• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A rule as to precedent (which any court lays down for itself) is not a rule of law at all. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"A rule as to precedent (which any court lays down for itself) is not a rule of law at all. it is simply a practice or usage laid down by the court itself for its own guidance: and,as such, the successors of that court can alter that practice or amend it or set up other guide lines, just as the HOLS did in 1966" (Lord Denning MR, in Davis v Johnson). Discuss. The common law operates under the doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis, which translates to mean 'stand by the decided'. The rationale for the doctrine is to produce certainty, which is an imperative if the primary objective of law fairness and justice were to be achieved. For one, everyone ought to be treated equally. For another, the individual citizen ought to be assured that the law is fixed at least in years to come, so as to be able to plan his life ahead. The doctrine accordingly consists of two main "rules" of precedent for the courts. (They are not really rules as per se, but I'll come to that later). Firstly, courts decide cases not on their merits but by following previous decisions on cases with same or similar facts. Secondly, courts are generally bound to follow their own prior decisions and decisions of courts above them in the hierarchy. The rules of precedent as pertaining the hierarchy of courts are generally recognized as below: Courts of high court and below are bound by the courts of high court and above. ...read more.

Middle

Yet, as Lord Denning has rightly pointed out, these "rules" of precedent are not rules at all, but practices of precedent. First off, Parliament has never legislated on this matter. Secondly, looking at the dynamics of judicial precedent logically, the courts could never have decided as a matter of law issues regarding precedents. The Practice Statement of 1966 as issued by the HOL and the cases of Young v Bristol Aeroplance and davis v johnson, is one good illustration of this. In London Trampways v LCC, the HOLs had stated that they will be bound by their own decisions from then on. In 1966, the Lords repudiated that ruling by issuing a Practice Statement while they were in Parliament, but not in court, to the effect that they can depart from their previous decision when it appears right to do so. In Davis, Lord Denning pointed out logically that the fact that the Lords could have done that shows that what was stated in London Tramways is not a rule of law but merely a guideline set by the Lords for their successors to the House. In corollary, thus he argues, what was stated by the Court of Appeal in Young v Bristol Aeroplane (see above) was similarly merely a guideline or a practice which the Court of Appeal in Davis can depart from or amend. The HOL in Davis apparently admitted that rules of precedent are not rules but practice. ...read more.

Conclusion

There are various views on how the conflict can be reconciled. One view is that, the COA took a legitimate position because sitting in its criminal division accords it with more descrition than when it is sitting in its civil division. (as in R v Newsome). However, the plausibility of that argument falls for two reasons. R v Newsome is only applicable when firstly, the departure from a precedent is for the interest of the accused's liberty, and secondly when the departure is from the coa's own previous decision. Neither of these conditions were met, for the court's application of Privy council authority served to uphold the appellant's conviction for murder, whereas the HOL authority R v Smith might have resulted in these convictions being quashed. Lord Woolf had recognised in R v Simpson that the rules of judicial precedent must provide certainty but at the same time they 'should not be regarded as so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs'. That seems exactly what Lord Denning had said in Davis v Johnson. The position is still not fixed. A probable conclusion is when the issue goes up to the HOLs again, they would take the same stance as in Davis v Johnson. Rebuke the Court of Appeal, yet follow its decision. It seems thus, there is still very much flexibility even in the rules of precedent as regards to the hierarchy of courts. But perhaps the flexibility cannot be wielded in a manner as outright as what Lord Denning did in Davis. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Free essay

    Critically discuss whether the criminal courts of England and Wales require substantial reform. Firstly ...

    may be, the basis for requiring media silence is undermined if and when the citizen, not yet called to serve on the jury and seeking further information than that already published, can access it through the internet.

  2. The European Court of Justice ensures that European law is applied throughout the member ...

    It also has the ability to allow member states to make their views on as issue known. It is therefore better placed than a national court to decide issues of interpretation.

  1. Notes on Sentencing in British courts

    o Court can make a parenting order where: o Court makes a child safety order o Court makes anti social behaviour order o Child is convicted of offence. o Parent convicted of offence under Truancy Act 1996 o Only made if desirable in interest of preventing conduct, which gave rise to order.

  2. Disputes - Is ADR always more appropriate or does attending court sometimes providing a ...

    Person-centered- Parties are the centered. Act-centered- Law is the centered. Relationship-oriented- Parties expect relationship can be kept. Fact-oriented- Parties expect to find out the fact to prove who is right Future focused- Parties want their relationship can be to kept in future Past focused- Parties concern who was right.

  1. Is any act of statutory interpretation a arbitrary choice by a judge?

    have provided for other cases had their attention been directed to them." This means that words in a statute were to be given their plain, ordinary or dictionary meaning, even if in so doing absurdity is produced. It was a period in which it was thought that "Parliament changes the

  2. Penal Studies for Professional Practice

    Resettlement is described as "the effective reintegration of imprisoned offenders back into the community" (Gelsthorpe 2004, p34). This it is thought can be achieved by providing individuals with assistance both inside and outside prison via partnership arrangements with statutory organisations such as the Probation Service and specialist voluntary organisations, who offer assistance with housing and employment.

  1. Explain the ranges of sentences available to the judge or magistrate.

    Thus, the reformist ideal is not discarded but any measures designed to reform take place within the confines of the system based primarily on proportionality. Therefore, in conclusion, the main purpose of punishment is that criminals receive their just deserts.

  2. The English Court System

    The Criminal Division, headed by the Lord Chief Justice and the Vice-President of the Criminal Division, hears appeals in criminal matters from the Crown Court. The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal ? headed by the Master of the Rolls.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work