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

explain judicial precedent

Extracts from this document...


Judicial Precedent Judicial precedent refers to the source of law where past decisions of the judges create law for future judges to follow. Ratio decidendi is the reason for deciding, it creates precedent for judges to follow in future cases. The ratio decidendi is the core to the decision, it is binding on similar cases heard by later judges. Original precedent is where if the points of law have never been decided before then whatever the judge decides will form a new precedent. Stare Decisis is stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established. This makes the system consistent, fair and predictable, higher courts bind lower courts. Stare Decisis allow previous decisions to influence later in similar cases and ensures that higher courts bind lower courts. Obiter Dicta is other things said and judges in future do not have to follow it, It includes the judges thought processes, The judges explanation as to why one decision was arrived at rather than another and how the judge is going to apply the decision to the present case. ...read more.


two things, the existence of a dispute over a point of law between two contesting legal parties and the ability and the desire of both parties to pursue the matter further, if this is not the case, the legal point is not clarified and lives to be heard another day. Inferior courts are those below the high court level. They cannot establish precedent. They follow the rulings of the courts above them. The court of appeal civil and criminal are bound by their previous rulings to an certain extent. A ruling in young v Bristol aeroplane company led to a certain degree of flexibility. The house of lords is the highest court that sits in the UK. It sets precedent for all courts below it when dealing with English law. It does not always have to follow its own previous decision since the practice statement 1966 which allowed it some flexibility I this area. ...read more.


Advantages of precedent * Fairness - each case is treated the same if the facts are close enough to each other. * Consistency - There is consistency between cases that strengthens the system and also allows for some prediction of the result. * Saving time - The system Saves time for all those involved in the case. The arguments have already been analysed and decided upon. * Sources of law - Precedent produces a valuable source of law within which legal personal can operate. It provides a foundation for the legal system and is particularly useful for training lawyers. * Real life - case law is real life. Law that comes from this source is not subject to problems of drafting, which often occur with parliamentary legislation. * Inflexibility - instead of looking at each case afresh, Previous decisions have to be used. This might reduce freshness with which case is looked at. Disadvantages of precedent * Ridgity * Complexity * Illogical distinctions * Slowness of growth ...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 Sources of Law 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 Sources of Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher


    4 star(s)

    But in 1992 R v Gotts , the Court of Appeal used this Obiter statement as a persuasive precedent to rule out a defence of duress in a charge of attempted murder. A dissenting judgement is a judgement that disagreed with a majority view may be used to over rule the decision of the majority.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial Precedent

    3 star(s)

    For example, in R v Howe the House of Lords also expressed the opinion that duress is also not a defence to attempted murder. This opinion was clearly obiter dictum as it did not relate directly to the case. Obiter dicta are not binding but they are persuasive.

  1. Judicial Precedent

    However, Blackstone was the eighteenth-century legal commentator, making his views inaccurate today. If Blackstone were correct a large majority of cases in the higher courts would never have gone to court. The lawyers concerned could simply look up the relevant case law and predict what the decision would be, then

  2. AS LAW - Judicial Precedent

    Persuasive Precedent. These are not binding on the court, however a judge may consider such a precedent and decide that it is the correct principal to follow. On other words, he is persuaded that he should follow it. They can come from 1)

  1. Judicial Precedent

    A less rigid approach is the 'golden rule'. Under this rule, the court will look at the literal meaning of the law, but be allowed to avoid a blatantly absurd ruling. There are yet two approaches to this. The first is that laid out by Lord Reid in Jones v DPP (1962), that if a word or phrase

  2. The doctrine of precedent comes from the Latin maxim stare decisis or stand by ...

    The House of Lords issued the 1966 Practice Statement as a way for them to depart from a previous decision when they thought it 'right to do so'. It was issued due to the 'rigid adherence of precedent' which could lead to 'injustice in a particular case and unduly restrict

  1. Free essay

    heirachy of civil courts

    The Queens Bench Division: this division tries the majority of civil cases, including cases involving torts, contracts, or the recovery of land. It now includes a commercial court and an admiralty court. The queens' bench division is headed by the president of the Queen's Bench division.

  2. Law case study

    This only applies to children born after the date of commencement of the Act which was the 4th of May 2006. As both parents were not married, law dictates Inheritance Rights of Spouses and Civil Partners. In this case, as Johanna is deceased, Richard has the right to inherit the

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