Preview

Explain How the System of Precedent Operates to Pursue the Goal of Certainty Whilst Ensuring That Certainty Does Not Result in Rigidity.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1358 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Explain How the System of Precedent Operates to Pursue the Goal of Certainty Whilst Ensuring That Certainty Does Not Result in Rigidity.
The House of Lords has declared that the system of precedent is an indispensable foundation providing certainty in the law.

Explain how the system of precedent operates to pursue the goal of certainty whilst ensuring that certainty does not result in rigidity.

Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision

A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed.
In giving judgment in a case, the judge will set out the facts of the case, state the law applicable to the facts and then provide his or her decision. It is only the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning or ground for the judicial decision) which is binding on later courts under the system of judicial precedent.
Any observation made by the judge on a legal question suggested by the case before him or her but not arising in such a manner as requiring a decision is known as obiter dictum (a saying by the way). There may be several reasons for a decision provided by the judge in any given judgment and one must not assume that a reason can be regarded as 'obiter' because some other 'ratio' has been provided. Thus, it is not always easy to distinguish ratio decidendi from obiter dictum when evaluating the effects of a particular decision.
A single decision of a superior court is absolutely binding on subsequent inferior courts. However, certain of the superior courts regard themselves as bound by their own decisions whilst others do not: 1. Decisions of the House of Lords bind all other courts but the House does not regard itself as strictly bound by its previous decisions, for example, in Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) the House elected to overrule its earlier decision in Anns

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    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

    “In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts”…

    • 1148 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lower courts are bound to follow decision of superior courts regardless whether of the Judge believes a decision is correct…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Precedent generally refers to some prior action that guides what is done with the action today. As the judges decisions were recorded and passed around, this lead to more continuity and predictability with verdicts in court by judges. As this took place not every case had to be heard if there was an earlier decision on the issue. They referred back to the earlier decision for the case without hearing the current case.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Precedents are a past case that is used as an example or as guidance as it has similar facts and circumstances. There are 3 types of Precedents; Original, Binding and Persuasive. They can be used instead of statutory laws in civil cases. They are created when a new case, which has never been trialled in the UK courts. An example of this was the London bombings in 2005. The rulings for this trial will now be applied to future cases, similar to this. Judges look at a previous case, which is similar and in an equal or higher court and they will then use this information to decide…

    • 1917 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best 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
  • Best Essays

    Stare Decisis Case Summary

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In the interest of preserving the respect for the rule of law and cabin judicial discretion a principle of Stare decisis must be applied. This foundational principle in the U.S. legal system sets a base for favoring the adherence to precedent in order to establish a consistent and stable courtroom climate.…

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Best 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

    It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.…

    • 1027 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In English law it is normally made by the decision of a higher court, for example, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which assumed control over the legal elements of the House of Lords in 2009. “Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis. A stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedents from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy.” There are three components required for a point of precedent to work. First one is that an effective arrangement of law reporting must be accepted by the courts. There must be some balance legal certainty which results into bindness effect of the previous decisions.…

    • 1521 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis which means that like cases should be treated alike. The general rule is that all courts are bound to follow decisions made by courts higher than themselves in the hierarchy and appellate courts are usually bound by their own previous decisions. This is known as the principle of stare rationibus decidendis; usually referred to as stare decisis. It translates simply as ‘Let the decision stand’. Stare rationibus decidendis is the more accurate statement because, as we shall see, it is the reasoning (rationibus) that is the vital binding element in judicial precedent. However, nobody actually refers to it this way. What stare decisis means in practice is that when a court makes a decision in a case then any courts which are of equal or lower status that must follow that previous decision if the case before them is similar to that earlier case. So, once one court has decided a matter other inferior courts are bound to follow that decision.…

    • 1640 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    According to Sir Rupert Cross, binding precedent indicates: all courts must consider relevant case laws. Secondly, lower court must follow the decision of the courts above then in hierarchy. Finally, appellate courts are generally bound by their own decisions. As Lord Hailsham, the LC pointed out ‘in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the CA, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers’.…

    • 1990 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays