The Cases OF AN Judicial Precedent

Judicial precedent can be described as where previous decisions of judges are followed in future cases when the reality of the cases are similar. Which means legal definition of Judicial precedent can be stated as a courts common sense quoted as a electricity for choosing a comparable set of facts; an instance which provides power for the legal concept launched in its wisdom. It refers to the way in which the law is made and amended through the decisions of judges as there is absolutely no particular group of binding guidelines.

The judicial precedent's doctrine is dependant on the theory called stare decisis - to stand upon decisions and by which precedents are commanding and compulsory and must be employed. This means that lower courts are destined to use the legal guidelines placed by superior courts in early on cases. This gives balance and certainty in regulations.

A precedent is obviously based upon both factors - the percentage decidendi this means grounds for the decision and obiter dictum which means something said incidentally and also, the decisions manufactured in the prior relevant cases.

The percentage decidendi of an case is quite part of building precedents that binds poor courts in the hierarchy. Whenever a judge makes his judgement in an instance, he outlines the facts which he locates have been turned out on the data. Then he can be applied the law to those facts and reaches at a conclusion, for which he gives the reason (percentage decidendi). Whereas obiter dictum is a decision distributed by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the situation in question and is therefore not binding in later conditions. Your choice of the judge may vary in line with the facts of the circumstance and it is not strictly relevant to the problem in the issue in the initial case.

The ratio decidendi is the binding part of a judicial decision whereas an obiter dictum isn't. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (instead of binding) power in later conditions.

Even if any difficulty comes up, the judge will give known reasons for his decision, however he'll not always inform what the proportion decidendi of circumstance is, and it is then up to later judge to determine (elicit) the ratio of the case. However, there could be disagreement over the particular percentage is and there could be more than one ratio. Thus, it is not always easy to differentiate proportion decidendi from obiter dictum when assessing the consequences of a particular decision; however, when judicial precedent can be used, the judge practices or calls for the reference of your decision manufactured in a similar previous cases that was already judged upon and he's ruling the same manner using the other circumstance as a guideline.

Thus, rules reporting, hierarchy of courts and a way of distinguishing between obiter dicta & percentage decidendi are believed to be the key top features of judicial precedent. The overall guideline of the precedent is that courts are bound to check out decisions made by their superior courts and appellate courts are usually destined by their own earlier decisions. However, certain of the superior courts think themselves as destined by their own verdicts whilst others do not. .

Until 1966 The House of Lords was bound by its prior decisions when Lord Gardiner LC declared a change of practice. The Practice Declaration [1966] 1 WLR 1234 stated that even though the House of Lords would treat its decisions as normally binding, it could move faraway from these when it came out right to achieve this task.

A judgment of the home of Lords ties all lower courts but does not consider itself as totally destined by its earlier decisions, for eg, in Murphy v Brentwood Region Council (1990) the home overruled its prior decision in Anns v London Borough of Merton (1978) on the problem of a local authority's responsibility in negligence to prospect customers of property.

The Judge of Appeal is destined by decisions of the House of Lords though it considers them to be wrong. However in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718, the Judge of Appeal organised that it was bound by its previous decisions subject to the following three exceptions: i. When there is conflict between own earlier decisions, the Courtroom of Appeal must make a decision which is to be followed or declined.

ii. The Judge of Appeal must not follow its decision which cannot stand with a conclusion of the House of Lords even if its decision was not expressly overruled by the home of Lords.

iii. The Judge of Appeal do not need to to follow its decision if satisfied that it was given per incuriam (basically, by carelessness or miscalculation).

The High Court and the state courts are destined by the decisions of the court docket of appeal.

Principally there is no difference in the application of stare decisis in the civil and unlawful divisions of the Court of Appeal. Used, just because a person's liberty may be at risk, precedent is not followed as strictly in the criminal section however judges tend to follow the decisions of the high court docket for the sake of certainty. For example R v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368.

The High Courtroom is destined by the decisions of Court of Appeal and the home of Lords however it is not destined by other High Court docket decisions. The state courts are destined by the decisions of individual high courts. House of Lords and the Court of Charm binds Divisional Judge and normally comes after a previous decision of another Divisional Courtroom but if they believe that the previous decision was wrong, they may depart. For eg. R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex lover parte Tal [1985] QB 67.

The Crown Court judgments are not binding, though they are really of persuasive specialist. Therefore, Crown Judge judges aren't obliged to follow them. The decisions made by the judges of state courts and magistrates courts are not binding.

Judicial precedent is one of the most crucial source of English law. A genuine precedent created and applied a fresh rule whereas the later decisions, of the bigger courts, can have lots of effects after precedents. Particularly they might be:

Reversed: where on appeal in the same case, the decision is reversed and the charm court substitute its own decision.

Overruled: Overruling can occur if the prior court neglect to apply law appropriately, or because the later court docket considers that the rule of law contained in the previous percentage decidendi is no longer required, a higher courtroom can overrule a choice made in an earlier case by a lower court. For instance, the Courtroom of Appeal can overrule a previous High Court decision.

A refusal to check out: the court docket may refuse to follow the sooner decision in particular when it isn't bound by the decision or cannot overrule it but doesn't desire to follow it.

Distinguished: Judges use distinguishing as an instrument to avoid following a earlier decision which they would otherwise be bound to follow. It can help to keep judicial precedent and regulations flexible.

Where a judge founds that the material facts of today's circumstance to be considerably different from the earlier case, then he may distinguish both cases and won't follow past decision. For eg. Merritt v Merritt (1971) and Balfour v Balfour (1919)

Explained: a judge may seek to review or discuss a earlier decision before applying it or distinguishing it, thus the impact of the prior case is diverse in the circumstances of the current case.

A decision which is come to per incuriam is one reached by carelessness or problem, and can be averted. For eg. Morelle v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379

However, this rule does not allow the Court of Appeal to disregard decisions of the House of Lords.

There are three types of Precedent, Original, Binding and Persuasive and are used instead of statutory legislation in civil cases.

Original Precedent is one where the point of laws is absolutely new and has never been determined before, means a new case that hasn't been in trial, the decision then judge involves will form a fresh precedent for following cases which might be persuasive however, not binding on the judge.

for eg. the instances heard regarding the 7th July 2005 London bombings were original precedent as the cases were never been told before a UK judge.

Binding precedent is whenever a case involves a point of regulation, the lawyers for both sides will research past conditions to find decisions that will assist their clients win the truth. A past decision is merely binding if your choice reaches the right level in the hierarchy and the facts of the next circumstance are satisfactorily similar and also only the ratio decidendi of the sooner circumstance is binding.

A persuasive precedent is not completely binding on the court docket but may be employed.

For eg.

a. Decisions of English courts lower in the hierarchy. For eg, the House of Lords may follow a Courtroom of Appeal decision, and the Courtroom of charm may follow a High Judge decision, even though not firmly bound to do so.

b. Decisions created by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

c. Decisions made in the courts in Scotland, Ireland, the Commonwealth (especially Australia, Canada and New Zealand), and the united states. These decisions are usually cited specially where there's a shortage or definite lack of English authority on a spot.

d. Obiter dicta of English judges.

Judicial precedent permits certainty in the law as its comprehensive. It can help in forecasting the decision only by looking at the prevailing precedents. The uniformity in the law enables to take care of similar cases in the same way which helps to supply the system a sense of justice also to make the system acceptable to the public.

However, it may lead to some challenges in deciding the particular ratio decidendi is, mainly when there are a number of reasons. As it is not really a group of binding rules, the machine limits the development of regulations and can create injustice in specific cases.

Hundreds of cases are reported every year, making it hard to find the relevant precedent which should be followed and so creates a confusion and becomes too complex with thousands of fine distinctions.

If judicial precedent was a set of binding guidelines like statutory legislations it would have not been that versatile. Therefore from the above conversation, we can conclude that, it is superior that the judicial precedent is based on the true facts and situations, unlike legislation or statutory laws where the regulation is established. Judicial precedent is practical in nature, and for that reason it becomes more flexible. Thus we get amount of ways to avoid precedents that allows the system to improve and to adjust to new situations referring through an abundance of situations.

Thus, judicial precedent is best grasped as a practice of the courts rather than as a couple of binding rules. Being a practice it could be refined or modified by the courts as they wish.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)