Judicial Precedent

780 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Doctrine of judicial precedent

Judicial Precedent

ESSAY: a) Explain and illustrate the operation of the doctrine of judicial precedent.

b) How far is it true to say judges are bound by decisions in earlier cases?

A)

Judicial precedent is where the past decisions of the judges create law for future judges to follow. English precedent is based on the Latin, stare decisis, meaning stand by what has been said in the past. This allows the rules system to be consistent: like cases treated alike, and it is just, as people can decide on a course of conduct knowing what the legal consequences will be.

Judicial Precedent can only operate if the legal reasons for past decisions are known, therefore, at the end of the case there will be a judgement. This will contain the precise words of the judge and follow a Law Report, which consists of full accounts of cases that are considered important. It will give an account of the facts of the case and a summary of the decision. The principles of law that the judge used to make his decision are the important part of the judgement, and are known as ratio decidendi, or 'the reason for deciding'. This is what creates a precedent for judges to follow in future cases. This is identified not by the judge that makes the decision, but by lawyers looking at it afterwards, they may therefore have different views on it. The remainder of the judgement is called obiter dicta and in future cases, judges do not have to follow it. These are other things the judge said, such as the reasoning and explanation of why he made the decision. It may also contain a hypothetical situation, what his decision would have been if the facts of the case had been different, and the legal reasoning may be considered in future case...

... middle of paper ...

...reach of contract, there was enough different facts to distinguish them. Overruling is where a court in a later case states that the legal rule decided in an earlier case is wrong. It is used to prevent an injustice if the judges feel the first decision was wrong. This is illustrated in Pepper v Hart (1993) when the House of Lords ruled that Hansard could be consulted in statutory interpretation. This overrules the earlier decision in Davis v Johnson (1979). The last method is Reversing, and is when a higher court overturns the decision in a lower Court of Appeal, in the same case. This is again illustrated in Davis v Johnson (1979).

Because of distinguishing, overruling, reversing and persuasive precedents, it is true to say that although judges are bound rigidly to follow decisions made in earlier cases, they do have ways of avoiding it if certain facts comply.

Show More
Related

  • The Case of R.V Machekequonabe

    2245 Words  | 5 Pages

    d by agreement in the court of appeals. By applying principles to the conflicting laws, the judge is able to make the greatest social advancements by both punishing for actions causing harm and also giving hint that his honest intentions did not go unnoticed and such intentions should be upheld in society. Looking at the case R.V.Machekequonabe, it is a prime example of conflicting rules. It is always difficult to decide which rule should be followed and which should be rejected, especially in cases where cultural upbringing plays such a major role.

    Read More

  • Flagiello Vs Pennsylvania

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.

    Read More

  • Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    armbands was a silent form of expression and that students do not have to give

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution

    Read More

  • Judicial Restraint And Judicial Activism?

    1818 Words  | 4 Pages

    Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,

    Read More

  • The Supreme Court

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.

    Read More

  • Myths About The Court System Essay

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to

    Read More

  • Legal Research, Writing, And Analysis

    1457 Words  | 3 Pages

    An important point to keep in mind is that all binding decisions are initiated at the highest court at either the federal or state level. These decisions are precedent only in the jurisdiction where the court presides. Stare decisis refers to the practice of the courts adhering to previously rendered decisions. This is especially true involving United States Supreme Court decisions that have binding authority on both the federal and the state courts. Remember that court decisions in the same jurisdiction only have persuasive authority which is not binding.

    Read More

  • Judicial Choices

    955 Words  | 2 Pages

    changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand

    Read More

  • Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)

    2066 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

    Read More

  • The Right to Bear Arms

    1317 Words  | 3 Pages

    all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and

    Read More

  • Essay On Constitutional Interpretation

    1502 Words  | 4 Pages

    Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,

    Read More

  • The Problems Created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    “A Binding Precedent is a decided case which a court must follow even though it is considered to have been wrongly decided…” (Terence Ingman, 2002, Page 420). “A Persuasive Precedent is one which is not absolutely binding on a court but which may be applied” (Terence Ingman, 2002, Page 420) Bromley London Borough Council V Greater London Council (1982), Searose Ltd V Seatrain (UK) Ltd (1981). There are certain elements that Judicial Precedent is dependant upon, they are that the material facts of the case must be the same, the principle must be a proposition of law, it must form part of the Ratio (see below) and that there has to be sufficient and accurate reports of earlier decisions.

    Read More

  • The Doctrine of Frustration

    951 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...

    Read More

  • Essay On Judicial Review

    2166 Words  | 5 Pages

    The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.

    Read More

More about Judicial Precedent

Open Document