The Doctrine The doctrine of precedent is based on the need for certainty in the
law. It means that lawyers can properly advise their clients on the
basis that like cases will be treated alike, rather than judges making
their own random decisions which nobody could predict. This helps
people plan their affairs. According to Lord Denning, ‘It is the
foundation of our system of case law’. However, Denning was ‘against
is its too rigid application - a rigidity which insists that a bad
precedent must necessarily be followed’.
It is the doctrine’s rigidity that can prevent developments to meet
the changing needs of society. However, this was recognised in the
House of Lords 1996 Practice Statement.
In addition, judges in the lower courts are adept at avoiding the
doctrine’s rigidity. A judge may distinguish the awkward precedent on
its facts - arguing that the facts of the case under consideration are
different in some important way from those of the previous case and
therefore the rule does not apply.
A precedent may be distinguished on a point of law; by arguing that
the legal question answered by the precedent is not the same as that
asked in the instant case.
Courts may distinguish a precedent by stating that the precedent has
been superseded by more recent decisions, and is therefore outdated.
Courts may give the precedent a very narrow ratio decidendi or argue
that the precedent has no clear ratio decidendi, for example because
the ratio of one judge in a case is different from others in the same
case.
Courts may cla...
... middle of paper ...
...t of the Human Rights Act 1998 is as yet uncertain. But there
is no doubt that case law will be developed according to society’s
changing needs, for example that our privacy should be respected.
Before the Act, the courts followed Kaye v Robinson in denying the
right to privacy. However, in the ground-breaking case of Douglas v
Hello Ltd. Here, Sedley LJ said that there is ‘a right of privacy
which English law will today recognise and, where appropriate,
protect’. That said, there is, as yet, no tort of privacy.
Lastly, there are a number of ‘morality cases’ where the changing
mores of society are recognised. For example, in Gillick v West
Norfolk AHA, the issue was whether it was morally acceptable to
prescribe contraceptives to under 16 year olds without parental
consent. It was and this reflects how we live today.
This phenomenon brings a group of judges from a town far away. That is rumored that the
of law that has been used to base his decision on. This is called the
Partisanship, it was concluded, has a strong effect on judicial decisions for criminal cases. Judges, appointed with strong Liberal ties, are 13% more likely to vote in favor of the accused in criminal non-charter cases and 21% more likely to vote in favor of the accused in criminal charter cases, compare to strong Conservative judges. Partisanship clearly matters, in criminal cases, however, it is important to note that there was no effect in family or human rights cases. Also, while partisanship has an effect, there is an effect of having judges from different political affiliations sitting together on panels with each other. For example, “A vote for the woman in a family law case issue, such as child custody or spousal support was 19 per cent less likely from a judge with Liberal ties if he or she sat on a panel with a judge with PC ties...” This suggests that there is some mitigations of partisanship that arises out of group discussion and decision
The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.
and that there has to be sufficient and accurate reports. of earlier decisions. There are six main elements to the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent which are as follows :- Ratio Decidendi (Ratio): The reason for deciding, this is known as the. legal reason for a Judges decision, the ratio of a case. can sometimes be somewhat difficult to interpret.
should be decided by the same court justice to provide fair punishment among the accused.
Arising out recent class discussion topics touching on the ideas of James Cone’s ideas on Liberation Theology and the relationship between the Cross and the Lynching Tree, our group decided to focus the topic of our presentation around Liberation Theology. However, in order to create a counter argument to stimulate further discourse, we introduced the Theology of Prosperity, as an opposing theological concept, to our presentation. Hence, we came up with the topic of Liberation Theology vs. Theology of Prosperity.
The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.
The following essay will evaluate the importance of the journey that takes place from Systematic to Practical theology; this view will be explored through Ronelle Sonnenberg’s research done regarding ‘being together’ in a youth setting. This essay will first build on the basis of Practical Theology; furthermore addressing the importance of the community aspect within a youth setting; this will lead to the process that takes place between a Systematic stance, leading to a Practical theological stance.
As Christians, we have many beliefs that shape the way we live and view life. Doctrine explains the core beliefs of the Christian life. Christian beliefs are also expressed through the Apostles Creed, which is a creedal summary of the Holy Bible. Through the Apostles Creed, we see that Christians believe in the doctrine of revelation from God, the Holy nature and attributes of God, and the unique doctrine of the Trinity. The core beliefs of Christianity provide a foundation to stand firm and a direction in which to run.
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth…” The words of the Apostles’ Creed are familiar to many Christians. “I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” are words that every Christian has heard several times. And yet, Protestant Christians are at a loss as to how to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or to identify the origins of the Apostles’ Creed. Professor Williams resolutely answers these questions, citing “Tradition” as their source. The post- apostolic era, Pre-Reformation theological illiteracy of Protestant Christians, particularly those belonging to the Evangelical or “Free” church, movements have caused deep divides and fragmentation, Williams argues. At the root of this issue is the inability to see past the perceived interference of the state in the church’s affairs, and an unwarranted rejection of the Tradition that the Holy Spirit worked to plant during this time.
Modern society and its people have the ability to make a vast range of choice when it comes to anything in their lives. People to today have the ability and free will to choose their partners, their careers, their aspirations in life and their own religion. In the opinion of Peter L. Berger, written in his 1979 book ‘The Heretical Imperative’, modern times provide three fundamental options in relation to religion; the first being ‘The deductive option’, which reaffirms a certain religious tradition in spit of counter claims against it (e.g. Islamic fundamentalism); the second is the reductive option, which modernizes a religious tradition in term which make it sensible or understandable in todays most important modes of though. The final option is called the ‘inductive option’, which turns external forms of authority to individual experience (e.g. William James and the varieties of religious experience). By looking at these options deeper and look at opposing views to Berger’s theory and personal religious preference will give the reader a clearer view of Berger’s ‘The Heretical Imperative’.
Bad math in court is something that happens over and over again and because of it, many innocent victims have been jailed and punished unjustly over the years. The problem is not some sort of miscalculation, but the refusal of the court to recalculate. More than often enough, the judge refuses to reexamine the collected DNA in an investigation case. What the people of the court fail to realize at times is that probability is not a one off thing, it is something that should be repeated at least more than once and can even be repeated over and over again. The flipping of a coin is frequently used to explain this logic and will be explained in following paragraphs. Sometimes statistician will state that there is only a one in a million chance (or some other ludicrously large number) that the defendant is innocent; but then they fail to examine: what is that 1, what are the chances that the accused that that one in a million? In this paper, I will be discussing the issue of ‘bad math in court,’ why it happens and how something as simple as probability can get innocent people out of jail.
the case. The ratio of a case is binding on lower courts but may not
This has been neglected almost entirely in the past. We have studied the making of law sedulously. It seems to have been assumed that, when made, law will enforce itself. This is true not only of legislation but also of that more important part of our law which rests in the reports. Almost the entire energy of our judicial system is employed in working out a consistent, logical, and precise body of precedents. The important part of our system is not the trial judge who dispenses justice to litigants but the judge of the appellate court who uses the litigation as a means of developing the law; and we judge the system by the output of written opinions and not by the actual results interpretations in concrete causes. But the life of the law is in its enforcement. Serious scientific study of how to make our huge annual output of legislation and judicial interpretation effective is imperative[ Pound, R., 1907In D. A. Hedin (Ed.), Green Bag 19 ed,