.…

    • 2186 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial Precedent

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages

    It is desirable that similar cases should be decided in a similar manner because consistency is an important element of justice. Moreover, judicial experience is that the practice of following previous decisions result in improved efficiency. The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially announced principles that a court should consideration when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle or representative new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decisions.…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays