English Legal System Case Study

The doctrine of binding judicial precedent is perceived as the core element of the English legal system. The doctrine is perceived as the ‘rule of thumb’ judges follow in deciding their judgements. This involves taking into account long-standing precedents, which only matured from the nineteenth century. A fundamental element of common law systems is the application of the principle of stare decisis , which means ‘let the decision stand’. This in practice means that judges in lower courts are bound to decide cases using existing legal principles made by superior courts. Therefore, there is a hierarchical structure in the English courts.

The decisions made by the courts contain two types of branches: ‘ratio decidendi’ and ‘ obiter dictum’. Ratio decidendi is based upon the fact that a judgement comes for applying the facts to law and thus the reason for the decision handed down, which is now binding on all inferior courts. Obiter dictum are statements made ‘by the way’. As such they are not binding. Nevertheless, it has been criticised that some judges have taken upon themselves in making law. Subsequently, questioning the separation of powers and perceiving judges being unconstitutional. However, case law has shown that the higher courts indeed do make law and state the law.

Supreme Court, formally known as the House of Lords since 2009 is the highest court in the kingdom. The UK system has illustrated to show that the lower courts in the English legal system must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and uphold the previous decisions of the House of Lords, which weren’t changed by the Supreme Court afterwards. Since the UK joining the European Union in 1973, all UK courts are bound by the decisions of the European Court of J...

... middle of paper ...

...ised that the final court of Appeal should have more flexibility. It was at this time the the Lord Chancellor issued a Practice Statement announcing a change in the rule in London Street Tramways v London County Council. From 1966, this Practice Statement allowed the House of Lords to change the law when it believed that an earlier case was wrongly decided.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hears appeals from some Commonwealth countries and from places such as the Channel Islands. The judges include the Justices of the Supreme Court and also judges who have held high judicial office in countries which still use it as their final court of appeal. The Council is not part of the English legal system and its decisions are not binding on English Courts. However, its decisions are persuasive precedent which courts in England and Wales may decide to follow.